Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And...the ridiculous footwear that women are

> expected to wear in order to look 'fashionable' is

> the modern day equivalent of foot-binding!


Are men really to blame for that? People can wear whatever they want..

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"

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.

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?

Julie Bindell is an asexual arsehole who hates women who enjoy (mostly heterosexual) sex as she seems to believe the post-modern feminist shit that all heterosexual sex is rape.


And don't get me started on her infantilisation of sex workers, who can never be anything other than a victim in her eyes, despite many sex workers making intelligent choices about their chosen profession and controlling their working environment more than most female workers in mainstream jobs are able to.

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.

Loz, I was really referring to your first post on this thread. People were expressing disdain for the term "yummy mummy", and you responded by suggesting the thread had taken some sort of extreme-feminist turn. And I can't figure out why you thought that.


Didn't mean to drag out the Guardian argument at all..

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.

I often find those that use terms such as being discussed (Yummy Mummy/Tart) don't use it necessarily in the context it is interpreted and many don't truly know (as with the many many many phrases used today whether on the "sexist" or "racist" spectrum) the proper definitions. Agree with me or (most probably) not it becomes slang with not much thought behind it - something casually used as a description of something where by most can understand without much discussion. Are we offended by the use of "chav"? On the surface "chav" is used so loosely yet is offensive below the surface.


Those that tend to be offended by such words then in return make judgments on the individual using it which can be just as inaccurate. A circle difficult to break.

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.

And geography. "Tart" is very commonly used in Liverpool especially by the older generation. "How's your tart?" (meaning your wife or girlfriend) wouldn't raise an eyebrow from said woman.


An older bloke in my then local once said it to me, and then explained it to me when he saw my jaw drop.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
    • Having just been to Co-op to redeem a 50p off Co-op members' card voucher on an item that is now 50p more than it was last week, Tesco can't come soon enough
    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...