Truly excellent post by Cyclefree, and one that PBers - especially those of us in the Y-chromosome contingent - should re-read and REALLY take to heart.
Sorry the thred's been somewhat hijacked by the Megahan nonsense but well that's life I guess.
On THAT, my own view is that the Duchess of Sussex would be a BETTER bet for the White House that say, Baby Don or anyone else named Trump(sky).
Really?
This is all irrelevant to me, and I hope to the vast majority of PBers, as neither a perpetrator, enabler nor condoner of any of this stuff. But, oh look, a visible-a-mile-off little booby trap has been cunningly incorporated into the piece to stop me saying that: "there is something narcissistic (grotesque even) about the rush by some men to focus on how they are not to blame, should not be victimised and should not have their freedoms curbed." I am not rushing to focus on anything, I don't claim to be victimised or to have had my freedoms curbed, I have yet to say anything at all on the subject and I am saying this now merely to rebut the insinuation to the contrary in the piece. We are not all guilty.
Oh dear. You will be accused of "whining".
Having spent a lifetime being never a perpetrator, enabler nor condoner of any of this stuff, I have huge sympathy for women who suffer the horrors meted out by that smallish percentage of twattish blokes who think they can use their physical form or belief in some inherent male advantage of "the system". But marking all our cards gets women nowhere, other than embedding the victimhood. Recruits us, don't paint us as all part of the problem.
I don't paint all men as part of the problem. And you clearly have not read the last paragraph.
"To change a culture for the better, all must play their part. Men have a vital role to play to change the world in which women live – as allies, as champions, as teachers, as exemplars, as defenders – so that, whether they are 18 or 80, women can live their lives to the fullest and without fear of men behaving badly."
Which bit of this do you have a problem with?
Hmm. I think yesterday @MarqueeMark posted some reservations about painting all men as part of the problem.
You weren't on the thread much but suddenly popped up and went for him with both barrels posting a polemic in response starting with "Oh, do stop whining.."
Not surprisingly, that turned him off. And it got close to turning me off too.
I think we all want this unfair skewing of risk and responsibility against women to end. But the words and language you use to mobilise your allies is important, and needs to be measured - not uncompromising.
Yes, some men are such petite buttercups that you have got to speak gently to them to avoid them getting all emotional.
Quite right - I'd hate to be a woman in this society, I'm sorry to say. And I wonder if Gen Z's interest in non-binary identity is their cry of despair about what it means to be a girl or a woman. Nor is it a problem limited to the anti-social criminal extreme among men.
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. It's ugly to criticise the police when they deviate from the role they are supposed to uphold?
Surely if that is their role it is our duty to point out if they do not live up to it, to push them into doing so?
They deserved a better Six Nations than they got, with some narrow results. Unlike the others they have had some real low times without corresponding good times.
I would be very happy for Meghan to stand for elected office in the US - up to her, good luck to her, nice to see her planning something that doesn't involve interviews about the British Royal family.
She'll probably end up being asked about little else.
I will set aside a month next year to read this piece.
Why, thank you for proving my point, and so early on in the comments!
I shall now start writing my next piece so that I can take up another month of your valuable time.
Don’t be so touchy. I really enjoy your comments below the line. You are admirably honest, articulate, and persuasive.
However there is a justifiable criticism of your thread headers: they are too long. A huge wodge of text. It’s visually off-putting and I am pretty sure a good editor would and could shorten this one by 50% or more, while still getting over your worthy points - thus making it more likely people will read it: which is what you want.
Always remember the wise words of Blaise Pascal - ‘I am sorry this letter is so long, I did not have enough time to make it shorter’
Agreed.
Sensible advice.
But I was mostly teasing you.
Good. I am well aware PB thread-writers are not paid so I am generally loathe to criticise. It’s just a shame you tend to prolixity when you are very eloquent and often make clever, interesting points, even when I disagree.
And I am urgently cheering on your daughter’s restaurant! As I am cheering on all restaurants, bars, pubs, clubs. They’ve had a truly terrible time and they deserve some luck.
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. It's ugly to criticise the police when they deviate from the role they are supposed to uphold?
Surely if that is their role it is our duty to point out if they do not live up to it, to push them into doing so?
My point was that they are not "a shouty aggressive militia" as TSE suggested. I thought it was pretty clear.
Bet the ruthless career politicians would just love some vapid celebrities trying to muscle in on their territory.
Well, it did work out too well for the last ruthless career politician facing a celebrity whose major claim to fame was the words "you're fired".
Yeah, but that was the Republicans, and they've clearly gone nuts.
Hillary's a Republican?
I assumed he was talking about ruthless careerists facing off against Trump in the primaries. The vapid celebrities shouldn't get beyond that stage, they are the defence mechanism.
Female-only carriages on public transport as a safe space seem to work well in other countries. But can you imagine the furore if they were suggested here? Not from men. But from the Guardian / Twitter hoards complaining that it discriminates against the other how ever many genders they say exist now.
Talk of precautionary steps at that point is about as absurd as cowardly politicians who seek to prevent 5G and the like out of precautionary principles as a sop to loony brigades.
Is that copper kicking the woman on the ground? Ugh. Grim
And much worse, from that twitter thread
Speaking of the events that day One Suffragette noted: "Several times constables and plain-clothes men who were in the crowds passed their arms round me from the back and clutched hold of my breasts in as public a manner as possible, and men in the crowd followed their example my skirt was lifted up as high as possible, and the constable attempted to lift me off the ground by raising his knee. This he could not do, so he threw me into the crowd and incited the men to treat me as they wished".
May Billinghurst, a disabled Suffragette who used a wheelchair said:
"At first, the police threw me out of the wheelchair on to the ground in a very brutal manner. Secondly, when on the machine again, they tried to push me along with my arms twisted behind me in a very painful position, with one of my fingers bent right back, which caused me great agony. Thirdly, they took me down a side road and left me in the middle of a hooligan crowd, first taking all the valves out of the wheels and pocketing them, so that I could not move the wheelchair.”
At least two women were beaten to death by the police on Black Friday and there were multiple accounts of serious sexual assault by police officers that day. Winston Churchill as Home Secretary encouraged the violent response by police and then blocked a proposed public inquiry.
Horrific but I trust unsourced twitter claims much less even than I trust wikipedia which casts grave doubt over the claims in the final paragraph. The deaths were linked to the day's events as tenuously as the blood clots to the AZ vaccine.
Is that copper kicking the woman on the ground? Ugh. Grim
And much worse, from that twitter thread
Speaking of the events that day One Suffragette noted: "Several times constables and plain-clothes men who were in the crowds passed their arms round me from the back and clutched hold of my breasts in as public a manner as possible, and men in the crowd followed their example my skirt was lifted up as high as possible, and the constable attempted to lift me off the ground by raising his knee. This he could not do, so he threw me into the crowd and incited the men to treat me as they wished".
May Billinghurst, a disabled Suffragette who used a wheelchair said:
"At first, the police threw me out of the wheelchair on to the ground in a very brutal manner. Secondly, when on the machine again, they tried to push me along with my arms twisted behind me in a very painful position, with one of my fingers bent right back, which caused me great agony. Thirdly, they took me down a side road and left me in the middle of a hooligan crowd, first taking all the valves out of the wheels and pocketing them, so that I could not move the wheelchair.”
At least two women were beaten to death by the police on Black Friday and there were multiple accounts of serious sexual assault by police officers that day. Winston Churchill as Home Secretary encouraged the violent response by police and then blocked a proposed public inquiry.
Ghastly. But interesting, in a grisly way, nonetheless. Ta
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
So pointing out an occasion where the police murdered people is ugly?
Didn't play fair my arse. But I suspect this is a view widely held in the EU, despite having no basis in reality.
It's so frustrating. If the EU had put in its fair
What share of the effort and spending on vaccines then vaccine production would be at much higher levels, and the whole world would be much better placed to vaccinate everyone pdq.
Interesting article, a bit wordy but lots of good points raised.
I think respect for women taught from a young age is key to all of this, my parents played a big role in this for my, my older sister as well. I think Asian men have a lot to learn and thankfully in my generation for Indians it's a lot better than my parent's generation where wife beating was commonplace, honour killings a fact of life in India and forced marriage tolerated. I think Indians in the UK have come a long way and I think the other British Asians could learn a lot from us because if one were to look into the detail of crimes against women Asians will be massively overrepresented and this is all because of a culture that values boys more than girls.
A friend of my dad’s spent years travelling round Asia selling stuff (probably weapons, we don’t know for sure). Anyway, he used to take his wife on many trips.
She told me that everywhere they went was fine and she’d go off exploring places on her own whilst her husband was doing business etc. With one exception. India. She said that when she left the hotel on her own she found she had a group of men following her. She managed to double back to the hotel, but it properly shook her up. Maybe she was unlucky but it fits with other stories that get reported in the media.
I once took a young, pretty, blonde, blue eyed girlfriend to the Red Fort in Delhi. Without exaggeration, she came close to causing a riot. It started with young men wanting to be photographed next to her. Then women as well. Then large groups. Then the Indian people started jostling and shouting at each other as to who could get closest - fighting was imminent - finally the police intervened, forcefully - batons raised - and escorted us outside and to safety.
Quite scary.
It’s not just India tho. Woe betide the young blonde western woman in, say, Cairo
I've heard similar horror stories from friends in India, including one who simply cut her travelling tour short and flew home.
It’s the blonde hair/blue eyes/fair skin combination that causes the most intense reactions. I guess because it is rare to non existent in most countries, so it is highly prized or desired. Many Asian societies fetishise fair skin, even as pale western women try to get a tan. A grand human irony.
Interestingly, I saw this in Africa when I was travelling there too (with a few young blond British women in a university summer expedition) but it took a different form.
Young children would be obsessed with touching and feeling their hair, whilst smiling and laughing.
Young men would literally just stop what they were doing wherever they were, and stare - for ages, but do nothing else.
So, it felt intensely curious and perhaps a tad irritating, but not hostile.
Although they look superficially like Africans, in Melanesia, blonde hair is not unknown, it is quite common actually.
Talk of precautionary steps at that point is about as absurd as cowardly politicians who seek to prevent 5G and the like out of precautionary principles as a sop to loony brigades.
“As a precaution, we are going to deliberately and pointlessly endanger the lives of Irish people”
Will Irish voters let them get away with this damaging gibberish? They can read for themselves the data coming out of the UK.
Is that copper kicking the woman on the ground? Ugh. Grim
And much worse, from that twitter thread
Speaking of the events that day One Suffragette noted: "Several times constables and plain-clothes men who were in the crowds passed their arms round me from the back and clutched hold of my breasts in as public a manner as possible, and men in the crowd followed their example my skirt was lifted up as high as possible, and the constable attempted to lift me off the ground by raising his knee. This he could not do, so he threw me into the crowd and incited the men to treat me as they wished".
May Billinghurst, a disabled Suffragette who used a wheelchair said:
"At first, the police threw me out of the wheelchair on to the ground in a very brutal manner. Secondly, when on the machine again, they tried to push me along with my arms twisted behind me in a very painful position, with one of my fingers bent right back, which caused me great agony. Thirdly, they took me down a side road and left me in the middle of a hooligan crowd, first taking all the valves out of the wheels and pocketing them, so that I could not move the wheelchair.”
At least two women were beaten to death by the police on Black Friday and there were multiple accounts of serious sexual assault by police officers that day. Winston Churchill as Home Secretary encouraged the violent response by police and then blocked a proposed public inquiry.
Horrific but I trust unsourced twitter claims much less even than I trust wikipedia which casts grave doubt over the claims in the final paragraph. The deaths were linked to the day's events as tenuously as the blood clots to the AZ vaccine.
I can't remember which book I read it was in but it was one of the reasons why Churchill decided holding a public inquiry into the events of Black Friday.
His suggestions to the police also fit in with his behaviour in the Tonypandy riots.
The government can plausibly say that it is simply following the Law Commission’s recommendations. But the Law Commission did not recommend a 10-year sentence. If the maximum had been set at two years, prosecutors would have little incentive to charge this new statutory offence whenever a more suitable alternative was available.
Peaceful protestors who have caused inconvenience but no damage — or damage but no inconvenience — will, for the first time be facing lengthy prison sentences. This is precisely the wrong time to be proposing such a fundamental change
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. It's ugly to criticise the police when they deviate from the role they are supposed to uphold?
Surely if that is their role it is our duty to point out if they do not live up to it, to push them into doing so?
My point was that they are not "a shouty aggressive militia" as TSE suggested. I thought it was pretty clear.
It wasn't.
And the police's role is not to be 'the good guys', it is to enforce the law, prevent crime and disorder and so on. Those are good things, but to define it as their role to be good guys means criticising them is harder as who criticises good guys? Whereas if they fail to enforce the law etc in an effective or appropriate way that is legitimate and a duty to criticise.
Truly excellent post by Cyclefree, and one that PBers - especially those of us in the Y-chromosome contingent - should re-read and REALLY take to heart.
Sorry the thred's been somewhat hijacked by the Megahan nonsense but well that's life I guess.
On THAT, my own view is that the Duchess of Sussex would be a BETTER bet for the White House that say, Baby Don or anyone else named Trump(sky).
Really?
This is all irrelevant to me, and I hope to the vast majority of PBers, as neither a perpetrator, enabler nor condoner of any of this stuff. But, oh look, a visible-a-mile-off little booby trap has been cunningly incorporated into the piece to stop me saying that: "there is something narcissistic (grotesque even) about the rush by some men to focus on how they are not to blame, should not be victimised and should not have their freedoms curbed." I am not rushing to focus on anything, I don't claim to be victimised or to have had my freedoms curbed, I have yet to say anything at all on the subject and I am saying this now merely to rebut the insinuation to the contrary in the piece. We are not all guilty.
Oh dear. You will be accused of "whining".
Having spent a lifetime being never a perpetrator, enabler nor condoner of any of this stuff, I have huge sympathy for women who suffer the horrors meted out by that smallish percentage of twattish blokes who think they can use their physical form or belief in some inherent male advantage of "the system". But marking all our cards gets women nowhere, other than embedding the victimhood. Recruits us, don't paint us as all part of the problem.
I don't paint all men as part of the problem. And you clearly have not read the last paragraph.
"To change a culture for the better, all must play their part. Men have a vital role to play to change the world in which women live – as allies, as champions, as teachers, as exemplars, as defenders – so that, whether they are 18 or 80, women can live their lives to the fullest and without fear of men behaving badly."
Which bit of this do you have a problem with?
Hmm. I think yesterday @MarqueeMark posted some reservations about painting all men as part of the problem.
You weren't on the thread much but suddenly popped up and went for him with both barrels posting a polemic in response starting with "Oh, do stop whining.."
Not surprisingly, that turned him off. And it got close to turning me off too.
I think we all want this unfair skewing of risk and responsibility against women to end. But the words and language you use to mobilise your allies is important, and needs to be measured - not uncompromising.
I don't see how asking men to check their attitudes and behaviour for misogyny is "painting all men as part of the problem".
How could that be reworded so as to not to offend you and Mark?
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. It's ugly to criticise the police when they deviate from the role they are supposed to uphold?
Surely if that is their role it is our duty to point out if they do not live up to it, to push them into doing so?
My point was that they are not "a shouty aggressive militia" as TSE suggested. I thought it was pretty clear.
I was taking the piss out of the prize idiot Peter Hitchens, who appears to be unaware of things like Black Friday, the Tonypandy riots, and the history of the RUC.
I've shared this article with my daughter who was saying the other day that she couldn't think of anything that could be done about the problem - except in education.
It's good to have some specific problems identified that could be addressed.
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
So pointing out an occasion where the police murdered people is ugly?
I suggest you go get a moral compass ASAP.
Do you actually believe that the police are a 'shouty aggressive militia'? If not why did you say it?
The police collectively haven't murdered anyone so far as I know - has there been a conviction as such?
Individual police officers may have done so, and it seems possible that the current case is such.
The police do a great job and look after all of us. They're not perfect, but they're very good. I'm sorry if that happens to disagree with your prejudices.
As a thought spurred by someone suggesting that we should reduce the threshold on rape cases to merely balance of probabilities. A suggestion I think that should be rejected out of hand....no one should end up deprived of liberty on balance of probabilites...
Would it be worth setting up some charity or state fund which funds women to bring civil suits against those they allege raped them. A civil suit resulting only in damages and not loss of liberty
Talk of precautionary steps at that point is about as absurd as cowardly politicians who seek to prevent 5G and the like out of precautionary principles as a sop to loony brigades.
“As a precaution, we are going to deliberately and pointlessly endanger the lives of Irish people”
Will Irish voters let them get away with this damaging gibberish? They can read for themselves the data coming out of the UK.
Ireland has inoculated a large majority of the over-80s and the vast majority of residential care over-80s susceptible to death with COVID, by using the more effective mRNA vaccines. The relevant margin is lower vaccination rates of healthcare workers and younger people with certain medical conditions, so it is far form clear that any lives at all are in danger by deferring AZ for a week (if AZ is even supplying vaccines any more - latest news is that it's holding up supplies to blackmail the EU into favourable regulatory treatment).
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
So pointing out an occasion where the police murdered people is ugly?
I suggest you go get a moral compass ASAP.
Do you actually believe that the police are a 'shouty aggressive militia'? If not why did you say it?
The police collectively haven't murdered anyone so far as I know - has there been a conviction as such?
Individual police officers may have done so, and it seems possible that the current case is such.
The police do a great job and look after all of us. They're not perfect, but they're very good. I'm sorry if that happens to disagree with your prejudices.
I'll ignore your rudeness.
Menedez was murdered by the police as was possibly tomlinson. In both cases I say it was police rather that individual officers was in both cases the Met management tried to cover it up rather than investigate properly. That makes them an accessory after the fact I believe in legal terms
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. It's ugly to criticise the police when they deviate from the role they are supposed to uphold?
Surely if that is their role it is our duty to point out if they do not live up to it, to push them into doing so?
My point was that they are not "a shouty aggressive militia" as TSE suggested. I thought it was pretty clear.
I was taking the piss out of the prize idiot Peter Hitchens, who appears to be unaware of things like Black Friday, the Tonypandy riots, and the history of the RUC.
In terms of the response to this, I do worry that the most likely action on this is that the policing of language (censoring any word ending with the syllable 'man') will be turned up to eleven, and that men will be lectured by E&DI advisors on the problems they cause for women in the workplace. They might even be encouraged to do an exercise to think of examples of where their behaviour (or another's behaviour) might have caused problems for women.
One unintended consequence of this will be that some men will try to minimise their interactions with their female colleagues above what's essential as they will think they're treading on eggshells, be coy about telling women what they really think, and will minimise socialising with women after work for fear of misinterpretation or misunderstanding. I've seen some of this happen already, surprisingly amongst younger male staff too, in particular, who were terrified of saying or doing the wrong thing and tried to pretend they weren't attracted to any too.
I used to regularly have lunches and coffees 1:1 with other women at work (which I enjoyed) and occasionally got comments, yes, that "(I) fancied so and so" but social interaction is where you really find out about a person and what makes them tick and, crucially, it's where a lot of professional networking conversations take place, which are absolutely crucial for career advancement and women getting ahead.
So, I ignored the comments, and the Woke vibe, and ploughed on, because I enjoyed their company and their conversations. I even found one or two of them attractive but there's a difference between recognising that and acting on it sexually and inappropriately. And they told me they appreciated how rare it was that I took an interest in them, and listened to them, as people.
As a result my friendship network and professional network is broader and more 'balanced' than it otherwise would be. So I think there's a lot to be said for it.
Been out this afternoon walking in the rain so just catching up on this thread.
Once again to join with other contributors, an excellent piece and nothing I can disagree with in there.
I think the key point to be understood is education of boys and young men. Never has Aristotle's aphorism been more true than in the treatment of women.
Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man.
"Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Tehran court on new charge"
Given I don't think the Iranians recognise dual nationality, seems practically that any British authority speaking in her defence would be treated as evidence of her supporting propaganda against the regime.
"Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Tehran court on new charge"
Given I don't think the Iranians recognise dual nationality, seems practically that any British authority speaking in her defence would be treated as evidence of her supporting propaganda against the regime.
The general rule for dual nationality, I believe, is that the second nationality provides no protections for the person when subjected to the laws of the other nationality in that country.
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
So pointing out an occasion where the police murdered people is ugly?
I suggest you go get a moral compass ASAP.
Do you actually believe that the police are a 'shouty aggressive militia'? If not why did you say it?
The police collectively haven't murdered anyone so far as I know - has there been a conviction as such?
Individual police officers may have done so, and it seems possible that the current case is such.
The police do a great job and look after all of us. They're not perfect, but they're very good. I'm sorry if that happens to disagree with your prejudices.
I'll ignore your rudeness.
Menedez was murdered by the police as was possibly tomlinson. In both cases I say it was police rather that individual officers was in both cases the Met management tried to cover it up rather than investigate properly. That makes them an accessory after the fact I believe in legal terms
Omnium makes a decent point, however. ‘The police’ are not some shapeless machine, out to oppress us, it’s a large body of men and women, with human flaws, the vast majority of which try to do their job as well as they can, despite shoddy leadership and meddling politicians.
And if you HATE British police I suggest you take a look at the police in almost every other country on earth. You might change your mind.
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
So pointing out an occasion where the police murdered people is ugly?
I suggest you go get a moral compass ASAP.
Do you actually believe that the police are a 'shouty aggressive militia'? If not why did you say it?
The police collectively haven't murdered anyone so far as I know - has there been a conviction as such?
Individual police officers may have done so, and it seems possible that the current case is such.
The police do a great job and look after all of us. They're not perfect, but they're very good. I'm sorry if that happens to disagree with your prejudices.
I'll ignore your rudeness.
Menedez was murdered by the police as was possibly tomlinson. In both cases I say it was police rather that individual officers was in both cases the Met management tried to cover it up rather than investigate properly. That makes them an accessory after the fact I believe in legal terms
With de Menezes there were also the outright lies about the lead up to the shooting leaked to the press.
It’s shocking and the OP from last night was on the money.
I don't paint all men as part of the problem. And you clearly have not read the last paragraph.
"To change a culture for the better, all must play their part. Men have a vital role to play to change the world in which women live – as allies, as champions, as teachers, as exemplars, as defenders – so that, whether they are 18 or 80, women can live their lives to the fullest and without fear of men behaving badly."
Which bit of this do you have a problem with?
Hmm. I think yesterday @MarqueeMark posted some reservations about painting all men as part of the problem.
You weren't on the thread much but suddenly popped up and went for him with both barrels posting a polemic in response starting with "Oh, do stop whining.."
Not surprisingly, that turned him off. And it got close to turning me off too.
I think we all want this unfair skewing of risk and responsibility against women to end. But the words and language you use to mobilise your allies is important, and needs to be measured - not uncompromising.
Let me try and respond without getting everyone would up again. And let me make it clear that none of this is personally addressed to you or the lovely @MarqueeMark.
You see this feels to me like men expecting women to tiptoe around their feelings. But our feelings - well that's us giving both barrels and putting people off and all the rest of it. And that exemplifies in a small way part of the problem. Perhaps for a change men could consider our feelings first and understand why women feel so bloody furious about it all.
At a time when a woman was abducted off the streets and murdered, one of the first reactions on here by some of our eminent posters was to say that they weren't to blame. Well of course they aren't. But timing is everything in life. Is that really the time to make this point?
As opposed to perhaps asking oneself some tough questions about why - if the majority of men aren't horrible sex pests - so much sexual harassment is happening. Why - if schools are teaching respect - are so many young men behaving and talking about women in a way that suggests they never attended any of those lessons?
I mention the middle aged clients making obscene suggestions at breakfast. That happened to me. The men were fathers and grandfathers, successful professionals. Together they behaved like a bunch of dirty-minded 13 year olds. When spoken to individually they spoke with pride and love about their wives and daughters. They were ordinary men, much like many others. And yet they still behaved appallingly to me - a young barrister. Presumably I was not someone's loved daughter or wife. Just a girl who had to sit and endure and could not answer back.
Or the traders who wrote vile stuff about what childbirth does to a certain part of a woman's autonomy - in workplace chats about a colleague then on maternity leave. When challenged and asked whether they would like this said about their wives one said they'd punch anyone doing that. They looked at me blankly until the penny dropped when I asked why then they thought it ok for them to write that about someone else's wife, about someone they worked with.
Where does all this vileness come from? And how can we reduce or, ideally, stop it?
There is I think a bit of cognitive dissonance in some men who do not realise how they are behaving, how they appear to women. It is easy for us all to think our behaviour impeccable when it really may not be as good as we like to think. And I include myself in that.
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. It's ugly to criticise the police when they deviate from the role they are supposed to uphold?
Surely if that is their role it is our duty to point out if they do not live up to it, to push them into doing so?
My point was that they are not "a shouty aggressive militia" as TSE suggested. I thought it was pretty clear.
I was taking the piss out of the prize idiot Peter Hitchens, who appears to be unaware of things like Black Friday, the Tonypandy riots, and the history of the RUC.
I will set aside a month next year to read this piece.
Why, thank you for proving my point, and so early on in the comments!
I shall now start writing my next piece so that I can take up another month of your valuable time.
Don’t be so touchy. I really enjoy your comments below the line. You are admirably honest, articulate, and persuasive.
However there is a justifiable criticism of your thread headers: they are too long. A huge wodge of text. It’s visually off-putting and I am pretty sure a good editor would and could shorten this one by 50% or more, while still getting over your worthy points - thus making it more likely people will read it: which is what you want.
Always remember the wise words of Blaise Pascal - ‘I am sorry this letter is so long, I did not have enough time to make it shorter’
Took me all of 3 minutes and I'm a slow reader. Are you sure it's not the subject that's a turn off?
Big three weeks coming up in the UK fight against COVID:
Deaths: now 1,000 a week. Falling quickly, Boris will want to see this down to 200 in Easter week, three weeks time. Possible on current rate of fall.
Hospitalisations: now 8,000 in hospital. Boris will be looking for 2,000 by Easter Sunday. Again possible.
Vaccinations: hopefully we are now seeing the impact of the new supply, maybe 0.5m per day plus start of significant progress on 2nd dose, maybe 50% first dose 10% second dose done by Easter.
Cases: will they soar with all the extra testing? Early signs say no, but we need to watch the figures in the next few weeks. But 'cases' on their own are not in the four key criteria identified by the Government.
Summary: if all of the above happens we are on track, maybe then scope to accelerate 17 May/21 June relaxations.
A very fine piece, Cyclefree, thank you for writing it so publicly.
For me, personally, I think there cannot be enough discussion of 'Everyday Sexism' like you raise here. The big, shocking events are awful but also - as you say - are rare. But the daily experience of women vs men is something which has an ongoing and cumulative impact and yet can be invisible to even well-intended men who simply don't realise how much the women in their lives have to adjust for the sexism they are subject to. The more that gap is made visible the better.
"Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Tehran court on new charge"
Given I don't think the Iranians recognise dual nationality, seems practically that any British authority speaking in her defence would be treated as evidence of her supporting propaganda against the regime.
The general rule for dual nationality, I believe, is that the second nationality provides no protections for the person when subjected to the laws of the other nationality in that country.
Yes, but that wasn't quite the point - it was that the existence of the other dual nationality would, in their eyes, seem to permit the making up of charges at any time since its existence is evidence of a crime if they want. Not that being citizen X defends you in respect of the laws of Y. If she has ever said 'I am British-Iranian' they could decide that was propaganda against the regime.
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
So pointing out an occasion where the police murdered people is ugly?
I suggest you go get a moral compass ASAP.
Do you actually believe that the police are a 'shouty aggressive militia'? If not why did you say it?
The police collectively haven't murdered anyone so far as I know - has there been a conviction as such?
Individual police officers may have done so, and it seems possible that the current case is such.
The police do a great job and look after all of us. They're not perfect, but they're very good. I'm sorry if that happens to disagree with your prejudices.
I'll ignore your rudeness.
Menedez was murdered by the police as was possibly tomlinson. In both cases I say it was police rather that individual officers was in both cases the Met management tried to cover it up rather than investigate properly. That makes them an accessory after the fact I believe in legal terms
Omnium makes a decent point, however. ‘The police’ are not some shapeless machine, out to oppress us, it’s a large body of men and women, with human flaws, the vast majority of which try to do their job as well as they can, despite shoddy leadership and meddling politicians.
And if you HATE British police I suggest you take a look at the police in almost every other country on earth. You might change your mind.
There are indeed a lot of good officers in the police that do a good job. However there is still far too often still the culture of backing your colleagues beyond the point you should be saying "Hang on". The principle problem however with our police forces is their chronically crap management.
I still have faith in individual officers for the most part. I have no faith in our whole criminal justice system however as its let down far too many people and that rot starts at the top.
Too often it comes across that the rank and file are being set targets not based upon what will help the community they server but instead based on what will look best for their commanders promotion prospects
"Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Tehran court on new charge"
Given I don't think the Iranians recognise dual nationality, seems practically that any British authority speaking in her defence would be treated as evidence of her supporting propaganda against the regime.
Can't help thinking there's a wee bit of misogyny from the Iranian Govt, regarding her incarceration.
They probably think that abusing the female Home Secretary is in some way big, clever, and not at all self-defeating...
These people won’t settle until the police are defunded. Too many on PB defending them last night when it was clear the rabble causing trouble were not there to remember Sarah Everard but merely to cause division.
Big three weeks coming up in the UK fight against COVID:
Deaths: now 1,000 a week. Falling quickly, Boris will want to see this down to 200 in Easter week, three weeks time. Possible on current rate of fall.
Hospitalisations: now 8,000 in hospital. Boris will be looking for 2,000 by Easter Sunday. Again possible.
Vaccinations: hopefully we are now seeing the impact of the new supply, maybe 0.5m per day plus start of significant progress on 2nd dose, maybe 50% first dose 10% second dose done by Easter.
Cases: will they soar with all the extra testing? Early signs say no, but we need to watch the figures in the next few weeks. But 'cases' on their own are not in the four key criteria identified by the Government.
Summary: if all of the above happens we are on track, maybe then scope to accelerate 17 May/21 June relaxations.
Not a chance they'll be accellerated but we are on track if Neil Ferguson in the Observer today is anything to go by. If he's optiminstic then I am.
They probably think that abusing the female Home Secretary is in some way big, clever, and not at all self-defeating...
These people won’t settle until the police are defunded. Too many on PB defending them last night when it was clear the rabble causing trouble were not there to remember Sarah Everard but merely to cause division.
No most are measured here about the police the only extremist is you claiming the police can do no wrong when all evidence does show they fuck up constantly
I've shared this article with my daughter who was saying the other day that she couldn't think of anything that could be done about the problem - except in education.
It's good to have some specific problems identified that could be addressed.
In terms of the response to this, I do worry that the most likely action on this is that the policing of language (censoring any word ending with the syllable 'man') will be turned up to eleven, and that men will be lectured by E&DI advisors on the problems they cause for women in the workplace. They might even be encouraged to do an exercise to think of examples of where their behaviour (or another's behaviour) might have caused problems for women.
One unintended consequence of this will be that some men will try to minimise their interactions with their female colleagues above what's essential as they will think they're treading on eggshells, be coy about telling women what they really think, and will minimise socialising with women after work for fear of misinterpretation or misunderstanding. I've seen some of this happen already, surprisingly amongst younger male staff too, in particular, who were terrified of saying or doing the wrong thing and tried to pretend they weren't attracted to any too.
I used to regularly have lunches and coffees 1:1 with other women at work (which I enjoyed) and occasionally got comments, yes, that "(I) fancied so and so" but social interaction is where you really find out about a person and what makes them tick and, crucially, it's where a lot of professional networking conversations take place, which are absolutely crucial for career advancement and women getting ahead.
So, I ignored the comments, and the Woke vibe, and ploughed on, because I enjoyed their company and their conversations. I even found one or two of them attractive but there's a difference between recognising that and acting on it sexually and inappropriately. And they told me they appreciated how rare it was that I took an interest in them, and listened to them, as people.
As a result my friendship network and professional network is broader and more 'balanced' than it otherwise would be. So I think there's a lot to be said for it.
Good for you. The more we know each other as individuals the better.
The risk you identify is there, largely because HR departments can be so galumphingly unintelligent about their training courses. I do think that trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes, trying to imagine what something you don't normally experience feels like can help. Imagination and empathy are key to improvement.
I don't paint all men as part of the problem. And you clearly have not read the last paragraph.
"To change a culture for the better, all must play their part. Men have a vital role to play to change the world in which women live – as allies, as champions, as teachers, as exemplars, as defenders – so that, whether they are 18 or 80, women can live their lives to the fullest and without fear of men behaving badly."
Which bit of this do you have a problem with?
Hmm. I think yesterday @MarqueeMark posted some reservations about painting all men as part of the problem.
You weren't on the thread much but suddenly popped up and went for him with both barrels posting a polemic in response starting with "Oh, do stop whining.."
Not surprisingly, that turned him off. And it got close to turning me off too.
I think we all want this unfair skewing of risk and responsibility against women to end. But the words and language you use to mobilise your allies is important, and needs to be measured - not uncompromising.
Let me try and respond without getting everyone would up again. And let me make it clear that none of this is personally addressed to you or the lovely @MarqueeMark.
You see this feels to me like men expecting women to tiptoe around their feelings. But our feelings - well that's us giving both barrels and putting people off and all the rest of it. And that exemplifies in a small way part of the problem. Perhaps for a change men could consider our feelings first and understand why women feel so bloody furious about it all.
At a time when a woman was abducted off the streets and murdered, one of the first reactions on here by some of our eminent posters was to say that they weren't to blame. Well of course they aren't. But timing is everything in life. Is that really the time to make this point?
As opposed to perhaps asking oneself some tough questions about why - if the majority of men aren't horrible sex pests - so much sexual harassment is happening. Why - if schools are teaching respect - are so many young men behaving and talking about women in a way that suggests they never attended any of those lessons?
I mention the middle aged clients making obscene suggestions at breakfast. That happened to me. The men were fathers and grandfathers, successful professionals. Together they behaved like a bunch of dirty-minded 13 year olds. When spoken to individually they spoke with pride and love about their wives and daughters. They were ordinary men, much like many others. And yet they still behaved appallingly to me - a young barrister. Presumably I was not someone's loved daughter or wife. Just a girl who had to sit and endure and could not answer back.
Or the traders who wrote vile stuff about what childbirth does to a certain part of a woman's autonomy - in workplace chats about a colleague then on maternity leave. When challenged and asked whether they would like this said about their wives one said they'd punch anyone doing that. They looked at me blankly until the penny dropped when I asked why then they thought it ok for them to write that about someone else's wife, about someone they worked with.
Where does all this vileness come from? And how can we reduce or, ideally, stop it?
There is I think a bit of cognitive dissonance in some men who do not realise how they are behaving, how they appear to women. It is easy for us all to think our behaviour impeccable when it really may not be as good as we like to think. And I include myself in that.
What you describe there is shocking and disgraceful, and I'm sorry you experienced it. I
I think they are very good questions.
Personally? I would have just posed them and let people reflect on them and think about their own answers.
Then, you keep it entirely focussed on the awkward subject of these awkward real experiences and the excuses made for them, rather than putting people on the defensive for their whole sex.
They probably think that abusing the female Home Secretary is in some way big, clever, and not at all self-defeating...
These people won’t settle until the police are defunded. Too many on PB defending them last night when it was clear the rabble causing trouble were not there to remember Sarah Everard but merely to cause division.
No most are measured here about the police the only extremist is you claiming the police can do no wrong when all evidence does show they fuck up constantly
I don’t say they do no wrong, I’m saying last night they did the right thing. The difference is I knew the type of people involved last night and now the mask has slipped there’s a lot of backtracking.
If you’re still on the side of this rabble then more fool you. Baying for blood and resignations won’t make the streets safer.
They probably think that abusing the female Home Secretary is in some way big, clever, and not at all self-defeating...
These people won’t settle until the police are defunded. Too many on PB defending them last night when it was clear the rabble causing trouble were not there to remember Sarah Everard but merely to cause division.
No most are measured here about the police the only extremist is you claiming the police can do no wrong when all evidence does show they fuck up constantly
I don’t say they do no wrong, I’m saying last night they did the right thing. The difference is I knew the type of people involved last night and now the mask has slipped there’s a lot of backtracking.
If you’re still on the side of this rabble then more fool you. Baying for blood and resignations won’t make the streets safer.
Early signs of inflation. We all know it's coming.
Sadiq leading the way. Greater London Council Tax element up 9.5% for 2021/2022. Pity Sadiq doesn't show any leadership elsewhere!
The Ruffer IT looks well positioned right now. About 25% in index-linked bonds, with a good slice of US ones where inflation may take off first, as the Biden cheques land in accounts. A good slice of gold and precious metals, in equities overweight in UK and Japan and underweight in US and EU, with a tiny bit of Bitcoin exposure just for fun. If we are heading for inflation it may be the perfect investment.
Big three weeks coming up in the UK fight against COVID:
Deaths: now 1,000 a week. Falling quickly, Boris will want to see this down to 200 in Easter week, three weeks time. Possible on current rate of fall.
Hospitalisations: now 8,000 in hospital. Boris will be looking for 2,000 by Easter Sunday. Again possible.
Vaccinations: hopefully we are now seeing the impact of the new supply, maybe 0.5m per day plus start of significant progress on 2nd dose, maybe 50% first dose 10% second dose done by Easter.
Cases: will they soar with all the extra testing? Early signs say no, but we need to watch the figures in the next few weeks. But 'cases' on their own are not in the four key criteria identified by the Government.
Summary: if all of the above happens we are on track, maybe then scope to accelerate 17 May/21 June relaxations.
Not a chance they'll be accellerated but we are on track if Neil Ferguson in the Observer today is anything to go by. If he's optiminstic then I am.
If Ferguson is optimistic then we should open the pubs tomorrow before he changes his mind
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. It's ugly to criticise the police when they deviate from the role they are supposed to uphold?
Surely if that is their role it is our duty to point out if they do not live up to it, to push them into doing so?
My point was that they are not "a shouty aggressive militia" as TSE suggested. I thought it was pretty clear.
I was taking the piss out of the prize idiot Peter Hitchens, who appears to be unaware of things like Black Friday, the Tonypandy riots, and the history of the RUC.
So to make a barb at Hitchins you chose to tarnish the police force with a slur? Wasn't there some talk of a moral compass?
It was Hitchens who said the Feds were a "shouty aggressive militia".
So TSE accusing the police generally of this can be excused by the suggestion that Peter Hitchens once said something along the same lines and that TSE is actually both using this as an excuse for offence and a protective defence?
Talk of precautionary steps at that point is about as absurd as cowardly politicians who seek to prevent 5G and the like out of precautionary principles as a sop to loony brigades.
“As a precaution, we are going to deliberately and pointlessly endanger the lives of Irish people”
Will Irish voters let them get away with this damaging gibberish? They can read for themselves the data coming out of the UK.
The other thing is, this "blood clot" scare isn't even of the type that would give some people legitimate cause for pause before getting vaccinated - ie. the long term effects of relatively experimental vaccine technology (especially in the case of MRNA vaccines) that hasn't been subject to the normal approval timelines that might partly expose such effects (ie. the thalidomide type thing). Even taken at face value this scare is of the straightforward balance of risks. Even if there was evidence of a slight increase in clotting, the balance of risk would still favour proceeding with vaccination. With any medical product sometimes people are just very unlucky. People are probably in greater danger from fainting due to needle phobia and banging their head.
The suspensions, if not the investigations, are just crazy.
Truly excellent post by Cyclefree, and one that PBers - especially those of us in the Y-chromosome contingent - should re-read and REALLY take to heart.
Sorry the thred's been somewhat hijacked by the Megahan nonsense but well that's life I guess.
On THAT, my own view is that the Duchess of Sussex would be a BETTER bet for the White House that say, Baby Don or anyone else named Trump(sky).
Really?
This is all irrelevant to me, and I hope to the vast majority of PBers, as neither a perpetrator, enabler nor condoner of any of this stuff. But, oh look, a visible-a-mile-off little booby trap has been cunningly incorporated into the piece to stop me saying that: "there is something narcissistic (grotesque even) about the rush by some men to focus on how they are not to blame, should not be victimised and should not have their freedoms curbed." I am not rushing to focus on anything, I don't claim to be victimised or to have had my freedoms curbed, I have yet to say anything at all on the subject and I am saying this now merely to rebut the insinuation to the contrary in the piece. We are not all guilty.
Oh dear. You will be accused of "whining".
Having spent a lifetime being never a perpetrator, enabler nor condoner of any of this stuff, I have huge sympathy for women who suffer the horrors meted out by that smallish percentage of twattish blokes who think they can use their physical form or belief in some inherent male advantage of "the system". But marking all our cards gets women nowhere, other than embedding the victimhood. Recruits us, don't paint us as all part of the problem.
I don't paint all men as part of the problem. And you clearly have not read the last paragraph.
"To change a culture for the better, all must play their part. Men have a vital role to play to change the world in which women live – as allies, as champions, as teachers, as exemplars, as defenders – so that, whether they are 18 or 80, women can live their lives to the fullest and without fear of men behaving badly."
Which bit of this do you have a problem with?
Hmm. I think yesterday @MarqueeMark posted some reservations about painting all men as part of the problem.
You weren't on the thread much but suddenly popped up and went for him with both barrels posting a polemic in response starting with "Oh, do stop whining.."
Not surprisingly, that turned him off. And it got close to turning me off too.
I think we all want this unfair skewing of risk and responsibility against women to end. But the words and language you use to mobilise your allies is important, and needs to be measured - not uncompromising.
Yes, some men are such petite buttercups that you have got to speak gently to them to avoid them getting all emotional.
No, that's just excusing rudeness.
How you talk to people matters, particularly if they're the ones that most need convincing.
They probably think that abusing the female Home Secretary is in some way big, clever, and not at all self-defeating...
These people won’t settle until the police are defunded. Too many on PB defending them last night when it was clear the rabble causing trouble were not there to remember Sarah Everard but merely to cause division.
You keep saying this, but not much evidence you are making headway spinning this your direction.
They probably think that abusing the female Home Secretary is in some way big, clever, and not at all self-defeating...
These people won’t settle until the police are defunded. Too many on PB defending them last night when it was clear the rabble causing trouble were not there to remember Sarah Everard but merely to cause division.
No most are measured here about the police the only extremist is you claiming the police can do no wrong when all evidence does show they fuck up constantly
I don’t say they do no wrong, I’m saying last night they did the right thing. The difference is I knew the type of people involved last night and now the mask has slipped there’s a lot of backtracking.
If you’re still on the side of this rabble then more fool you. Baying for blood and resignations won’t make the streets safer.
There is no evidence I have seen that last night was anything other than normal women demonstrating and that these idiots you are frothing about have only come out today now people like you have made it a cause celebre.
They probably think that abusing the female Home Secretary is in some way big, clever, and not at all self-defeating...
These people won’t settle until the police are defunded. Too many on PB defending them last night when it was clear the rabble causing trouble were not there to remember Sarah Everard but merely to cause division.
No most are measured here about the police the only extremist is you claiming the police can do no wrong when all evidence does show they fuck up constantly
I don’t say they do no wrong, I’m saying last night they did the right thing. The difference is I knew the type of people involved last night and now the mask has slipped there’s a lot of backtracking.
If you’re still on the side of this rabble then more fool you. Baying for blood and resignations won’t make the streets safer.
If you think the police did the right thing last night then, well, I only hope you’re in the extreme minority. I have no doubt a lot of the protestors would be politically motivated, have nothing to do with the victim, and would hate me; but you either believe in proportionate policing or you don’t. Last night was the wrong approach.
Big three weeks coming up in the UK fight against COVID:
Deaths: now 1,000 a week. Falling quickly, Boris will want to see this down to 200 in Easter week, three weeks time. Possible on current rate of fall.
Hospitalisations: now 8,000 in hospital. Boris will be looking for 2,000 by Easter Sunday. Again possible.
Vaccinations: hopefully we are now seeing the impact of the new supply, maybe 0.5m per day plus start of significant progress on 2nd dose, maybe 50% first dose 10% second dose done by Easter.
Cases: will they soar with all the extra testing? Early signs say no, but we need to watch the figures in the next few weeks. But 'cases' on their own are not in the four key criteria identified by the Government.
Summary: if all of the above happens we are on track, maybe then scope to accelerate 17 May/21 June relaxations.
Don't know about seconds but we should be through halfway on the firsts before the end of the week.
I don't expect the unlocking to be hurried along but so long as it doesn't get significantly later I'll be satisfied.
The other thing to keep an eye on (if you're in England) is the NHS booking website. It's currently still stuck at 55+, but hopefully the age requirement will be dropped again this week.
I don't paint all men as part of the problem. And you clearly have not read the last paragraph.
"To change a culture for the better, all must play their part. Men have a vital role to play to change the world in which women live – as allies, as champions, as teachers, as exemplars, as defenders – so that, whether they are 18 or 80, women can live their lives to the fullest and without fear of men behaving badly."
Which bit of this do you have a problem with?
Hmm. I think yesterday @MarqueeMark posted some reservations about painting all men as part of the problem.
You weren't on the thread much but suddenly popped up and went for him with both barrels posting a polemic in response starting with "Oh, do stop whining.."
Not surprisingly, that turned him off. And it got close to turning me off too.
I think we all want this unfair skewing of risk and responsibility against women to end. But the words and language you use to mobilise your allies is important, and needs to be measured - not uncompromising.
Let me try and respond without getting everyone would up again. And let me make it clear that none of this is personally addressed to you or the lovely @MarqueeMark.
You see this feels to me like men expecting women to tiptoe around their feelings. But our feelings - well that's us giving both barrels and putting people off and all the rest of it. And that exemplifies in a small way part of the problem. Perhaps for a change men could consider our feelings first and understand why women feel so bloody furious about it all.
At a time when a woman was abducted off the streets and murdered, one of the first reactions on here by some of our eminent posters was to say that they weren't to blame. Well of course they aren't. But timing is everything in life. Is that really the time to make this point?
As opposed to perhaps asking oneself some tough questions about why - if the majority of men aren't horrible sex pests - so much sexual harassment is happening. Why - if schools are teaching respect - are so many young men behaving and talking about women in a way that suggests they never attended any of those lessons?
I mention the middle aged clients making obscene suggestions at breakfast. That happened to me. The men were fathers and grandfathers, successful professionals. Together they behaved like a bunch of dirty-minded 13 year olds. When spoken to individually they spoke with pride and love about their wives and daughters. They were ordinary men, much like many others. And yet they still behaved appallingly to me - a young barrister. Presumably I was not someone's loved daughter or wife. Just a girl who had to sit and endure and could not answer back.
Or the traders who wrote vile stuff about what childbirth does to a certain part of a woman's autonomy - in workplace chats about a colleague then on maternity leave. When challenged and asked whether they would like this said about their wives one said they'd punch anyone doing that. They looked at me blankly until the penny dropped when I asked why then they thought it ok for them to write that about someone else's wife, about someone they worked with.
Where does all this vileness come from? And how can we reduce or, ideally, stop it?
There is I think a bit of cognitive dissonance in some men who do not realise how they are behaving, how they appear to women. It is easy for us all to think our behaviour impeccable when it really may not be as good as we like to think. And I include myself in that.
What you describe there is shocking and disgraceful, and I'm sorry you experienced it. I
I think they are very good questions.
Personally? I would have just posed them and let people reflect on them and think about their own answers.
Then, you keep it entirely focussed on the awkward subject of these awkward real experiences and the excuses made for them, rather than putting people on the defensive for their whole sex.
I want good men to be part of the solutions. I was brought up by a good man. The men in my family were and are decent individuals. I hope I have brought up my sons to be the same.
I wrote what I felt needed saying by a woman on an overwhelmingly male forum. And I wanted to challenge the men to think about this topic, even if this is perhaps a little uncomfortable.
Anyway my husband is now showing a concert from Barrow Catholic cathedral - built by Pugin no less - and I suppose that is my Mother's Day treat so I had better pay attention, I suppose.
Whilst i have some sympathy with this view, i can't help but think that the culture of demanding resignations at every incident that is mishandled is part of the problem with leadership culture in public life. Anybody, however excellent overall (and i'm making no judgement about this particular individual) can get things wrong. If they are never able to learn from those errors and put changes in place to avoid repeats in future, then ultimately you just end up with second or third rate leadership. Any organisation can never have an inexhaustible supply of good and capable people to lead them and things aren't improved if the best ones can fall by the wayside on the back of isolated incidents.
It's a different thing if there is evidence of repeated errors, or failure to address cultural issues or whatever - which when taken as a whole just show that the individual should never have been in a leadership position in the first place.
Reuters - Merkel's CDU thumped in state votes, hurting her would-be successor
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany’s Christian Democrats suffered embarrassing defeats in two key regional votes on Sunday after a muddled coronavirus response, dealing a setback to party chairman Armin Laschet’s hopes of becoming chancellor at federal elections in September.
In the southwestern automotive hub of Baden-Wuerttemberg, the ecologist Greens extended their lead from five years ago over the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which was hobbled after a face mask procurement scandal.
The Greens won 31.5% of the vote in Baden-Wuerttemberg and the CDU 23%, down from the 27% the conservatives polled at the last state election in 2016, an exit poll for broadcaster ZDF showed.
In neighbouring Rhineland-Palatinate, the left-leaning Social Democrats (SPD) came first again with 33.5% of the vote ahead of the CDU, which led there in opinion polls until last month but secured only 25.5% support in Sunday’s election.
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
I don't even understand the point you are trying to make. It's ugly to criticise the police when they deviate from the role they are supposed to uphold?
Surely if that is their role it is our duty to point out if they do not live up to it, to push them into doing so?
My point was that they are not "a shouty aggressive militia" as TSE suggested. I thought it was pretty clear.
I was taking the piss out of the prize idiot Peter Hitchens, who appears to be unaware of things like Black Friday, the Tonypandy riots, and the history of the RUC.
So to make a barb at Hitchins you chose to tarnish the police force with a slur? Wasn't there some talk of a moral compass?
It was Hitchens who said the Feds were a "shouty aggressive militia".
So TSE accusing the police generally of this can be excused by the suggestion that Peter Hitchens once said something along the same lines and that TSE is actually both using this as an excuse for offence and a protective defence?
First he had to implement Brexit, which he never believed in in the first place and never expected to win.
Then along came the pandemic, with its relentless gloomy news, requiring hard work, attention to detail, quick decisions, and a willingness to curtail people’s liberties, cruelly exposing almost all of his flaws as a national leader.
Just as he thought the end is in sight, the next issue on his plate will be....sexism and respect for women.
I don't paint all men as part of the problem. And you clearly have not read the last paragraph.
"To change a culture for the better, all must play their part. Men have a vital role to play to change the world in which women live – as allies, as champions, as teachers, as exemplars, as defenders – so that, whether they are 18 or 80, women can live their lives to the fullest and without fear of men behaving badly."
Which bit of this do you have a problem with?
Hmm. I think yesterday @MarqueeMark posted some reservations about painting all men as part of the problem.
You weren't on the thread much but suddenly popped up and went for him with both barrels posting a polemic in response starting with "Oh, do stop whining.."
Not surprisingly, that turned him off. And it got close to turning me off too.
I think we all want this unfair skewing of risk and responsibility against women to end. But the words and language you use to mobilise your allies is important, and needs to be measured - not uncompromising.
Let me try and respond without getting everyone would up again. And let me make it clear that none of this is personally addressed to you or the lovely @MarqueeMark.
You see this feels to me like men expecting women to tiptoe around their feelings. But our feelings - well that's us giving both barrels and putting people off and all the rest of it. And that exemplifies in a small way part of the problem. Perhaps for a change men could consider our feelings first and understand why women feel so bloody furious about it all.
At a time when a woman was abducted off the streets and murdered, one of the first reactions on here by some of our eminent posters was to say that they weren't to blame. Well of course they aren't. But timing is everything in life. Is that really the time to make this point?
As opposed to perhaps asking oneself some tough questions about why - if the majority of men aren't horrible sex pests - so much sexual harassment is happening. Why - if schools are teaching respect - are so many young men behaving and talking about women in a way that suggests they never attended any of those lessons?
I mention the middle aged clients making obscene suggestions at breakfast. That happened to me. The men were fathers and grandfathers, successful professionals. Together they behaved like a bunch of dirty-minded 13 year olds. When spoken to individually they spoke with pride and love about their wives and daughters. They were ordinary men, much like many others. And yet they still behaved appallingly to me - a young barrister. Presumably I was not someone's loved daughter or wife. Just a girl who had to sit and endure and could not answer back.
Or the traders who wrote vile stuff about what childbirth does to a certain part of a woman's autonomy - in workplace chats about a colleague then on maternity leave. When challenged and asked whether they would like this said about their wives one said they'd punch anyone doing that. They looked at me blankly until the penny dropped when I asked why then they thought it ok for them to write that about someone else's wife, about someone they worked with.
Where does all this vileness come from? And how can we reduce or, ideally, stop it?
There is I think a bit of cognitive dissonance in some men who do not realise how they are behaving, how they appear to women. It is easy for us all to think our behaviour impeccable when it really may not be as good as we like to think. And I include myself in that.
What you describe there is shocking and disgraceful, and I'm sorry you experienced it. I
I think they are very good questions.
Personally? I would have just posed them and let people reflect on them and think about their own answers.
Then, you keep it entirely focussed on the awkward subject of these awkward real experiences and the excuses made for them, rather than putting people on the defensive for their whole sex.
I want good men to be part of the solutions. I was brought up by a good man. The men in my family were and are decent individuals. I hope I have brought up my sons to be the same.
I wrote what I felt needed saying by a woman on an overwhelmingly male forum. And I wanted to challenge the men to think about this topic, even if this is perhaps a little uncomfortable.
Anyway my husband is now showing a concert from Barrow Catholic cathedral - built by Pugin no less - and I suppose that is my Mother's Day treat so I had better pay attention, I suppose.
Comments
https://twitter.com/drvmisra/status/1371096130336010240?s=21
120 after 14 overs I thought we had the potential to get to 200 after 20. Instead it was 165. 45 runs off the final 6 overs is just not good enough.
Surely if that is their role it is our duty to point out if they do not live up to it, to push them into doing so?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1910)
I suggest you go get a moral compass ASAP.
What share of the effort and spending on vaccines then vaccine production would be at much higher levels, and the whole world would be much better placed to vaccinate everyone pdq.
What a bunch of idiots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesians#Incidence_of_blond_hair_in_Melanesia
Too many are using this alleged murder as a platform to talk about themselves.
Joanna Williams"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/14/please-stop-exploiting-the-death-of-sarah-everard/
Will Irish voters let them get away with this damaging gibberish? They can read for themselves the data coming out of the UK.
His suggestions to the police also fit in with his behaviour in the Tonypandy riots.
Peaceful protestors who have caused inconvenience but no damage — or damage but no inconvenience — will, for the first time be facing lengthy prison sentences. This is precisely the wrong time to be proposing such a fundamental change
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/more-than-a-nuisance
And the police's role is not to be 'the good guys', it is to enforce the law, prevent crime and disorder and so on. Those are good things, but to define it as their role to be good guys means criticising them is harder as who criticises good guys? Whereas if they fail to enforce the law etc in an effective or appropriate way that is legitimate and a duty to criticise.
How could that be reworded so as to not to offend you and Mark?
https://twitter.com/derspiegel/status/1371146955947130882
https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1371060326813331462
I've shared this article with my daughter who was saying the other day that she couldn't think of anything that could be done about the problem - except in education.
It's good to have some specific problems identified that could be addressed.
The police collectively haven't murdered anyone so far as I know - has there been a conviction as such?
Individual police officers may have done so, and it seems possible that the current case is such.
The police do a great job and look after all of us. They're not perfect, but they're very good. I'm sorry if that happens to disagree with your prejudices.
I'll ignore your rudeness.
Would it be worth setting up some charity or state fund which funds women to bring civil suits against those they allege raped them. A civil suit resulting only in damages and not loss of liberty
https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1371142781234733059?s=20
https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1371145719067906049
Sadiq leading the way. Greater London Council Tax element up 9.5% for 2021/2022. Pity Sadiq doesn't show any leadership elsewhere!
"Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Tehran court on new charge"
One unintended consequence of this will be that some men will try to minimise their interactions with their female colleagues above what's essential as they will think they're treading on eggshells, be coy about telling women what they really think, and will minimise socialising with women after work for fear of misinterpretation or misunderstanding. I've seen some of this happen already, surprisingly amongst younger male staff too, in particular, who were terrified of saying or doing the wrong thing and tried to pretend they weren't attracted to any too.
I used to regularly have lunches and coffees 1:1 with other women at work (which I enjoyed) and occasionally got comments, yes, that "(I) fancied so and so" but social interaction is where you really find out about a person and what makes them tick and, crucially, it's where a lot of professional networking conversations take place, which are absolutely crucial for career advancement and women getting ahead.
So, I ignored the comments, and the Woke vibe, and ploughed on, because I enjoyed their company and their conversations. I even found one or two of them attractive but there's a difference between recognising that and acting on it sexually and inappropriately. And they told me they appreciated how rare it was that I took an interest in them, and listened to them, as people.
As a result my friendship network and professional network is broader and more 'balanced' than it otherwise would be. So I think there's a lot to be said for it.
Once again to join with other contributors, an excellent piece and nothing I can disagree with in there.
I think the key point to be understood is education of boys and young men. Never has Aristotle's aphorism been more true than in the treatment of women.
Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man.
And if you HATE British police I suggest you take a look at the police in almost every other country on earth. You might change your mind.
It’s shocking and the OP from last night was on the money.
@MarqueeMark.
You see this feels to me like men expecting women to tiptoe around their feelings. But our feelings - well that's us giving both barrels and putting people off and all the rest of it. And that exemplifies in a small way part of the problem. Perhaps for a change men could consider our feelings first and understand why women feel so bloody furious about it all.
At a time when a woman was abducted off the streets and murdered, one of the first reactions on here by some of our eminent posters was to say that they weren't to blame. Well of course they aren't. But timing is everything in life. Is that really the time to make this point?
As opposed to perhaps asking oneself some tough questions about why - if the majority of men aren't horrible sex pests - so much sexual harassment is happening. Why - if schools are teaching respect - are so many young men behaving and talking about women in a way that suggests they never attended any of those lessons?
I mention the middle aged clients making obscene suggestions at breakfast. That happened to me. The men were fathers and grandfathers, successful professionals. Together they behaved like a bunch of dirty-minded 13 year olds. When spoken to individually they spoke with pride and love about their wives and daughters. They were ordinary men, much like many others. And yet they still behaved appallingly to me - a young barrister. Presumably I was not someone's loved daughter or wife. Just a girl who had to sit and endure and could not answer back.
Or the traders who wrote vile stuff about what childbirth does to a certain part of a woman's autonomy - in workplace chats about a colleague then on maternity leave. When challenged and asked whether they would like this said about their wives one said they'd punch anyone doing that. They looked at me blankly until the penny dropped when I asked why then they thought it ok for them to write that about someone else's wife, about someone they worked with.
Where does all this vileness come from? And how can we reduce or, ideally, stop it?
There is I think a bit of cognitive dissonance in some men who do not realise how they are behaving, how they appear to women. It is easy for us all to think our behaviour impeccable when it really may not be as good as we like to think. And I include myself in that.
Deaths: now 1,000 a week. Falling quickly, Boris will want to see this down to 200 in Easter week, three weeks time. Possible on current rate of fall.
Hospitalisations: now 8,000 in hospital. Boris will be looking for 2,000 by Easter Sunday. Again possible.
Vaccinations: hopefully we are now seeing the impact of the new supply, maybe 0.5m per day plus start of significant progress on 2nd dose, maybe 50% first dose 10% second dose done by Easter.
Cases: will they soar with all the extra testing? Early signs say no, but we need to watch the figures in the next few weeks. But 'cases' on their own are not in the four key criteria identified by the Government.
Summary: if all of the above happens we are on track, maybe then scope to accelerate 17 May/21 June relaxations.
I loathe this All Cops Are Bastards crap. Dehumanizing and offensive and juvenile.
For me, personally, I think there cannot be enough discussion of 'Everyday Sexism' like you raise here. The big, shocking events are awful but also - as you say - are rare. But the daily experience of women vs men is something which has an ongoing and cumulative impact and yet can be invisible to even well-intended men who simply don't realise how much the women in their lives have to adjust for the sexism they are subject to. The more that gap is made visible the better.
I still have faith in individual officers for the most part. I have no faith in our whole criminal justice system however as its let down far too many people and that rot starts at the top.
Too often it comes across that the rank and file are being set targets not based upon what will help the community they server but instead based on what will look best for their commanders promotion prospects
More seriously, yup. This is why I was brought up NOT to instantly respect and trust authority and I hope to do the same for my kids.
https://twitter.com/karlbrophy/status/1371056889547665414?s=21
The risk you identify is there, largely because HR departments can be so galumphingly unintelligent about their training courses. I do think that trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes, trying to imagine what something you don't normally experience feels like can help. Imagination and empathy are key to improvement.
I think they are very good questions.
Personally? I would have just posed them and let people reflect on them and think about their own answers.
Then, you keep it entirely focussed on the awkward subject of these awkward real experiences and the excuses made for them, rather than putting people on the defensive for their whole sex.
If you’re still on the side of this rabble then more fool you. Baying for blood and resignations won’t make the streets safer.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1371144674098999300
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1371153798933123078
If you say so.
The suspensions, if not the investigations, are just crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Daily_Mirror,_19_November_1910,_front_page_(cleaned).png
How you talk to people matters, particularly if they're the ones that most need convincing.
Any actual polling yet on this?
I don't expect the unlocking to be hurried along but so long as it doesn't get significantly later I'll be satisfied.
The other thing to keep an eye on (if you're in England) is the NHS booking website. It's currently still stuck at 55+, but hopefully the age requirement will be dropped again this week.
I wrote what I felt needed saying by a woman on an overwhelmingly male forum. And I wanted to challenge the men to think about this topic, even if this is perhaps a little uncomfortable.
Anyway my husband is now showing a concert from Barrow Catholic cathedral - built by Pugin no less - and I suppose that is my Mother's Day treat so I had better pay attention, I suppose.
🙂
It's a different thing if there is evidence of repeated errors, or failure to address cultural issues or whatever - which when taken as a whole just show that the individual should never have been in a leadership position in the first place.
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany’s Christian Democrats suffered embarrassing defeats in two key regional votes on Sunday after a muddled coronavirus response, dealing a setback to party chairman Armin Laschet’s hopes of becoming chancellor at federal elections in September.
In the southwestern automotive hub of Baden-Wuerttemberg, the ecologist Greens extended their lead from five years ago over the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which was hobbled after a face mask procurement scandal.
The Greens won 31.5% of the vote in Baden-Wuerttemberg and the CDU 23%, down from the 27% the conservatives polled at the last state election in 2016, an exit poll for broadcaster ZDF showed.
In neighbouring Rhineland-Palatinate, the left-leaning Social Democrats (SPD) came first again with 33.5% of the vote ahead of the CDU, which led there in opinion polls until last month but secured only 25.5% support in Sunday’s election.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-election-merkel/merkels-cdu-thumped-in-state-votes-hurting-her-would-be-successor-idUSKBN2B60IW
First he had to implement Brexit, which he never believed in in the first place and never expected to win.
Then along came the pandemic, with its relentless gloomy news, requiring hard work, attention to detail, quick decisions, and a willingness to curtail people’s liberties, cruelly exposing almost all of his flaws as a national leader.
Just as he thought the end is in sight, the next issue on his plate will be....sexism and respect for women.