A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

more info re under 11s football incident



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 24th 13, 10:21 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Steve Thackery[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,552
Default more info re under 11s football incident

Bill Wright wrote:

So, the next time you meet a man at work for the first time Sara,
remember that when you break off the conversation to answer your
phone he is looking at you out of the corner of his eye and assessing
you physically as he pretends to stare out of the window. He is
focussing on whatever part of your body attracts him the most. He
will pay mighty lip service to the concept as you as a person and not
just a sex object, but secretly he will be fantasising about you in
the most despicable way.


I agree completely with Bill about this. Men's first - perhaps even
subconscious - assessment of a woman when they first meet is a sexual
one. Sometimes it's over so fast ("Ooooh, no thanks!") that they might
well be unaware of it.

I'd love Sara to tell us with total honesty, and after due reflection,
how women evaluate men in those first moments.

Anybody - feminist or otherwise - who aims to change that basic
reaction in men is pushing against an immovable object. It's
impossible, insurmountable.

BUT, having said all that, there are two things that I think *are*
reasonable. Firstly, it's behaviours, rather than thoughts, that
really matter. In most societies for most of the time men have had a
dominant role over women. Wherever that comes from biologically, it's
fundamentally a behavioural issue. It could change if men changed
their behaviours. To quote that trivial example from earlier - holding
the door open for men as well as women is an example of a behavioural
change that any man can make.

Secondly, even though men will always see women as sex objects, there
are many other thoughts and attitudes that *could* be changed.
Basically it's about seeing women as much *more* than the sex objects
we perceive in that first moment. I guess the workplace is where this
needs to happen the most. We need to be completely open-minded about
everybody's capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, and make no prior
assumptions based on gender. The fact that we happen to fancy some of
them is fine and unavoidable, but must be entirely orthogonal to how we
judge them, and their potential, as colleagues.

There is one issue that I think women must address. It is the
POSSIBILITY that men and women have strengths, weaknesses and
preferences, that *tend* to go with their gender *when averaged over
the whole male or female population*, and which of course CANNOT be
assumed to apply to any particular individual.

The issue that women must address is this: whenever they see an
imbalance in any particular workforce, they *always* blame "prejudice"
or "society". And yet, when it comes to primary school education,
women teachers vastly outnumber men. Nobody seriously thinks that men
are discriminated against - indeed, the opposite seems to be true. The
truth is that fewer men than women *want* to do that job.

I worked in a big corporate - one of the UK's biggest employers - for
over 30 years. It was a mixed-gender employer that leant over
backwards (certainly over the past 20-odd years, say) to embrace and
promote gender equality. One thing that became clear to me is that
there *was* a difference in the kind of work women and men liked to do
*on average, over the whole staff*.

Even when proactive intervention placed lots of women into a certain
discipline, they tended to drift out of it to something they apparently
preferred to do. One that was absolutely clear was the very
interesting polarisation that took place between two particular
disciplines: deeply technical R&D, and customer interfacing / marketing.

There was always a slow drift of women away from the technical stuff to
the customer-facing stuff, and vice versa for men. It was interesting
to see. I don't think it even said much about the *capabilities* of
those individuals. Rather, it seemed to be about what they enjoyed the
most. Plenty of women enjoyed technical work and stayed there, but at
least twice as many preferred the customer-facing roles. Exactly the
same thing happened with the men - they seemed to enjoy the technical
stuff more.

It was rather like this with rank, too. My employer had women and men
pretty well equally represented at all levels of management apart from
the very top, where men outnumbered women. But the only way to get to,
and survive at, that level is to be a self-serving, politically-minded,
ultra-competitive, back-stabbing ******* who's full of **** and cares
about nothing other than their own advancement. I strongly suspect
that *one reason* there are fewer women at that level is because fewer
women enjoy being that kind of person. Not the only reason, but one
reason.

So, in our quest for equality, it's not just men who have work to do.
We need women to stop reflexively blaming "prejudice" and "society" as
the sole causes of differences, and look to themselves, too.

--
SteveT
  #12  
Old May 24th 13, 10:32 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default more info re under 11s football incident

Bob Latham wrote:

Really? Even if he's tied to the bed and she's on top with a ridding crop?

Not that I've experienced this of course but I've read that it happens. :-)


Where did you read it, the instruction manual?

Bill
  #13  
Old May 24th 13, 11:28 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default more info re under 11s football incident

Steve Thackery wrote:


BUT, having said all that, there are two things that I think *are*
reasonable.

snip

Thanks for a very interesting and thought provoking post.

Bill
  #14  
Old May 24th 13, 12:19 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Sara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default more info re under 11s football incident

In article ,
"Steve Thackery" wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:

So, the next time you meet a man at work for the first time Sara,
remember that when you break off the conversation to answer your
phone he is looking at you out of the corner of his eye and assessing
you physically as he pretends to stare out of the window. He is
focussing on whatever part of your body attracts him the most. He
will pay mighty lip service to the concept as you as a person and not
just a sex object, but secretly he will be fantasising about you in
the most despicable way.


I agree completely with Bill about this. Men's first - perhaps even
subconscious - assessment of a woman when they first meet is a sexual
one. Sometimes it's over so fast ("Ooooh, no thanks!") that they might
well be unaware of it.

I'd love Sara to tell us with total honesty, and after due reflection,
how women evaluate men in those first moments.


OK, since you've taken the time to write such a long and reasoned post,
I will reply.

Of course women regard men the same way. One difference is that we don't
think it's necessarily OK to display that, especially in the workplace.

Getting back to my Rog (as I tend to do...) we met on usenet. We'd known
each other online for a few years and always got on very well. When we
met I was *completely* smitten in every way you can be. And I still am.
There are days where I can't believe how lucky I am that he fell in love
with me, too. It may have helped that he comes from a family of very
strong minded women and doesn't find them at all scary, in fact he
thinks that's the norm.

However, that doesn't mean I can't see another man and think "wow!
gorgeous!" or that I don't think Rog does when he sees other attractive
women. It's human nature for both sexes to feel that way. What you do
about it if where the difference lies. We are also very sure of each
other, I do not feel threatened by occasional window-shopping and would
be appalled if I though Rog was worried about what I may think of other
men.

Also, let's not forget gay people here. I'm sure gay men look at other
men the same way and lesbians the same with women. Apparently I give
some wrong signals have spent a few social evenings desperate being
chatted up by a lesbian who I've just thought was a nice, friendly woman
to chat to!

Socially I'm far less bothered about terms used and compliments
made/given. There's one chap I also met on usenet who I would now terma
friend, who is the charming chap I've ever met. He's very happily
married and somehow managed to pay women very fullsome compliments
without it being taken the wrong way and without anyone thinking he
would ever act on those remarks.

Having said that, I would still find the things he says out of place in
a professional environment.

Anybody - feminist or otherwise - who aims to change that basic
reaction in men is pushing against an immovable object. It's
impossible, insurmountable.


Of course - and vive la difference! Fancying people and treating them in
a subordinate way are two different things.

BUT, having said all that, there are two things that I think *are*
reasonable. Firstly, it's behaviours, rather than thoughts, that
really matter. In most societies for most of the time men have had a
dominant role over women. Wherever that comes from biologically, it's
fundamentally a behavioural issue. It could change if men changed
their behaviours. To quote that trivial example from earlier - holding
the door open for men as well as women is an example of a behavioural
change that any man can make.

Agreed.

Secondly, even though men will always see women as sex objects, there
are many other thoughts and attitudes that *could* be changed.
Basically it's about seeing women as much *more* than the sex objects
we perceive in that first moment. I guess the workplace is where this
needs to happen the most. We need to be completely open-minded about
everybody's capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, and make no prior
assumptions based on gender. The fact that we happen to fancy some of
them is fine and unavoidable, but must be entirely orthogonal to how we
judge them, and their potential, as colleagues.

Agreed.

There is one issue that I think women must address. It is the
POSSIBILITY that men and women have strengths, weaknesses and
preferences, that *tend* to go with their gender *when averaged over
the whole male or female population*, and which of course CANNOT be
assumed to apply to any particular individual.

Sure - but I don't think that excuses a patronising attitude towards
women in a professional environment. I'm quite short and Rog is quite
tall, neither of us are way over or under average but it means he can
change the lightbulbs far easier than I can. He is also far stronger
than I am physically, it makes it easier for him to certain things. But
so what? Does that make me a lesser person?

I've been at my place of work for over twenty years and have a
middle-management role. I am happy to help out anyone, man or woman who
asks me. I don't differentiate.

The issue that women must address is this: whenever they see an
imbalance in any particular workforce, they *always* blame "prejudice"
or "society". And yet, when it comes to primary school education,
women teachers vastly outnumber men. Nobody seriously thinks that men
are discriminated against - indeed, the opposite seems to be true. The
truth is that fewer men than women *want* to do that job.


It's not the imbalance in the workforce that I was referring to. As long
as all people of either sex in whichever jobs are treated equally, then
it's not a problem for me. The problem occurs when you have men and
women working alongside and one sex is treated less favourably than the
other.

FWIW I would rather eat rusty razor blades than work in a primary
school, but that doesn't mean I would denigrate anyone else - man or
woman - who did.

I worked in a big corporate - one of the UK's biggest employers - for
over 30 years. It was a mixed-gender employer that leant over
backwards (certainly over the past 20-odd years, say) to embrace and
promote gender equality. One thing that became clear to me is that
there *was* a difference in the kind of work women and men liked to do
*on average, over the whole staff*.

That may well have been the case where you work. But as long as everyone
was treated the same, then there was no problem. Using differing terms
for men and women doing the same job, is the problem. A man doing my job
would never be described on the phone or in an email as "The IT
gentleman" but some people seemed to think it would be OK to call me
"the IT lady". Ye gods! Use my ****ing job title, can't you?

Even when proactive intervention placed lots of women into a certain
discipline, they tended to drift out of it to something they apparently
preferred to do. One that was absolutely clear was the very
interesting polarisation that took place between two particular
disciplines: deeply technical R&D, and customer interfacing / marketing.

There was always a slow drift of women away from the technical stuff to
the customer-facing stuff, and vice versa for men. It was interesting
to see. I don't think it even said much about the *capabilities* of
those individuals. Rather, it seemed to be about what they enjoyed the
most. Plenty of women enjoyed technical work and stayed there, but at
least twice as many preferred the customer-facing roles. Exactly the
same thing happened with the men - they seemed to enjoy the technical
stuff more.

I have a very technical job and avoid customer facing roles like the
plague. So what?

It was rather like this with rank, too. My employer had women and men
pretty well equally represented at all levels of management apart from
the very top, where men outnumbered women. But the only way to get to,
and survive at, that level is to be a self-serving, politically-minded,
ultra-competitive, back-stabbing ******* who's full of **** and cares
about nothing other than their own advancement. I strongly suspect
that *one reason* there are fewer women at that level is because fewer
women enjoy being that kind of person. Not the only reason, but one
reason.

So, in our quest for equality, it's not just men who have work to do.
We need women to stop reflexively blaming "prejudice" and "society" as
the sole causes of differences, and look to themselves, too.


And you've completely avoided the original point that started this
thread off, which was not trying to force a lack of difference between
men and womwn, but to treat them equally in a professional environment,
whcih includes not using patronising, belittling terms for one sex that
you wouldn't use for the other.

Sorry - run out of time for more right now.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats
  #15  
Old May 24th 13, 01:07 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default more info re under 11s football incident

Sara wrote:

Of course women regard men the same way. One difference is that we don't
think it's necessarily OK to display that, especially in the workplace.

That's a wild generalisation. Lots of women are guilty of sexual
harassment. The main difference is that they are more likely to think
it's OK. Young women in particular tend to have quite an aggressive
attitude about this sort of thing. I think they are clumsily misreading
modern equality attitudes. The fact is that women will say and do things
with impunity that if a man did or said them there would be trouble.

Getting back to my Rog (as I tend to do...) we met on usenet. We'd known
each other online for a few years and always got on very well. When we
met I was *completely* smitten in every way you can be. And I still am.
There are days where I can't believe how lucky I am that he fell in love
with me, too. It may have helped that he comes from a family of very
strong minded women and doesn't find them at all scary, in fact he
thinks that's the norm.

I've just altered the font spacing so I can read between the lines more
easily.

However, that doesn't mean I can't see another man and think "wow!
gorgeous!" or that I don't think Rog does when he sees other attractive
women. It's human nature for both sexes to feel that way. What you do
about it if where the difference lies.

What you do about it is just common sense good manners and respect for
others. These concepts have been around for a long time.

We are also very sure of each
other, I do not feel threatened by occasional window-shopping and would
be appalled if I though Rog was worried about what I may think of other
men.

Hil and I like to tell each other about people we find attractive. It's
a source of amusement!


Also, let's not forget gay people here. I'm sure gay men look at other
men the same way and lesbians the same with women.

Course they do. And those who flaunt their sexuality (sometimes as a
reaction to prejudice) sometimes make a big show of it! A couple of
weeks back on one of the rare warm days this month I was having a cuppa
and a bun with an elderly male gay friend when we caught sight of a lad
outside operating one of those cranes-on-the-back- of-a-lorry delivering
some bricks to next door. My friend put his cup down and very
theatrically put the first few fingers of his left hand on his right
wrist, whilst pulling a shocked face.
"You all right?"
"Yes, I was just checking my pulse." He nodded towards the hunk.
"Geddout!"


Of course - and vive la difference! Fancying people and treating them in
a subordinate way are two different things.

My cousin is a highly intelligent woman who had a double prophylactic
mastectomy but remains in my eyes extremely attractive. When we meet I
always make it very plain that I fancy her like mad. Is that, in your
eyes, wrong?

BUT, having said all that, there are two things that I think *are*
reasonable. Firstly, it's behaviours, rather than thoughts, that
really matter. In most societies for most of the time men have had a
dominant role over women. Wherever that comes from biologically, it's
fundamentally a behavioural issue. It could change if men changed
their behaviours.

No, it isn't. That's the whole point. It isn't purely cultural; it's
partly innate.


Sure - but I don't think that excuses a patronising attitude towards
women in a professional environment. I'm quite short and Rog is quite
tall, neither of us are way over or under average but it means he can
change the lightbulbs far easier than I can. He is also far stronger
than I am physically, it makes it easier for him to certain things. But
so what? Does that make me a lesser person?

Of course not. But most managers in the workplace are primarily
concerned with making money. For that reason they want to get the best
out of everyone. So they assess every other person's strengths and
weaknesses in order to make the best use of them. When I was at work the
deep down brainstem thing that was going on, assessing the other person
sexually, had nothing to do with the way I spoke to her or treated her.
That depended on my perception of her abilities, aptitude, and energy.


FWIW I would rather eat rusty razor blades than work in a primary
school, but that doesn't mean I would denigrate anyone else - man or
woman - who did.

Can't resist quoting an email I had this morning from a supply teacher:

Not very nice weather today, either. No work, and I'm glad. I've done four
days in three different schools. I've taught year six, year three and
year one.
I've investigated the role of Richard the third in the death of the two
princes,
and constructed hexagons using compasses and protractor, I've refereed a
football match and set a good example to children learning Spanish by
joining in,
and I've counted to twenty in twos and been on a ride in an imaginary
"story bus".
I'm tired now. I need a day off.

Bill
  #16  
Old May 24th 13, 03:28 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Sara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default more info re under 11s football incident

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

Sara wrote:

Of course women regard men the same way. One difference is that we don't
think it's necessarily OK to display that, especially in the workplace.

That's a wild generalisation. Lots of women are guilty of sexual
harassment. The main difference is that they are more likely to think
it's OK. Young women in particular tend to have quite an aggressive
attitude about this sort of thing. I think they are clumsily misreading
modern equality attitudes. The fact is that women will say and do things
with impunity that if a man did or said them there would be trouble.


Not where I work. It's equally wrong in my view.

Getting back to my Rog (as I tend to do...) we met on usenet. We'd known
each other online for a few years and always got on very well. When we
met I was *completely* smitten in every way you can be. And I still am.
There are days where I can't believe how lucky I am that he fell in love
with me, too. It may have helped that he comes from a family of very
strong minded women and doesn't find them at all scary, in fact he
thinks that's the norm.

I've just altered the font spacing so I can read between the lines more
easily.

However, that doesn't mean I can't see another man and think "wow!
gorgeous!" or that I don't think Rog does when he sees other attractive
women. It's human nature for both sexes to feel that way. What you do
about it if where the difference lies.

What you do about it is just common sense good manners and respect for
others. These concepts have been around for a long time.

We are also very sure of each
other, I do not feel threatened by occasional window-shopping and would
be appalled if I though Rog was worried about what I may think of other
men.

Hil and I like to tell each other about people we find attractive. It's
a source of amusement!

Sign of a healthy relationship.

Also, let's not forget gay people here. I'm sure gay men look at other
men the same way and lesbians the same with women.

Course they do. And those who flaunt their sexuality (sometimes as a
reaction to prejudice) sometimes make a big show of it! A couple of
weeks back on one of the rare warm days this month I was having a cuppa
and a bun with an elderly male gay friend when we caught sight of a lad
outside operating one of those cranes-on-the-back- of-a-lorry delivering
some bricks to next door. My friend put his cup down and very
theatrically put the first few fingers of his left hand on his right
wrist, whilst pulling a shocked face.
"You all right?"
"Yes, I was just checking my pulse." He nodded towards the hunk.
"Geddout!"

I don't see anything wrong with that. Had he made overt advances to the
chap in question, or if they had been working together, then it's a
different matter.

Of course - and vive la difference! Fancying people and treating them in
a subordinate way are two different things.

My cousin is a highly intelligent woman who had a double prophylactic
mastectomy but remains in my eyes extremely attractive. When we meet I
always make it very plain that I fancy her like mad. Is that, in your
eyes, wrong?

That's a personal thing between the two of you that I wouldn't dream of
judging. I am concerned about treatment in a professional environment,
which should be equal to both sexes.

BUT, having said all that, there are two things that I think *are*
reasonable. Firstly, it's behaviours, rather than thoughts, that
really matter. In most societies for most of the time men have had a
dominant role over women. Wherever that comes from biologically, it's
fundamentally a behavioural issue. It could change if men changed
their behaviours.

No, it isn't. That's the whole point. It isn't purely cultural; it's
partly innate.

I disagree. Whatever people do, and are prepared to put up with
socially, when it comes to a working environment people of both sexes
should be treated the same.

Sure - but I don't think that excuses a patronising attitude towards
women in a professional environment. I'm quite short and Rog is quite
tall, neither of us are way over or under average but it means he can
change the lightbulbs far easier than I can. He is also far stronger
than I am physically, it makes it easier for him to certain things. But
so what? Does that make me a lesser person?

Of course not. But most managers in the workplace are primarily
concerned with making money. For that reason they want to get the best
out of everyone. So they assess every other person's strengths and
weaknesses in order to make the best use of them. When I was at work the
deep down brainstem thing that was going on, assessing the other person
sexually, had nothing to do with the way I spoke to her or treated her.
That depended on my perception of her abilities, aptitude, and energy.

As long as you kept whatever you thought of your colleagues to yourself,
and treated them equally whether they were men or women, then we agree.
Or are you saying you didn't?

FWIW I would rather eat rusty razor blades than work in a primary
school, but that doesn't mean I would denigrate anyone else - man or
woman - who did.

Can't resist quoting an email I had this morning from a supply teacher:

Not very nice weather today, either. No work, and I'm glad. I've done four
days in three different schools. I've taught year six, year three and
year one.
I've investigated the role of Richard the third in the death of the two
princes,
and constructed hexagons using compasses and protractor, I've refereed a
football match and set a good example to children learning Spanish by
joining in,
and I've counted to twenty in twos and been on a ride in an imaginary
"story bus".
I'm tired now. I need a day off.

Bill


--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.
  #17  
Old May 24th 13, 04:52 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Steve Thackery[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,552
Default more info re under 11s football incident

Martin wrote:

You really are obsessed about this. Have you considered help? :-)


Not obsessed at all, but I was lucky enough to experience a substantial
enlightenment during my life. I started out as a young man believing I
was a staunch supporter of feminism (back in the late 70s and early
80s). As it happens I was active in the Green Party (called the
Ecology Party back then) and it attracted all sorts of passionate young
people, including feminists, animal rights supporters, anarchists, and
plenty of other (sometimes far-out) interest groups.

One day, when I was referring to myself as a "passionate feminist" a
woman interjected with utter scorn and contempt and said "Huh, you
don't even know what feminism is!" Luckily for me I bit back the reply
that came into my head, which was something along the lines of "If you
weren't Xxx's girlfriend I'd be sorely tempted to slap you for that."
(God, can you imagine?)

Anyway, after a couple of days of stamping around grumpily in a mood of
righteous indignation I began to consider what she had said. With
immense difficulty I approached her and asked her what she meant, and
how I could find out more about feminism. In the end I read loads of
books and engaged with all sorts of people with feminist leanings and
eventually the light dawned. She was right - I didn't know what
feminism was, and it led to one of the most important formative
episodes in my life.

I remained involved in a non-proactive (sorry, clumsy word) way and
made more progress in both learning about it and incorporating it into
a larger culture-change thing I was involved with in my employer,
called "Culture 2000".

There are still some aspects of feminism that really bother me. One is
the readiness of *some* women to blame "prejudice" and "society"
reflexively whenever they see something they perceive as unfair
(mentioned previously). The other aspect that makes me really
uncomfortable is systematic positive discrimination, as vigorously
promoted by Harriet Harman amongst others. I do understand the
arguments for positive discrimination, but it still makes me
uncomfortable.

So, it's not an obsession but it *is* an area of interest for me.

--
SteveT
  #18  
Old May 24th 13, 05:05 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Steve Thackery[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,552
Default more info re under 11s football incident

Sara wrote:

Of course women regard men the same way. One difference is that we
don't think it's necessarily OK to display that, especially in the
workplace.


Difference? What difference? I don't think it's OK, either. More and
more men are coming around to agreeing with us.

Sure - but I don't think that excuses a patronising attitude towards
women in a professional environment.


Me neither, and nothing I have said even hints that I think it does.
We both agree that women have had to put up with a patronising attitude
in the workplace for decades, and that it needs to stop.

But so what? Does that make me a lesser person?


No, and again - nothing I've said would suggest that. Have you
actually read my previous posts?


As
long as all people of either sex in whichever jobs are treated
equally, then it's not a problem for me. The problem occurs when you
have men and women working alongside and one sex is treated less
favourably than the other.


Absolutely spot on.

I have a very technical job and avoid customer facing roles like the
plague. So what?


So nothing, obviously. Somebody, somewhere, though, will see that
statistical imbalance across the workforce and assume it's a "problem"
due to women being "discriminated" against. Whereas in reality it
*might* simply reflect the average preferences of the women in the
workforce. That was my point: sometimes statistical imbalances reflect
what people *prefer* and thus aren't automatically a symptom of
something that needs fixing.

I feel sure you understood that, really.

And you've completely avoided the original point that started this
thread off, which was not trying to force a lack of difference
between men and womwn, but to treat them equally in a professional
environment, whcih includes not using patronising, belittling terms
for one sex that you wouldn't use for the other.


No I haven't!! I've spoken at length about it in my previous posts!
Some of which, you may recall, led to me being sworn at and treated
with scorn or contempt by the older males amongst us. Again, I suspect
you haven't read my earlier posts.

No, my purpose in my latest post was to explore other aspects of the
matter, which is a big subject.

--
SteveT
  #19  
Old May 24th 13, 05:10 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Steve Thackery[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,552
Default more info re under 11s football incident


BUT, having said all that, there are two things that I think are
reasonable. Firstly, it's behaviours, rather than thoughts, that
really matter. In most societies for most of the time men have
had a dominant role over women. Wherever that comes from
biologically, it's fundamentally a behavioural issue. It could
change if men changed their behaviours.


No, it isn't. That's the whole point. It isn't purely cultural; it's
partly innate.


Eh?? I said nothing about culture. I said it is *behaviours*, not
thoughts, that affect other people. And we are in charge of our
behaviours, even if not our thoughts.

In case that isn't clear: as a civilised adult human with no diminished
responsibility, I and I alone am responsible for my behaviours. My
innate instinct to shag gorgeous women affects my thoughts, but I will
not let it affect my behaviour.

--
SteveT
  #20  
Old May 24th 13, 05:18 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Steve Thackery[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,552
Default more info re under 11s football incident

Sara wrote:

And you've completely avoided the original point that started this
thread off, which was not trying to force a lack of difference
between men and womwn, but to treat them equally in a professional
environment, whcih includes not using patronising, belittling terms
for one sex that you wouldn't use for the other.


Sara - just as an example of some of the abuse I've received from the
people on this thread in making the very point you are criticising me
for avoiding, have a read of this - it's wonderful!

Bob said:
I could not bring myself to say to a lady the things I say to guys
I just couldn't. Not because I think less of her, more because I think
more of her.


I said:
Perfect!! You don't see the irony in that? That it's a perfect
example of being patronising? You clearly DO discriminate on grounds
of gender in the workplace.


And Bob replied:
Utter ********. That's the first time in 20 years on the net that I've
used language like that. Are you for real?


I like that exchange so much I'm tempted to print it out and stick it
on my wall. :-)

--
SteveT
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.