On 7 Oct 2023 at 15:54:56 BST, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 12:44 pm, RJH wrote:
On 6 Oct 2023 at 17:26:33 BST, JNugent wrote:
Doesn't necessary mean hatred - it could include a general opinion of women as
inferior and dependent. Then it is not quite so inapplicable. His basic >>>>> offence was to actually not really give an serious consideration to her >>>>> wishes. I wouldn't use misogyny in the context - but it is not so far wrong.
It is quite wrong.
I think it's absolutely appropriate, He appears to have treated that woman as
an object, and he was able to do that because of his position of power. He >>> used misogynous behaviour, and would be by most measures a misogynist.
What is the connection between his behaviour and a generalised hatred or
disdain for women?
You'd need to go back to OP ('women') but I'd suggest it's related to his attitude and defence at the tribunal and the evidence presented.
Or are you just trying to justify the use of home-made buzz-words?
Examples?
Perhaps you'll be trying to justify "cis-woman" next?
Deal with the information you have.
The notion that he doesn't treat all women the same way proves nothing.
Of course it proves nothing.
It's the fact that it cannot be proven that he has a generalised hatred
of women which means that "misogynist" is not an appropriate word, any
more then "mass murderer" would be.
See above.
He'd likely do it when he can get away with it.
Prove it.
Go on... I'm all ears.
I have no reason to prove it - his misogyny is already a matter of public record.
Likely is a balnce of probabilities. I take it you don't think, on
balance, he would have behaved similarly in a similar situation?
You would not call a similar offence committed against a male "misandry".
If the balance of power favoured women, you might. But it doesn't.
Even if true, that would be totally irrelevant.
So why mention it?
On 07/10/2023 05:24 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:17 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 06/10/2023 17:29, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2023 11:30 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 04/10/2023 23:31, JNugent wrote:
Is "misogyny" the correct word to use in circumstances such as
that described here?
The term means a generalised hatred of women. It does not mean
"actions which women do not like".
"Sexism" would be more accurate in this case I would have thought.
Only, surely, if the mid-30s solicitor should be expected to make
similar advances to male staff members?
A male preferring women to men is not "sexism".
I think you're confusing sexism with sexual discrimination. Sexism
is any consideration of the relations between the (male and female)
sexes of which the speaker disapproves, whether past, present or
(perhaps) future. For example the idea that the man is the
breadwinner and the woman is the home-maker.
That's total nonsense (with respect).
"...the speaker...", you say?
Who is the speaker?
I mean it's purely a matter of opinion, and its meaning will change as
opinions change. To some my example will be the customary (or correct)
way to consider the relation between the sexes. To others the concept
of sexism is a meaningless description of current customs. I first
heard the word around 1971 and it isn't listed in my 1972 Chambers
dictionary.
It isn't as straightforward as that.
You argued to the effect that anyone who perceives an action or attitude
as "sexism" (whatever that is) is automatically right and the person
accused is automatically in the wrong.
On 07/10/2023 17:36, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 05:24 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:17 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 06/10/2023 17:29, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2023 11:30 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 04/10/2023 23:31, JNugent wrote:
Is "misogyny" the correct word to use in circumstances such as >>>>>>>> that described here?
The term means a generalised hatred of women. It does not mean >>>>>>>> "actions which women do not like".
"Sexism" would be more accurate in this case I would have thought. >>>>>Only, surely, if the mid-30s solicitor should be expected to make
similar advances to male staff members?
A male preferring women to men is not "sexism".
I think you're confusing sexism with sexual discrimination. Sexism
is any consideration of the relations between the (male and female)
sexes of which the speaker disapproves, whether past, present or
(perhaps) future. For example the idea that the man is the
breadwinner and the woman is the home-maker.
That's total nonsense (with respect).
"...the speaker...", you say?
Who is the speaker?
I mean it's purely a matter of opinion, and its meaning will change
as opinions change. To some my example will be the customary (or
correct) way to consider the relation between the sexes. To others
the concept of sexism is a meaningless description of current
customs. I first heard the word around 1971 and it isn't listed in my
1972 Chambers dictionary.
It isn't as straightforward as that.
You argued to the effect that anyone who perceives an action or
attitude as "sexism" (whatever that is) is automatically right and the
person accused is automatically in the wrong.
Actually my statement was intended to mean the exact reverse; that's why
I mention a hypothetical "speaker" who has an opinion that others may
not share.
On 08/10/2023 11:25 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/10/2023 17:36, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 05:24 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:17 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 06/10/2023 17:29, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2023 11:30 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 04/10/2023 23:31, JNugent wrote:
Is "misogyny" the correct word to use in circumstances such as >>>>>>>>> that described here?
The term means a generalised hatred of women. It does not mean >>>>>>>>> "actions which women do not like".
"Sexism" would be more accurate in this case I would have thought. >>>>>>Only, surely, if the mid-30s solicitor should be expected to make >>>>>>> similar advances to male staff members?
A male preferring women to men is not "sexism".
I think you're confusing sexism with sexual discrimination. Sexism >>>>>> is any consideration of the relations between the (male and
female) sexes of which the speaker disapproves, whether past,
present or (perhaps) future. For example the idea that the man is
the breadwinner and the woman is the home-maker.
That's total nonsense (with respect).
"...the speaker...", you say?
Who is the speaker?
I mean it's purely a matter of opinion, and its meaning will change
as opinions change. To some my example will be the customary (or
correct) way to consider the relation between the sexes. To others
the concept of sexism is a meaningless description of current
customs. I first heard the word around 1971 and it isn't listed in
my 1972 Chambers dictionary.
It isn't as straightforward as that.
You argued to the effect that anyone who perceives an action or
attitude as "sexism" (whatever that is) is automatically right and
the person accused is automatically in the wrong.
Actually my statement was intended to mean the exact reverse; that's
why I mention a hypothetical "speaker" who has an opinion that others
may not share.
But you defined "sexism" as being in its turn defined (and thereby effectively engendered - no pun) by such a hypothetical "speaker".
On 08/10/2023 15:45, JNugent wrote:
On 08/10/2023 11:25 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/10/2023 17:36, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 05:24 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:17 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 06/10/2023 17:29, JNugent wrote:
On 06/10/2023 11:30 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 04/10/2023 23:31, JNugent wrote:
Is "misogyny" the correct word to use in circumstances such as >>>>>>>>>> that described here?
The term means a generalised hatred of women. It does not mean >>>>>>>>>> "actions which women do not like".
"Sexism" would be more accurate in this case I would have thought. >>>>>>>Only, surely, if the mid-30s solicitor should be expected to
make similar advances to male staff members?
A male preferring women to men is not "sexism".
I think you're confusing sexism with sexual discrimination.
Sexism is any consideration of the relations between the (male
and female) sexes of which the speaker disapproves, whether past, >>>>>>> present or (perhaps) future. For example the idea that the man is >>>>>>> the breadwinner and the woman is the home-maker.
That's total nonsense (with respect).
"...the speaker...", you say?
Who is the speaker?
I mean it's purely a matter of opinion, and its meaning will change
as opinions change. To some my example will be the customary (or
correct) way to consider the relation between the sexes. To others
the concept of sexism is a meaningless description of current
customs. I first heard the word around 1971 and it isn't listed in
my 1972 Chambers dictionary.
It isn't as straightforward as that.
You argued to the effect that anyone who perceives an action or
attitude as "sexism" (whatever that is) is automatically right and
the person accused is automatically in the wrong.
Actually my statement was intended to mean the exact reverse; that's
why I mention a hypothetical "speaker" who has an opinion that others
may not share.
But you defined "sexism" as being in its turn defined (and thereby
effectively engendered - no pun) by such a hypothetical "speaker".
The speaker could be repeating what others say.
On 09/10/2023 02:19 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/10/2023 15:45, JNugent wrote:
On 08/10/2023 11:25 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/10/2023 17:36, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 05:24 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:17 am, Max Demian wrote:
A male preferring women to men is not "sexism".
I think you're confusing sexism with sexual discrimination.
Sexism is any consideration of the relations between the (male >>>>>>>> and female) sexes of which the speaker disapproves, whether
past, present or (perhaps) future. For example the idea that the >>>>>>>> man is the breadwinner and the woman is the home-maker.
That's total nonsense (with respect).
"...the speaker...", you say?
Who is the speaker?
I mean it's purely a matter of opinion, and its meaning will
change as opinions change. To some my example will be the
customary (or correct) way to consider the relation between the
sexes. To others the concept of sexism is a meaningless
description of current customs. I first heard the word around 1971 >>>>>> and it isn't listed in my 1972 Chambers dictionary.
It isn't as straightforward as that.
You argued to the effect that anyone who perceives an action or
attitude as "sexism" (whatever that is) is automatically right and
the person accused is automatically in the wrong.
Actually my statement was intended to mean the exact reverse; that's
why I mention a hypothetical "speaker" who has an opinion that
others may not share.
But you defined "sexism" as being in its turn defined (and thereby
effectively engendered - no pun) by such a hypothetical "speaker".
The speaker could be repeating what others say.
Exactly. It doesn't make the person spoken of "guilty" of anything.
On 09/10/2023 14:42, JNugent wrote:
On 09/10/2023 02:19 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/10/2023 15:45, JNugent wrote:
On 08/10/2023 11:25 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/10/2023 17:36, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 05:24 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/10/2023 11:17 am, Max Demian wrote:
A male preferring women to men is not "sexism".
I think you're confusing sexism with sexual discrimination.
Sexism is any consideration of the relations between the (male >>>>>>>>> and female) sexes of which the speaker disapproves, whether
past, present or (perhaps) future. For example the idea that >>>>>>>>> the man is the breadwinner and the woman is the home-maker.
That's total nonsense (with respect).
"...the speaker...", you say?
Who is the speaker?
I mean it's purely a matter of opinion, and its meaning will
change as opinions change. To some my example will be the
customary (or correct) way to consider the relation between the
sexes. To others the concept of sexism is a meaningless
description of current customs. I first heard the word around
1971 and it isn't listed in my 1972 Chambers dictionary.
It isn't as straightforward as that.
You argued to the effect that anyone who perceives an action or
attitude as "sexism" (whatever that is) is automatically right and >>>>>> the person accused is automatically in the wrong.
Actually my statement was intended to mean the exact reverse;
that's why I mention a hypothetical "speaker" who has an opinion
that others may not share.
But you defined "sexism" as being in its turn defined (and thereby
effectively engendered - no pun) by such a hypothetical "speaker".
The speaker could be repeating what others say.
Exactly. It doesn't make the person spoken of "guilty" of anything.
Who said anything about guilt?
My definition of sexism as a description
of the relation between the sexes would appear to be accurate, except it
is a little curious that the word is only used in a derogatory way;
no-one would advocate a "new improved sexism" that treats women better.
(I'm not advocating any particular sexism: there are reasons for the way
the sexes are treated differently, biological, practical, historical and cultural.)
On 10/10/2023 12:02 pm, Max Demian wrote:
My definition of sexism as a description of the relation between the
sexes would appear to be accurate, except it is a little curious that
the word is only used in a derogatory way; no-one would advocate a
"new improved sexism" that treats women better.
Are you sure?
(I'm not advocating any particular sexism: there are reasons for the
way the sexes are treated differently, biological, practical,
historical and cultural.)
I don't accept that the relevant usual suspects would use the word
"sexism" to denote differential advantageous treatment of women. Or even
of disadvantageous treatment of men.
On 10/10/2023 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2023 12:02 pm, Max Demian wrote:
My definition of sexism as a description of the relation between the
sexes would appear to be accurate, except it is a little curious that
the word is only used in a derogatory way; no-one would advocate a
"new improved sexism" that treats women better.
Are you sure?
(I'm not advocating any particular sexism: there are reasons for the
way the sexes are treated differently, biological, practical,
historical and cultural.)
I don't accept that the relevant usual suspects would use the word
"sexism" to denote differential advantageous treatment of women. Or
even of disadvantageous treatment of men.
So what do you understand the word "sexism" to mean? Even if you don't
use the word yourself, what do you understand those who do to mean?
On 10/10/2023 05:27 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/10/2023 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2023 12:02 pm, Max Demian wrote:
My definition of sexism as a description of the relation between the
sexes would appear to be accurate, except it is a little curious
that the word is only used in a derogatory way; no-one would
advocate a "new improved sexism" that treats women better.
Are you sure?
(I'm not advocating any particular sexism: there are reasons for the
way the sexes are treated differently, biological, practical,
historical and cultural.)
I don't accept that the relevant usual suspects would use the word
"sexism" to denote differential advantageous treatment of women. Or
even of disadvantageous treatment of men.
So what do you understand the word "sexism" to mean? Even if you don't
use the word yourself, what do you understand those who do to mean?
The word has no meaning.
And even worse, its mere uneducated use implies that those accused are
doing something wrong (and that on the basis of no credible definition
of the term).
Ask yourself why it is that disadvantaging males is not seen as "sexist" (WIMM).
On 10/10/2023 17:32, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2023 05:27 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 10/10/2023 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 10/10/2023 12:02 pm, Max Demian wrote:
My definition of sexism as a description of the relation between
the sexes would appear to be accurate, except it is a little
curious that the word is only used in a derogatory way; no-one
would advocate a "new improved sexism" that treats women better.
Are you sure?
(I'm not advocating any particular sexism: there are reasons for
the way the sexes are treated differently, biological, practical,
historical and cultural.)
I don't accept that the relevant usual suspects would use the word
"sexism" to denote differential advantageous treatment of women. Or
even of disadvantageous treatment of men.
So what do you understand the word "sexism" to mean? Even if you
don't use the word yourself, what do you understand those who do to
mean?
The word has no meaning.
And even worse, its mere uneducated use implies that those accused are
doing something wrong (and that on the basis of no credible definition
of the term).
Ask yourself why it is that disadvantaging males is not seen as
"sexist" (WIMM).
That would be a matter of sexual discrimination, which is only part of sexism. Just treating the sexes differently is usually regarded as
sexism. But it's only applied selectively, for example women not allowed
to go topless isn't regarded as sexism.
And there's this thing called the "male gaze" which has slid in some
time...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 53:16:52 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,266 |