Loz

srisky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure how you have got yourself worked up over this. At no point did I say that it was only the > fault of men, just because someone states a phrase is sexist against women doesn't mean that they are > anti-men and of course feminism is/ought to be about equality. > > ETA: objectification of women is seen throughout the English language, it's not a new concept. But surely you can see that, if a group of people creates a term that objectifies themselves, then surely the blame for this lies squarely with them and them only?

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > srisky Wrote: > > However, such terms, including 'yummy mummy' are part of > > the objectification of women (not necessarily sexual) in society. > > What do you mean? It's rather nonsensical, isn't it? As I said before, 'yummy mummy' was coined by the women themselves. No doubt forced by the 'patriarchy' to objectify themselves...

Agree with KK also. It's a interesting line to tread - do you allow those words to fall into casual usage and lose their 'power' or do you maintain them as 'bad' words with power to hurt? The gay community seems quite adept at adopting abusive words aimed at them and taming them. But it's worth noting that there is a big difference between 'Yummy Mummy' and 'tart', in that the former, I believe, was actually coined by those 'aspiring' to such status, but is now used disparagingly. Bit like 'macho', perhaps.

Ah, sorry Jeremy - I misunderstood. Your post came straight under a different post of mine, so I assumed it was referring to that. Actually, it was Saila's post that made me think 'that's so Guardian'. His/her later attempt to maliciously misrepresent my comment for effect only reinforced that feeling.

Well, LD, I have to say I didn't see that coming! Not only all you say, but her views on transsexuals are particularly repugnant. But Bindel is far from the only one at the Gruin with entirely patronising views of sex workers. I'm glad someone sees through the Guardian's shiny 'it's OK, my bigotry is so right on' status.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have to say Loz... not really quite sure what > you're getting at here... don't know why you > thought the conversation had "moved to the depths > of the Guardian-style-feminist opinion writer". > > The term - taken at face value - wouldn't be so > bad, but when it's used as a criticism I think > that says a lot about a person's views. Really going onto a tangent here. I believe in equality for everyone, and hate racism and sexism - and I'll not apologise for that. If that says a lot about me then, well, excellent, really. And some of that is at odds with the Guardian's iffy viewpoint. Why do you have a problem with that?

Saila Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this is actually turning into a fascinating and amusingly blatant thread. > > Bitch - edf's version "guardian-reading-feminist" You are putting words into my mouth that I did not - and would not - use. So, I would change that to: Sexist idiot - edf's version "guardian-reading-feminist"

The current Xbox ad where some 'famous' bloke (who is he??) answers the phone with a drawled 'Yo' at the end. Sets my teeth on edge.

I don't think you can password protect a whole folder (that would be a Windows function anyway, not Word). You can zip a whole folder (using something like 7-Zip) and password protect that, but if you want to change, add or remove files it's a bit of a pain as you have to uncompress/recompress the whole thing.

This is a tangent, and I'll stop now, but just a response to SJ... I agree that it is a different sexism to the DM, but there is definitely a 'two sides of the same coin' to them. DM's tabloid-style 'phoar' style versus the Gruin's faux-academic approach. (Though it is always interesting to note that the DM's has the most female readers in the UK. Not sure what that says, though). But, Tanya Gold and Julie Bindel are pretty compelling evidence on their own. As is just about every article in the short, dreadful history of Jessica Valetti as well - her 'mansplaining' article was pretty dire. And Suzanne Moore just seems to hate everyone. The Gruin's general movement away from the whole concept that 'feminism is about choice' for women is pretty bad. Their hounding of certain women like Louise Mensch when she declared herself a feminist can be pretty unpleasant. Their general ignoring of male and gay/lesbian domestic violence victims is pretty bad. Do you really think there isn't a thick streak of sexism and hypocrisy in the Guardian op-eds?

Oh, I just said there we should be able to have intelligent debate inside those two unintelligent parameters. Not necessarily on this particular subject. So now can you explain why you aren't embarrassed to align yourself with a such sexist view of feminism?

Anyone who says that they don;t see an issue with Guardian feminst writers need to have a serious good look at themselves, especially if you can't see the abject sexism of Guardian op-eds. It's view of men and women is pretty appalling. Feminism is supposed to be about equality.

simonethebeaver Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm a 'Guardian-style-feminist' quite proudly. Why does that preclude intelligent debate? Frankly, it's the sexist hypocrisy of the Guardian that irks me. Why would you want to publically align yourself with that? The Daily Mail and the Gruin are, opinion article-wise, the same newspaper. The Gruin's outstanding journalism is generally seriously let down by its awful op-eds.

Good grief - this thread started in the depths of the pages of Viz and has moved to the depths of the Guardian-style-feminist opinion writer. Surely there has to be a intelligent debate somewhere in the middle?

Well, in Merv's case (and I think it's the only way): Wicket 1: Last ball of over Wicket 2: First ball of next over, final wicket to fall in first innings, so team all out Wicket 3: Bowler's first ball of second innings

I was at the WACA when Merv Hughes got his third wicket for his hat trick. I don't think he knew he'd got one. His was spread over three overs and two innings, so understandable.

Cook to Warne: You've won. http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/753843.html I know Warnie is a PITA, but he's right: Cook is a boring and negative captain.

OK, guys... now imagine that the Tories had released this policy. What would be your reaction?

Annasfield Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do they still suggest testing if the vibrator is > for you by holding it on the end of your nose? Not in the films I've seen.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who say meh. I will hunt you down and sow up your mouth. Meh...

I'm loving that the OP cross-posted this to the Family Room.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Our bin is placed quite close to the front wall. It would be quite possible for a passing hobo to > reach over and bin-dip without placing a foot on the notable front path or trespass on the property > as such. > > Where do we stand on the legality of this? Before we break out the blunderbuss and pepper them both? The bin (well, its contents) is your property, whether it is inside your fence or not. So you can let loose with both barrels. Mind your eminent roses, though.

Frankly, I'd more more worried they'd make a mess.

My missus did one with Imperial College. Don't underestimate how much work it will be. Kiss a majority of your weekends goodbye. She (well, we) paid for it herself, but her work did give her a day off every fortnight, which was invaluable.

The Beeb suggests it is still theft, even if it on the street. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13037808