Everyday sexism

[wegs]

I think the problem that some men have with understanding subtle forms of sexism, is that they don't see it as damaging. I liken it to a water faucet that drips inconsistently, but for months...then years. A male CEO harassing his female administrative assistant for sex, or she can forget about that promotion is an example of what many men think of when it comes to misogyny, harassment and sexism. Many men would never act like that, and they believe that harassment usually comes only in that blatant form.

But, there is a category that is subtle and harder to call out, because like the leaky faucet, it's not as obvious as a pipe bursting, and a room filling up quickly with water. Yet, it nags at you. You know you should fix that faucet, but you don't. You keep putting it off.

Likewise when women deal with men who for some reason, feel the need to call them cutesy names to get their attention, or toss out the joke about women's intelligence to get a laugh, it's annoying. Women should tell these men to stop, but many don't. Who on earth likes a leaky faucet? Doubtful anyone. But, just because you don't rush to fix it doesn't mean you like it. And sadly, you may stop hearing the drip after a long time, and just learn to live with it.

That is everyday sexism, from a woman's view.

 

[DaveC426913]

Likewise when women deal with men who for some reason, feel the need to call them cutesy names to get their attention...

There's a proverb that's rising to the fore that hits that nail on the head (at least for hetero males).

Don't say anything to a woman that you wouldn't want said to you by your 6 foot, 250lb cellmate.

Perhaps, if Paddo (or Alex) ever returns, he will tell us how he feels about his cellmate calling him "Babe" or "Darling" or "Dear".

 

[wegs]

There's a proverb that's rising to the fore that hits that nail on the head (at least for hetero males).

Don't say anything to a woman that you wouldn't want said to you by your 6 foot, 250lb cellmate.

Perhaps, if Paddo (or Alex) ever returns, he will tell us how he feels about his cellmate calling him "Babe" or "Darling" or "Dear".

lol!

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I am saddened by the fact that you appear to believe that wanting to address everyday sexism is a sort of cult ideology of "wokeness".

It saddens me you fail to address the abuse, the bullying, the judgemental attitude and the belief that you can tell others what they are thinking. Why, given that is what I am saying you fail to comment upon the abuse, bullying etc. If you have not noticed that is what I am on about and your failure to recognise such is a symptom of your condition... Again address the issue I present and do not just side step it ... Your comments on the bullying the abuse the judgement of others the professed ability to tell folk what they are thinking...worth mentioning or are you still happy with laying the boot into Paddo.

It seems to me that you have been sucked into a particular internet black hole, such that your perception of reality has become distorted and radicalised.

I post a video that you have not watched in total and you can make such an assessment that I have had my perception of reality distorted and radicalised....James you really are full of it..perhaps if you were specific rather than jumping to unsupportable conclusions.. tell me specifically exactly how my perception of reality has been distorted and radicalised...come on back it up.

However, it now seems that you're only selectively critical of ideologies.

And what would they be pray tell...given the time I have taken to outline my overall position and history in relation to sexism, abuse of females..et

You dont get it yet?

My critism is about the abuse, bullying, the judgement being passed upon event you are not privey to and saying in effect " dont tell me what you are thinking I know what you are thinking...whatever"..and dont excuse such pitiful liberty with a casual "I know generally what people are thinking ..you dont..even here I tell you specifically what I am thinking and you ignore my words..does that not alert you to the fact you do have a problem..

Now you can push and prod all you like but I will just keep reminding you that bullying, abuse and saying you are a mind reader shall not pass...

Further despite me relating my first hand experiences with sexism, acting for women against their husbands you treat me as if I dont have a clue..mate read what I say then just look at your response...you certainly fit the videos call by constructing a reality that fits your purpose which is the point of the video.

toxic misogyny that the video you posted obscurely advocates,

Where exactly...and how could you be unbiased if you already regard the video as a waste of time..do you see any problem with the way you exercise judgement... if you get the drift the subject matter wont suit you as with the video you simply wont watch it..got it..you dont judge you check you already predetermined views.. tell me I am wrong.

I fear you may be a lost cause.

Well you would ..hollow words whilst failing to address the bullying, the abuse, the judgemental attitude and the mind reading...I have you pegged ..you are cornered and so rather than address any issue that I have raised ( the bullying , abuse judgemental attitude and mind reading) you now will try and discredit me..thats the way you folk act and that is in the video that you wont watch.

You're better than this, Alex.

If you want to play the " condecending" card go ahead but your lack of sincerity makes it a senseless move...you clearly are not better than those in the video..I raise issues you ignore them and substitute your reality..thats the drift of the video seeing you have not watched it.

If this sudden dive of yours into a fringe conspiracy network is due to the fact that my opinions, and Bells', are at odds with sexist behaviours you view as "normal" and "everyday" and commonplace, I suggest you would be better approaching those issues directly, rather than looking for excuses or for other people to blame.

Again the issue I address is the bullying, the abuse, the judgemental attitude and the purported mind reading..if you took the time to understand anything that I write you may be shocked to find out I was onto sexism well before any of you knew what sex was..funny how you miss that and then have the hide to write what you just did..you really fit those folk described in the video.

I can see why you will not watch it...whatever critism you may have of the video can not take away its sheer precision when stereotyping.

Its got you wired thats for sure and your whole response confirms such...but how would you know you have judged watching it a waste of time.

I sincerely hope you can claw your way out of the pit you're falling into. Best wishes.

Back at you.

to ask yourself what the maker's primary motives might be in making it.

I know whats going on but the superficial message is spot on.. it certainly describes yours and Bells behaviour to a T.

Don't let yourself be carried away into a realm of conspiracies and unreality.

There is no chance of that but the video really describes your behaviour rather well..just coincidence I expect.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

sexist behaviours you view as "normal" and "everyday" and commonplace, I suggest you would be better approaching those issues directly, rather than looking for excuses or for other people to blame.

The point is for many folk these behaviours are normal...that is what you do not get..And you may notice I dont say its a good idea anywhere but merely point out that in the wider community calling folk luv is indeed normal, like it or not, normal, to say otherwise simply confirms my observation that you dont mix with many people outside your group.

I would like see changes but the bullying, abuse , arrogant judgemental attitude and mind reading is not the way to win folk over...I guess you just have limited people experience.

even after it is pointed out to you why it might be regarded as sleazy.

Make no mistake here James..you are the one making it sleazy...it is you who bring in conatations that are simply not there...you have appointed yourself as the thought police but have even taken it to the unimaginable level where you tell folk what they are thinking...and you dont see a problem there ..this attitude of yours is what makes you the stereo type in the video that you wont watch.

See if you can articulate why this ought to be acceptable, even when (some) women say they dislike those behaviours.

Well perhaps you missed it...in the greater community it is still normal..it lays with older folk who wont change. Now if you remember I have already said I dont call folk luv etc I ask their name..thats me..but here is what you need to take away..just because I do it that way does not entitle me to..abuse, bully, or mind read anyone who does not think calling folk by their real name respectful and must be adopted by all immediately and failure to do so will bring more abuse and bullying...that is what you don't understand..I dont like being called luv or sweety but I dont make out the world will end if they continue...I certainly dont bully or abuse them...but as the video says..you construct an un normal reality to suit you ideas.

Good ideas but you just dont understand you can not run out and expect the world to now do everything your way.... the sad thing is your bullying and abuse and mind reading loses support..heck I think more or less the same way but you have lost me..you cant even comment rationally to why you need to bully, abuse and mind read.

I suggest that you have more thinking to do.

And I should regard you as knowing everything..you arrogant sod..what makes you think you are in a position to dictate to others their behaviour and of course lately even tell them what they are thinking...there is no place in reality for thought police let all alone mind readers.

If we have problems, or are imperfect, that doesn't excuse casual sexism.

I agree and there is no excuse for bullying, abuse and mind reading...is there?

Try removing yourself from the picture for a minute and think about it objectively.

There is your problem..

All these matters can only be addressed subjectively..

That is what you just do not understand...what is offensive to some is not offensive to others..what you are saying is"I have judged the situation and declare that from now on what I say will be so".

Do you not see the danger there...totalalla something.

You have already just about killed free speech by sitting on your hands as moderator and not calling out abuse and bullying and even though I reference it every post you ignore the abuse and bullying..is it ok to use abuse and bullying when you are supporting your view.

"woke ideologues"

I did not call you any such thing...I dont even know what that term means.

I infer what people are (probably) thinking from what they say, from what they write, from how they behave - just like you do.

No I dont do that. I go on what they say and I try also to make sure I get the message they are sending.. you seem to make a judgement based on what you want to burden the other person with..mind you, you are not alone.. its like... so you dont like pink.. that obviously means you dont approve of gay marriage..folk call ot straw man I call it lieing.

But the way you say you know what Paddo means is trying to discredit him in a sneaky fashion .. and you have not ever witnessed the use of the word in context...why cant you see that the dirty ideas you are preoccupied with just dont fit the conversation..trying to make it fit is what the video points out..pretty simple, hardley a black hole destroying reality...a fair and compelling observation in my view.. you think what you like but as I said when I saw the video I though wow who do we know like that.
You like giving unsolicited advice so let me return the favour...instead of getting all upset just ask yourself why someone like me could draw the link that I have..it is not critism I just think you could learn and grow.

Try removing yourself from the picture for a minute and think about it objectively. Can you think of any reason why a woman whose job is to serve drinks to male customers would dislike her role being referred to by those men as "lubricating" them?

It is not nor ever will be an objective issue.. and clearly you have not been around to hear the term used...certainly if you went in and said " hey luv can you lubricate me and me mates" you would have something to go on about...this is where the video clicks in again...your proven propensity to fabricate a non reality. But folk dont say that hat as well and inconvenient and you may find the actual reality conflicting with your made up reality.
You chose to fabricate a non reality to support your case..no better than lieing in my view...

I hope you can explain.

First learn when and where the word is used, second avoid inserting your perversion and thirdly recognise that making up situations that any person finds objectionable is not at all clever. It is immature but certainly confirms the drift of the video, that you have judged a waste of time, that folk seem prepared to construct non realities to make their point...dont do it and avoid being labelled a stereo type just like in the video.

If that's your true intention, then I hope that in six months time or a year, or whatever, after you have had time to simmer down and think this through, you will consider returning here and owning your behaviour.

You may have missed my full explanation James.

I have no sour grapes..I like you and Bells..I am certainly disappointing that both of you seek abuse and bullying as your first gotos. In you that you mind read.
We all want a better world and that means change abuse be it sexual or used as a method of arguement it is wrong...maybe one day you you can accept that my proposition is necessary for change to be meaningful.

Unfortunately, it sounds like you will have a harder battle with this than paddoboy. At least he hasn't been captured by a poisonous ideology. It sounds like you're falling down that black hole. I honestly hope you can get yourself out before it's too late.

Dont talk such crap James..but rather address the real issues I raise...

Bullying, abuse, mind reading, judgemental arrogant behaviour, roll of hollywood, the roll of the Church, seeking to address subjective matters objectively and the general arrogance that has you coming in for ridicule as the classic stereotype in the video.

As I said I would come here when I rested but I now have decided to make more productive use of time..I do enjoy chatting and I am happy to air sexism and particularly the drivers... pity none one can think past bullying Paddo...and stop making the cause open to ridicule.
Alex




[

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Ran into the 10000 limit and think I lost material or maybe doubled up thru cutting and pasting...but the great news is I got my car back on the track and arrived home just now..replying to James was a great way to pass the time.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Good news got my car out of trouble and spent most of the time replying to James but I had to chop up my reply so maybe something is missing.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And having net problems jt seems..the first message seemed to disappear.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

he will tell us how he feels about his cellmate calling him "Babe" or "Darling" or "Dear".

I have now said on many occasions that I dont like folk calling me luv or darling or sweety or bro...I have a name I like to have folk use my name...as to the situation in the cell if ever there was a matter to deal with subjectively that would be it...

However this creating what about this or that...and we get yet another made up situation does no good for the cause..it just makes it seem silly...that is my opinion and I know it is against the rules to hold any opinion other than the party line but there you go...

You too fail to read where I express my concerns about sexism...past that what makes you incapable of realising that I object to the abuse and bullying...why do you ignore that...do you think it is acceptable from a member but in this case moderators...why do you ignore my history in actually working to make things better... have you missed the list of school friends or the fact I acted for many women to see them get justice...does doing real things count..I guess not if you argue against the mob.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Are you suggesting I bash old men? Or that I bash men?

How did you get that out of what I said..really????

No I suggest that while you decry bad behaviour in others (abuse and bullying) you think if you do the abusing and bullying its ok.

It is this deliberate turn to lies that completely destroys any notion that you may try to post in good faith on this site Alex.

Perhaps you could be specific about these lies you seem to have invented.

Try reading it all again and realise that the message is..two wrongs do not make things right.

And to say or suggest I dont post in good faith perhaps is at odds with the reality wouldnt you say?

Why do you think age absolves one of wrongdoing?

I dont and I did not say anything like that...I am saying.... all say..lets get stuck into old Paddo...change it to young Paddo if you like.

A casual description in this instance.

I will not get into the reality that calling folk love, darling, sweety whatever is an old persons thing...And I am not seeking to exclude Paddo or include him because of age..but realistically its an old peoples thing certainly in my wide experience.

Are you suggesting that this should be overlooked simply because of his age?

No ... if he is guilty thats it...I maintain that although he may annoy you unless you have other testimony as to how folk reacted you are obliged to take him at his word and refrain from abusing him or telling him you know what was going on when you were not there...you may be right or wrong but without actual evidence you just dont know and certainly not entitled to pass judgement using an objective approach...

further you may have missed it but sometime ago I calmly pointed out to Paddo that wolf whistling was in my view sexist...so please understand my complaint is about the bullying and abuse you happily employ....if you had kept it nice I would perhaps be pointing out to Paddo that indeed there are people who dont like being called luv or sweety or darling or bro...I certainly dont lik it but I would not get into an arguement at the shops with a stranger and tell them not to call me sweety...

You seek to deal with the issue at an objective level and I say you just can not do that.

In any event the reason we have sexism can be laid at the feet of the church and hollywood surely they are the ones that need to lead the change. Cant you see? hollywood tells young males woman are just things ...how many movies send a good message...and why will you not focus on that in the least..that is why your bullying of Paddo is just so wrong.

Do you actually think if you convert Paddo anything will change?

Nor does it excuse sexism, misogyny and general bigotry.

How can you say that..it implies I am sexist, misogynistic and a bigot...perhaps you would care to point out where you find justification for
such a claim or assure me that you were not in fact referring to me.

And perhaps tell me how you form the impression that I dont understand sexism and the small ways it manifests and tell me exactly what you think I dont understand...I have been picking up mates on bad jokes for ages...have you not noticed I have rather strong feelings about domestic violence...did you miss my history in the courts watching a parade of the men you hate and suffering mental stress from their bomb threats and seeing various judges killed...how is it you dont get it? This is the claim in the video..that the folk he points out simply ignore any reality other than their made up one..what is it about me that has you thinking the opposite to try on such a terrible slur?

The video..the video..as it says ordinary folk think they can talk to those who are the subject of the video rationally but meet this barrier of non reality...what part of my reality causes you such difficulty?
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

But you (and I) both have a lot of privilege compared to, say, a black woman trying to do the same thing, or a gay man.

I agree...I had a black woman as a client and it sure was tuff for her..gays I was their only hope...I know these things...better than most here and yet for whatever reasons I am treated extremely badly in so far as I dont know anything at all..I dont know about how women feel which goes down badly given the ones I have helped...anyways why should I care people think what they want....worse still as though I dont care...my priveldge was very good parents I know that...other folk look down on folk who cant make it and I say to them just imagine if you had to grow up in that house...
I guess what pisses me off is these folk who serminize yet do zip. I do real stuff even now but that is my business.
Thanks for empathising..nice post.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Lets see how the church compares to Paddo.
https://margmowczko.com/misogynist-quotes-from-church-fathers/
ORIGEN
Theologian and Greek Father, 2nd-3rd centuries

“Men should not sit and listen to a woman . . . even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman.”
Fragments on 1 Corinthians

TERTULLIAN
The Father of Latin Christianity, 155-245

”And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins?”
De Cultu Feminarium (On the Apparel of Women), Chapter 1 (Read it here.)

CHRYSOSTOM
Archbishop of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church, 4th century

“. . . the [female] sex is weak and fickle . . .”
Homily 9 on First Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11-15) (Read it here.)

“Man was first formed, and elsewhere he shows their superiority.”
Homily 9 on First Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11-15) (Read it here.)

“God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matter to the woman.”
The Kind of Women who ought to be taken as Wives (Read a longer quotation from this treatise here.)

“Hearken about the women of old; they were great characters, great women and admirable; such were Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Deborah, and Hannah; and such there were also in the days of Christ. Yet did they in no case outstrip the men, but occupied the second rank.”
Homily 13 on Ephesians (Ephesians 4:24) (Read it here.)


And I hope you all feel rather foolish as you all must...how can you single out Paddo ? More proof that the video is on the money ..how can you hold onto your Paddo reality when this laid before you.
Please acknowledge your mistakes and make determined efforts not to be the stereo type in the video.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Here is more
AUGUSTINE
Bishop of Hippo, Doctor of the Church and Latin Father, 354-430

“I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?”
De Genesi ad literam (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) 9.5.9 (Read it here.)

“. . . woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?”
De Genesi ad literam Book 11.42 (Read it here.)
[My article on the apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:7, here.]

“. . . the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.”
On the Trinity, 12.7.10 (Read it here.)

“Watch out that she does not twist and turn you for the worse. What difference does it make whether it is in a wife or in a mother, provided we nonetheless avoid Eve in any woman?
Letter to Laetus (Letter 243.10) (Read it here. A discussion on the letter is on page 164 here.)
A different translation of the second sentence is: “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman.”

THOMAS AQUINAS
Doctor of the church, 13th century

“But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man . . .”
Summa Theologica, Volume 1, Question 92, Article 1, Objection 2. (Read it here.)

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.”
Summa Theologica, Vol. I, Q. 92, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 1. (Read it here.)

MARTIN LUTHER
German priest, theologian and Protestant Reformer, 16th century

“For woman seems to be a creature somewhat different from man, in that she has dissimilar members, a varied form and a mind weaker than man. Although Eve was a most excellent and beautiful creature, like unto Adam in reference to the image of God, that is with respect to righteousness, wisdom and salvation, yet she was a woman. For as the sun is more glorious than the moon, though the moon is a most glorious body, so woman, though she was a most beautiful work of God, yet she did not equal the glory of the male creature.”
Commentary on Genesis, Chapter 2, Part V, 27b. (Read it here.)

JOHN CALVIN
French theologian, pastor, and Protestant Reformer, 1509-1564

On the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to women rather than to men: “I consider this was done by way of reproach, because they [the men] had been so tardy and sluggish to believe. And indeed, they deserve not only to have women for their teachers, but even oxen and asses. . . . Yet it pleased the Lord, by means of those weak and contemptible vessels, to give display of his power.”
Commentary on the Gospel of John (John 20) (Read it here.)

“On this account, all women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior in consequence to the superiority of the male sex.”
Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11) (Read it here.)

“. . . there is no absurdity in the same person commanding and likewise obeying when viewed in different relations. But this does not apply to the case of woman, who by nature (that is, by the ordinary law of God) is formed to obey; for γυναικοκρατία (the government of women) has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing; and, therefore, so to speak, it will be a mingling of heaven and earth, if women usurp the right to teach. Accordingly, he bids them be “quiet,” that is, keep within their own rank.”
A different translation of the last line is, “He therefore commands them to remain in silence; that is, to keep within their limits and the condition of their sex.”
Il commande donc qu’elles demeurent en silence; c’est a dire, qu’elles se contiennent dedans leurs limites, et la condition de leur sexe.
Commentary on Timothy, Titus and Philemon (1 Timothy 2:12) (Read it here.)
[My article 1 Timothy 2:12 in a Nutshell is here.]

“Now Moses shews that the woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be a kind of appendage to the man; and that she was joined to the man on the express condition, that she should be at hand to render obedience to him. (Genesis 2:21) Since, therefore, God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior aid, the apostle [Paul] justly reminds us of that order of creation in which the eternal and inviolable appointment of God is strikingly displayed.”
Commentary on Timothy, Titus and Philemon (1 Timothy 2:13) (Read it here.)
[My article The Significance of the Created Order, in a Nutshell, is here.]

JOHN KNOX
Scottish clergyman and Protestant Reformer, 16th century

“Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man . . .”
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. (Read it here.)

“Nature I say, paints [women] further to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish: and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment [or, leadership].”

 

[James R]

Alex,

Firstly, thank you for your reply. I thought that maybe you'd taken your bat and ball and gone home in a sulk, like paddo did.

There's a lot to unpack in your most recent posts. I'm going to try to tackle it topic by topic, because your posts kind of mix it all together in the quote-by-quote reply and I think it will be clearer to do it another way in this instance. Interestingly, while you have done a lot of complaining about my supposed bullying, you haven't responded at all to the post where I explicitly addressed that particular accusation. Maybe you just haven't got to that, yet. It's post #358, if you need a pointer.

I think that I'll deal with the thread topic, first up: the issue of everyday sexism. Then, I'll follow up on your internet video and maybe make a few more comments on your bullying angle.

One more caveat, before I start. There is a tendency on this forum to focus on how people differ from one another, rather than on what they have in common. Small differences often get amplified into large differences, which can turn into big arguments. I think that you and I would have little trouble in finding common ground on many issues. You should not assume that just because I disagree with you on some points that I therefore dislike you in general, as a person, or that I will disagree with you about everything, on principle. The same goes for paddoboy, or whichever other forum member you'd like to name, to a greater or lesser extent.

Further despite me relating my first hand experiences with sexism, acting for women against their husbands you treat me as if I dont have a clue..

You might have a clue about lots of things, but when it comes to this particular topic (casual sexism and the associated disrespect that accompanies it), it's obvious that we've hit a nerve of sorts with you. You decided to jump in an attack the messengers, rather than addressing the issue, at least at first.

if you took the time to understand anything that I write you may be shocked to find out I was onto sexism well before any of you knew what sex was..

It would be great if that was true, but the fact is that you're still defending men calling women "luv", even after you've been shown evidence that women, mostly, find that form of address patronising and sexist. Your only excuse for condoning the behaviour remains that it is commonplace, as far as I can tell. You haven't attempted any other justification.

The point is for many folk these behaviours are normal...that is what you do not get..

No. You don't understand. I get it just fine. I get that everyday sexism is common. I get it that many people engage in such behaviours without thinking, or else tacitly condone them, or don't even think about them. I get all of that.

Here's the thing: I see all of those things as part of the same problem. The fact that many men are sexist doesn't make sexism acceptable (to me). It just tells me that the problem is widespread and commonplace. My own preference would be that more people do something to address the ongoing problem, rather than acting as apologists and defenders of it, like you and paddoboy are.

And you may notice I dont say its a good idea anywhere but merely point out that in the wider community calling folk luv is indeed normal, like it or not, normal, to say otherwise simply confirms my observation that you dont mix with many people outside your group.

Okay. I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here.

You don't think that calling women "luv" is a good idea, in general? Or you do think it's fine? Which is it?

If you don't think it's all good, then are you saying that nevertheless it should be tolerated because it's "traditional" or widespread in the community?

Moreover, you seem to be saying that if I don't like it, then I should get out more and mix myself in the community until I no longer object to it. I guess you're saying that I'd build up an immunity to everyday sexism if I was exposed to it more regularly. It would become "normal" for me, like it's normal for you, out in your community while I sit in an ivory tower somewhere.

It would be good to clarify what you're actually saying, because you seem to want to have a bet each way. You say that you, personally, don't go around calling women "luv". Why not? If there's nothing wrong with it - if lots of people in the community do it and its unobjectionable - then why not you, too? Are you "abnormal", if this is "normal" behaviour? Is there something wrong with you, just like you say there's something wrong with me?

I would like see changes but the bullying, abuse , arrogant judgemental attitude and mind reading is not the way to win folk over...I guess you just have limited people experience.

Tell me what changes you'd like to see, in regards to men calling women "luv". And why. We can discuss the best methods to bring about change after you've done that.

Make no mistake here James..you are the one making it sleazy...it is you who bring in conatations that are simply not there...

The relevant comment was, let us recall, something like "The serving girls kept us men lubricated during our night at the pub."

You claim that kind of statement has "no conotations".

Is it really the case that you see nothing sleazy in that statement, as written?

You think it's my fault for reading in a sexual innuendo there. Is that correct? You want to blame me, rather than blaming the guy who made the comment in the first place?

How is this going to help bring about those changes you said you wanted to see?

 

[James R]

(continued...)

See if you can articulate why this ought to be acceptable, even when (some) women say they dislike those behaviours.

Well perhaps you missed it...in the greater community it is still normal..it lays with older folk who wont change. Now if you remember I have already said I dont call folk luv etc I ask their name..thats me..but here is what you need to take away..just because I do it that way does not entitle me to..abuse, bully, or mind read anyone who does not think calling folk by their real name respectful and must be adopted by all immediately and failure to do so will bring more abuse and bullying...that is what you don't understand..I dont like being called luv or sweety but I dont make out the world will end if they continue...I certainly dont bully or abuse them...but as the video says..you construct an un normal reality to suit you ideas.

Look at what I invited you to do, and look at what you came back with, there.

I asked you for a justification of why calling women "luv" ought be acceptable or condoned behaviour, as a general rule.

The only part of your reply that was on point was the part where you said "In the greater community it is still normal..it lays with older folk who wont change".

In other words, your justifications are (1) lots of people do it, and (2) its hard to break ingrained habits. Your implication is that therefore, such behaviour should be tolerated by all. But then, above, you said you'd like to see change. How do you propose to promote change, on this? What change are you looking for?

To me, it seems like something you're willing to put up with, without ever saying a word against it. It's actually worse than that, because you're here not only condoning it, but actually trying to defend it.

In the process, though, you did say one more interesting thing. You said that you, personally, don't like being called "luv" or "sweety". Why not? And do you think that at least some women might dislike it for similar reasons? Do their views matter, should they just grin and bear it like you do because it's "normal" to dislike it but be forced to put up with it anyway, in your world?

I agree and there is no excuse for bullying, abuse and mind reading...is there?

Would calling somebody "luv" when they don't like amount to a kind of bullying, do you think? Or not? Abusive? Or not? Mind reading ("she probably won't mind")? Or not?

What do you think?

That is what you just do not understand...what is offensive to some is not offensive to others..what you are saying is"I have judged the situation and declare that from now on what I say will be so".

That's wrong on many counts, I'm afraid, Alex.

I understand just fine. I understand that some people think that "luv" is completely unproblematic. paddoboy would be one example of that. You, on the other, don't see it as completely unproblematic. You don't like it, yourself; you just don't think that anybody has the right to complain about it - or at least that I don't have the right to complain about it.

I also completely understand that some women, perhaps, might relish being addressed by old men as "luv". They might well, as I previously suggested, think those men are lovable old duffers who mean no harm.

I have never claimed it is offensive to all women, all of the time. What I have suggested is that, in general, it is not a form of address that ought to be generally accepted, because large numbers of women find it offensive and sexist. Since there's no way to tell in advance whether a stranger you have just met is among those women who find it offensive or among those who love it to bits and think men who do it are adorable, what's the best policy to apply? To use it, or not to use it? You tell me, Alex.

paddoboy thinks that if they don't like it, women just need to suck it up anyway, because it's "normal". How about you?

But the way you say you know what Paddo means is trying to discredit him in a sneaky fashion ..

I haven't done that, though. I have responded directly to what he has written. I assume only that he means what he writes.

...and you have not ever witnessed the use of the word in context..

"lubricating", you mean, in the context of drinking in a pub? How do you know what I have and have not witnessed? I can assure you, I've been to quite a few pubs in my time. I'm confident I understand the context.

I wonder why you're bending yourself over backwards to try to deny that "lubricating" can have sexual connotations, and to claim that it's only my dirty mind that's the problem here, while giving paddo a free pass.

.why cant you see that the dirty ideas you are preoccupied with just dont fit the conversation..

Why do you assume I'm preoccupied with dirty ideas? That's just a pointless insult you're directing at me. Why are you doing that?

Can you think of any reason why a woman whose job is to serve drinks to male customers would dislike her role being referred to by those men as "lubricating" them?

It is not nor ever will be an objective issue.. and clearly you have not been around to hear the term used...

Why didn't you answer the question I asked you? Why did you avoid it?

certainly if you went in and said " hey luv can you lubricate me and me mates" you would have something to go on about...

Why? A minute ago you were telling me that my dirty mind was the only problem. What would be wrong with "hey luv can you lubricate me and me mates?", then? I guess the problem would be somebody else's dirty mind, in that case? Maybe?

You seem to have very clear ideas about what is "normal" conversation that you condone and what is problematic, Alex, even when the language used is almost identical. Maybe it would help if you could explain to me exactly the point at which you will stop condoning "lubricating" in reference to female serving staff in pubs. Just so we're clear.

this is where the video clicks in again...your proven propensity to fabricate a non reality. But folk dont say that hat as well and inconvenient and you may find the actual reality conflicting with your made up reality.

I think I see. You're saying that nobody in a pub actually would say " hey luv can you lubricate me and me mates?" But why not? What's wrong with that? Surely, the woman serving the beer would know what was meant - that it was all innocent and she was only being asked for more beer? She'd have to have a dirty mind to assume anything else, right?

If it turns out that men in pubs don't usually say that kind of thing directly to the women serving them drinks, you might want to investigate why not. Why is it fine for paddo to say to his mates "The girl at the bar kept us well lubricated", but not okay for him to say "Come over here an lubricate me, luv"?

You chose to fabricate a non reality to support your case..no better than lieing in my view...

Pretend I'm from Mars, then. You seem to want to do that. Walk me through what is acceptable and unacceptable when it comes to the word "lubricate". Answer the questions I have put to you, above. Assume I'm an idiot who doesn't get out in the "real world" and needs an education in pro-social behaviour from you.

First learn when and where the word is used, second avoid inserting your perversion and thirdly recognise that making up situations that any person finds objectionable is not at all clever.

Teach me, Alex. Teach me how to properly use the word "lubricate" in reference to young women serving beers to men in pubs. Please teach me the non-perverted way I should use that word. Please explain the situations in which the word is appropriate to use.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

I have now said on many occasions that I dont like folk calling me luv or darling or sweety or bro...I have a name I like to have folk use my name...

Suppose you've told lots of people that you want them to use your name, but they keep addressing you as "luv" anyway. What then? Do you just have to suck it up? They aren't at fault, are they? It's "normal" to call people "luv", regardless of whether they like it.

I will not get into the reality that calling folk love, darling, sweety whatever is an old persons thing...And I am not seeking to exclude Paddo or include him because of age..but realistically its an old peoples thing certainly in my wide experience.

Is age an excuse, then? Or not?

further you may have missed it but sometime ago I calmly pointed out to Paddo that wolf whistling was in my view sexist...

Why is that wolf whistling a problem? It is commonplace, "normal". Isn't it? Lots of men do it, including some older men. Shouldn't women just suck it up?

Is there a difference between that and calling a strange woman "luv"? If the woman finds both behaviours unwelcome, does that difference matter?

if you had kept it nice I would perhaps be pointing out to Paddo that indeed there are people who dont like being called luv or sweety or darling or bro...I certainly dont lik it but I would not get into an arguement at the shops with a stranger and tell them not to call me sweety...

That strikes me as very strange, Alex, given what came before. Why would you be pointing out something to paddo that you have no problem with, in regards to women? You've been saying all along that being called "luv" is "normal" and unremarkable - certainly nothing anybody would be justified in complaining about. Why would you need to point something out to paddoboy?

Also, why would your pointing that out to paddoboy be contingent on me, or Bells, or whoever, "keeping it nice" with you?

In any event the reason we have sexism can be laid at the feet of the church and hollywood surely they are the ones that need to lead the change.

I see. You won't change, and you won't advocate for change, until the Catholic Church and "Hollywood" change. Seems like an excuse to me.

Cant you see? hollywood tells young males woman are just things ...how many movies send a good message...and why will you not focus on that in the least..

That's a valid point that could lead to a useful discussion. But let's do one thing at a time. We haven't sorted the "luv" issue or the "lubricate" issue, yet. Not to mention the appropriateness of a sexist joke saying women can't make up their minds.

Do you actually think if you convert Paddo anything will change?

Yes!

For starters, the women who are forced to serve him in the supermarket, at the bank, and at his club, are likely to be just a little happier, and that has to be a good thing. A change in his behaviour would likely affect the experience of many women. How could it not?

 

[exchemist]

(continued...)


Suppose you've told lots of people that you want them to use your name, but they keep addressing you as "luv" anyway. What then? Do you just have to suck it up? They aren't at fault, are they? It's "normal" to call people "luv", regardless of whether they like it.

Is age an excuse, then? Or not?


Why is that wolf whistling a problem? It is commonplace, "normal". Isn't it? Lots of men do it, including some older men. Shouldn't women just suck it up?

Is there a difference between that and calling a strange woman "luv"? If the woman finds both behaviours unwelcome, does that difference matter?

That strikes me as very strange, Alex, given what came before. Why would you be pointing out something to paddo that you have no problem with, in regards to women? You've been saying all along that being called "luv" is "normal" and unremarkable - certainly nothing anybody would be justified in complaining about. Why would you need to point something out to paddoboy?

Also, why would your pointing that out to paddoboy be contingent on me, or Bells, or whoever, "keeping it nice" with you?

I see. You won't change, and you won't advocate for change, until the Catholic Church and "Hollywood" change. Seems like an excuse to me.


That's a valid point that could lead to a useful discussion. But let's do one thing at a time. We haven't sorted the "luv" issue or the "lubricate" issue, yet. Not to mention the appropriateness of a sexist joke saying women can't make up their minds.

Yes!

For starters, the women who are forced to serve him in the supermarket, at the bank, and at his club, are likely to be just a little happier, and that has to be a good thing. A change in his behaviour would likely affect the experience of many women. How could it not?

I don't really want to get too embroiled in this but Alex is quite right that this "love" , "darling", hen", "duck" business is an old person thing (and a regional thing, too) - and not one-way either. There is a middle-aged woman serving at the local (S. London) petrol station that calls everyone "darling" or "my love".

One of the issues societies have is that accepted terminology changes over time. It changes particularly rapidly in the minefield of identity politics, in which the wrong nuance can put you on the wrong side of the (new) line in an instant. For instance you can speak of a "person of colour", but not a "coloured person" . And we had a long thread about the dismissive term "Karen" not so long ago, which has evidently changed its meaning, in 12 months, from something fairly innocent to something far darker with racist overtones...but only in some countries and not in others. We, of course are corresponding on a forum with international membership. So whose standard is right? Or should we agree not to be too judgemental?

Of course the old have to move with the times as standards are raised, and to avoid accidentally upsetting the sensitivities of younger people. But it seems to me inevitable that errors will be made and also that some will be slow to adapt. In my experience, most younger people are quite well aware of this issue and do not get offended when an older person addresses them in a way they might find inappropriate from someone closer to their own age.

To summarise, I would draw a distinction between mere regional or traditional, informal modes of address on the one hand, and language that is obviously lascivious, disparaging or otherwise impertinent on the other. Many of Paddo's examples clearly come from the second category.

 

[James R]

Alex:

Let's talk about your conspiracy video next.

I watched the first few minutes of it, then I skipped through and watched some other random bits of it, to get a feel for the entire thing without having to dedicate an entire hour of my time to it.

Early on, the narrator - who I assume is also the maker/author of the video - suggests that his viewers look up the words of another guy. So, I figure the narrator agrees with that other guy's views, and I look him up. Turns out he is best known as a reactionary against "political correctness", with a particular interest in "debunking" feminism, affirmative action and the like.

We are defined, in part, by the company we choose to keep. So I start wondering about the motives of the video narrator guy. His argument seems to be that he's in favour of "free speech", except for certain types of speech which he really can't abide, like anything to do with feminism, "political correctness" and similar liberal causes. For those things, he plays the Hitler card, and likens them to 1984-style Orwellian oppression and so on, which takes him a full hour, apparently.

After working out what the point of the video is, I then moved on to working out what the video means to you, at this moment. I think that some of the themes of oppression chime with you. But I also think that you're looking for an excuse to attack the messengers rather than to face up to the actual topic of this current discussion we're having.

I think that you'd rather believe that paddoboy was bullied out of this forum, with myself being mostly to blame for that, than to face up to his actual stance in the current discussion. I also think that you're looking for reasons why his sexist opinions ought not to be condemned, and that you like the "slippery slope" idea that if we start addressing sexism of the paddoboy kind then the next step will be people up against walls and blanket censorship of all media.

The video plays on your fears of persecution and tries to make its targets the bugbears of the lie it is spinning.

I post a video that you have not watched in total and you can make such an assessment that I have had my perception of reality distorted and radicalised....James you really are full of it..perhaps if you were specific rather than jumping to unsupportable conclusions.. tell me specifically exactly how my perception of reality has been distorted and radicalised...come on back it up.

See above.

You have been lied to by the narrator of that video. Suppressing feminism, for example, is far worse than promoting it. I want to promote it. Your video wants to suppress it. If you want to know why feminism is good, there are plenty of people here who can help you understand. But judging by the experience you have reported to us, you ought to know why it is good, without us having to tell you. It follows that you're capable of seeing what's wrong with the video you posted, too.

you certainly fit the videos call by constructing a reality that fits your purpose which is the point of the video.

No. The point of the video is for its narrator to convince you to but into his version of reality, which is a distorted and harmful one.

Where exactly...and how could you be unbiased if you already regard the video as a waste of time..

Hate is always a waste of time.

If you want to play the " condecending" card go ahead but your lack of sincerity makes it a senseless move...you clearly are not better than those in the video..

The video plays on fears of fascism, communism, autocracy and mind control. The video wants to compare me to Hitler because I don't think it's a great idea for men to address young female shop assistants as "luv". Are you buying that?

I can see why you will not watch it...whatever critism you may have of the video can not take away its sheer precision when stereotyping.

You're right that it is very precise in choosing who it attacks and stereotypes. The author has a goal. You just need to work out what it is, and not be fooled by the superficial message.

There is no chance of that but the video really describes your behaviour rather well..just coincidence I expect.

Which aspects of my behavior does the video really describe well? Be specific.

you have appointed yourself as the thought police but have even taken it to the unimaginable level where you tell folk what they are thinking...and you dont see a problem there ..this attitude of yours is what makes you the stereo type in the video that you wont watch.

You're being brainwashed by the video.

I'm just a guy posting messages on an internet forum. I'm not policing your thoughts. I am urging you to critically examine some opinions that apparently you have taken for granted for a very long time - to interrogate your own opinions, for yourself.

I have no power to put you in jail, to subject you to thought control, or any of those techniques from "1984". Obviously.

As far as knowing what you're thinking, I can only read what you write, ask question and read your answers and the other parts of your posts. I have never claimed I can read your mind, other than in the usual ways just mentioned.

Suggesting to you that maybe calling women "luv" isn't a great idea doesn't make me Hitler. I'm not burning your books, or subjecting you to torture, or sending you to fight a war, or telling you to kill people. Get some perspective.

And I should regard you as knowing everything..you arrogant sod..what makes you think you are in a position to dictate to others their behaviour and of course lately even tell them what they are thinking...there is no place in reality for thought police let all alone mind readers.

It would be silly of me to imagine that I'm in a position to dictate to you, or to anybody else here, what to think.

You are here by choice, Alex. You are free to come and go as you please. I have no hidden video cameras watching your every move. I only see what you choose to post here. That's all. I certainly can't read your mind by magic.

The video has made you paranoid, or else contributed to a pre-existing paranoia. I don't know which. You need to get some perspective.

what is offensive to some is not offensive to others..what you are saying is"I have judged the situation and declare that from now on what I say will be so".

It's not working out too well for me so far, is it? These declarations of mine about what will be so, once I say it.

Get a grip, Alex.

You have already just about killed free speech by sitting on your hands as moderator and not calling out abuse and bullying and even though I reference it every post you ignore the abuse and bullying..is it ok to use abuse and bullying when you are supporting your view.

Excuse me?

sciforums is one internet forum among many. It is not even a major media platform. How on earth do you think I'm killing your free speech? You haven't even been stopped from speaking freely here, let alone anywhere else on the internet or in the outside world. Not about the topic of this thread, anyway.

I don't recall ever abusing you, Alex, or standing by while others abused you.

You always have the choice here to participate or not to - to defend one position against another or not to. People who disagree with you aren't automatically bullies. You ought not to expect that everybody will be partial to your views all the time, or deferential to them. That's not how the world works, never mind sciforums.

One other thing: if you find it difficult to cope with some kinds of questioning, or you feel pressured to respond to defend views that you have chosen freely to express, that's largely on you, not me or somebody else. It doesn't make me a bully to ask you to try to justify your position.

Do you think that I bullied paddoboy out of the forum with my nasty words? Tell me: to what extent is he responsible for his own behaviour, and for his decisions? Like you, he had the freedom to choose at all times whether to post and what to post. I do not believe I ever misrepresented his views, and I don't believe I have misrepresented yours, either. When in doubt, I ask questions. If you or paddoboy finds it difficult to find satisfactory answers, that's on you, not me. Maybe there's a flaw in your rationale.

You like giving unsolicited advice so let me return the favour...instead of getting all upset just ask yourself why someone like me could draw the link that I have..it is not critism I just think you could learn and grow.

I did ask myself that. I watched enough of the video to understand what might appeal to you about its dangerous message.

I have no desire to "grow" by buying into a toxic internet conspiracy theory.

this is where the video clicks in again...your proven propensity to fabricate a non reality.

Point to ONE thing I have said that is "unreal", a fabrication, that does not reference the "real world" circumstances we have been discussing. If you can.

It's easy for you to accuse me of inventing a fantasy version of reality. But I don't think you can actually point out to any substantive evidence that I've ever done anything like that, other than in a clearly-flagged hypothetical example or similar.

The video..the video..as it says ordinary folk think they can talk to those who are the subject of the video rationally but meet this barrier of non reality...what part of my reality causes you such difficulty?

You're deep in the rabbit hole. Can you pull yourself out? It's not too late.

 

[James R]

Alex:

I was going to talk about your accusations of bullying next, but I think I've already covered most of the ground on that topic, in my previous post and earlier in the post that you didn't respond to. So, I'm going to save you some time and skip it.

 

[James R]

exchemist:

I don't really want to get too embroiled in this but Alex is quite right that this "love" , "darling", hen", "duck" business is an old person thing (and a regional thing, too) - and not one-way either.

Of course I'm aware of that. I might also mention that I'm Australian, like paddoboy and Alex, so I'm familiar with attitudes and behaviours that are common enough in Australia. I have travelled to many different parts of Australia. I am nowhere near as naive and unworldly as Alex wants to make out. I've been called "luv" by strangers often enough and I've seen plenty of people use that term of address in many different contexts.

The "you young ones just don't understand" excuse is a weak one, if you ask me, and that's coming from somebody who is middle-aged.

One of the issues societies have is that accepted terminology changes over time. It changes particularly rapidly in the minefield of identity politics, in which the wrong nuance can put you on the wrong side of the (new) line in an instant. For instance you can speak of a "person of colour", but not a "coloured person" . And we had a long thread about the dismissive term "Karen" not so long ago, which has evidently changed its meaning, in 12 months, from something fairly innocent to something far darker with racist overtones...but only in some countries and not in others. We, of course are corresponding on a forum with international membership. So whose standard is right? Or should we agree not to be too judgemental?

It depends on the circumstances, of course.

I can agree with you about not been judgmental when dealing with people who don't know any better, and in dealing with people whose intentions are good, or at least not malicious.

A lot of the time - most of time, probably - when the "luv" thing comes up in regular conversations, it's not worth making a fuss about it. That's why I have put up with it in the past. That's why women put up with it a lot of the time.

But here we are on an internet discussion forum, specifically discussing the implications and impact of "luv" in everyday interactions, and the question of whether it would be good or bad, as a general rule, to promote the not-uncommon use of that form of address. In the current context, all the participants are highly informed as to the relevant matters. Nobody can claim ignorance. Not now. Not after 380 posts of this thread.

At some point, it is reasonable to start judging behaviour - particularly at the point where the behaviour and its implications and its effects are well understood by those who are engaging in it.

Immoral behaviour is worse when it is done knowingly and deliberately. I have no qualms about forming an opinion about that.

Of course the old have to move with the times as standards are raised, and to avoid accidentally upsetting the sensitivities of younger people. But it seems to me inevitable that errors will be made and also that some will be slow to adapt. In my experience, most younger people are quite well aware of this issue and do not get offended when an older person addresses them in a way they might find inappropriate from someone closer to their own age.

Of course.

Earlier in this thread, I suggested the rule of thumb "Don't be an arsehole."

The key point, from my point of view, in your paragraph here is the point that "standards are raised".

The main problem in the current thread, is that people who know better are trying to refute the notion that it is right to try to raise standards. What they seem to want is tradition, not morality. In fact, I think what they really want is to be left alone - to not be obliged to ever change their own behaviour, even when they understand why it is less than morally optimal.

To summarise, I would draw a distinction between mere regional or traditional, informal modes of address on the one hand, and language that is obviously lascivious, disparaging or otherwise impertinent on the other. Many of Paddo's examples clearly come from the second category.

I might also point out that Alex's current stance seems to be "when in doubt about whether a term might be offensive or lascivious, assume that it is neither", which I'd say is a very bad rule of thumb.