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

    • But all those examples sell a wide variety of things,  and mostly they are well spread out along Lordship Lane. These two shops both sell one very specific thing, albeit in different flavours, and are just across the road from each other. I don't think you can compare the distribution of shops in Roman times to the distribution of shops in Lordship Lane in the twenty first century. Well, you can, but it doesn't feel very appropriate. Haa anybody asked the first shop how they feel? Are they happy about the "healthy competition" ?
    • ED is included in the 17 August closure set (or just possibly 15 August, depending on which part of the page you trust more) listed at https://metro.co.uk/2025/07/25/full-list-25-poundland-stores-confirmed-close-august-23753048/. Here incidentally are some snippets from their annual reports, at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02495645/filing-history. 2022: " during the period we opened 41 stores and closed 43 loss-making/under-performing stores.  At the period-end we were trading from 821 stores in the UK, IoM and ROI. ... "We renogotiated 82 leases in the year, saving on average 45% versus the prior lease agreement..." 2023: "We also continued to improve our market footprint through sourcing better store locations, opening 53 and closing 51 stores during the year." 2024:  "The ex-Wilco stores acquired in the prior year have formed a core part of this strategy to expand our store network.  We favour quality over quantity and during the period we opened 84 stores and closed 71 loss-making/under-performing ones."
    • Ha! After I posted this, I thought of lots more examples. Screwfix and the hardware store? Mrs Robinson and Jumping Bean? Chemists, plant shops, hairdressers...  the list goes on... it's good to have healthy competition  Ooooh! Two cheese shops
    • You've got a point.  Thinking Leyland and Screwfix too but this felt different.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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