Pet Hates!

[Teabags]

Yes

[waltz]

Kinda says it all when one of the few regular female posters on this website is told what to think about sexism by loads of dudes.

[Alkaline]

Kinda says it all when one of the few regular female posters on this website is told what to think about sexism by loads of dudes.

That's completely unfair. We're allowed opinions on it too. Nobodies saying she's wrong either.

[colb]

Kinda says it all when one of the few regular female posters on this website is told what to think about sexism by loads of dudes.

Kinda says it all when someone takes the stance that only women can have a valid opinion on sexism.....

[waltz]

I just don't understand this whole "woe is me, what about men?!" argument. Come on. Patriarchy has existed as long as time has. There are communities of insects better at sharing power between genders. I don't buy into the idea that men have any right to complain about sexism to the same degree whatsoever. If it's happened to you, fair enough, and I'm not at all denying that female-on-male sexism exists but does it really affect you to the extent that Kirsten's example of fairly typical, everyday sexism worked you into that much of a lather?

We've created a culture where it's okay to joke about rape. Where boardrooms are still dominated by men. Where advertising is still used to belittle and objectify women. Where the comparative percentage of female politicians to male politicians is laughable. Where almost every woman I know has at least 3 or 4 stories of being groped, harassed or made to feel unsafe by men.

Kirsten gave one example of a sexist incident, and why she hated it. And what happened? A bunch of men just jumped on it to argue about the ideology of feminism. Even going as far as saying there's no need for it. I mean...? You're saying men are allowed opinions too but the forcefulness of the debate, and the fact Kirsten had to explain what annoyed her about A WOMAN BEING GROPED?! Ridiculous.

I realise the irony of another man throwing his two cents in, I just can't believe it's not a given that sexism exists, is shit, and that's that.

[Alkaline]

I just don't understand this whole "woe is me, what about men?!" argument. Come on. Patriarchy has existed as long as time has. There are communities of insects better at sharing power between genders. I don't buy into the idea that men have any right to complain about sexism to the same degree whatsoever. If it's happened to you, fair enough, and I'm not at all denying that female-on-male sexism exists but does it really affect you to the extent that Kirsten's example of fairly typical, everyday sexism worked you into that much of a lather?

We've created a culture where it's okay to joke about rape. Where boardrooms are still dominated by men. Where advertising is still used to belittle and objectify women. Where the comparative percentage of female politicians to male politicians is laughable. Where almost every woman I know has at least 3 or 4 stories of being groped, harassed or made to feel unsafe by men.

Kirsten gave one example of a sexist incident, and why she hated it. And what happened? A bunch of men just jumped on it to argue about the ideology of feminism. Even going as far as saying there's no need for it. I mean...? You're saying men are allowed opinions too but the forcefulness of the debate, and the fact Kirsten had to explain what annoyed her about A WOMAN BEING GROPED?! Ridiculous.

I realise the irony of another man throwing his two cents in, I just can't believe it's not a given that sexism exists, is shit, and that's that.

I think we all agree that sexism is bad, in fact I'm pretty sure nobody has said to the contrary.

I came in more to Kirsten's reaction against the woman groping the guys ass and the fact that it was almost dismissive. At no point have I said that the her original pet hate wasn't justified.

Who said there's no need for feminism?

[kirsten]

I came in more to Kirsten's reaction against the woman groping the guys ass and the fact that it was almost dismissive. At no point have I said that the her original pet hate wasn't justified.

 

Jesus, I was going to stop posting about all this, but fuck that. How was I dismissive of it? I posted about something I witnessed that angered me, in a thread designed for people to share things that make them angry. Someone else asked me a about similarities with something that happened to them and I acknowledged it but obviously didn't pass comment on it because I WASN'T THERE. Was that being a sensitive fucking emotional woman? Was that being "OTT"?

Phil, you are so infuriating, I can never actually tell what your argument is, you change it that often. First you turned a POST ABOUT A PET HATE IN THE PET HATES THREAD into a question of "why does it matter that it happened to a woman?" Maybe this was, at first, you intending to play devil's advocate a little, but then you actually appear to be shocked when later I said I feel like I'm having to justify that sexism exists. You are the dismissive one. You looked at my first post and thought "Hey, rather than accept that this was an upsetting thing for someone to witness (let alone for the woman who actually had to endure being touched), I'm going to lead this in a direction where I can make a glib point about men's rights and try and make someone else feel like an asshole because the world doesn't actually just accept people as people" Then when someone new to the discussion challenges you as well, you change the argument again: "I was just pointing out that Kirsten was being dismissive." If that's the case, why didn't you, after my response to Skacel say "Oh, I feel you've been a bit dismissive there." Actually, why didn't you say that in any of your posts over the last couple of days?

Fortunately before now I don't think I've been involved in having anything that could even loosely be described as a debate with you on here, but I've seen enough of what you've written when arguing with others to come to know that there's really no point. In fact, I'm pissed off at myself that I've ended up replying again when I was just going to leave it where it was.

[Woodsinho]

It's almost like it's a deliberate ploy to wind people up. To make statements in such a way as to appear argumentative while still giving enough wriggle room to be able to say that there is no argument occurring. That's probably a pet hate of mine.

[Alkaline]

Jesus, I was going to stop posting about all this, but fuck that. How was I dismissive of it? I posted about something I witnessed that angered me, in a thread designed for people to share things that make them angry. Someone else asked me a about similarities with something that happened to them and I acknowledged it but obviously didn't pass comment on it because I WASN'T THERE. Was that being a sensitive fucking emotional woman? Was that being "OTT"?

Phil, you are so infuriating, I can never actually tell what your argument is, you change it that often. First you turned a POST ABOUT A PET HATE IN THE PET HATES THREAD into a question of "why does it matter that it happened to a woman?" Maybe this was, at first, you intending to play devil's advocate a little, but then you actually appear to be shocked when later I said I feel like I'm having to justify that sexism exists. You are the dismissive one. You looked at my first post and thought "Hey, rather than accept that this was an upsetting thing for someone to witness (let alone for the woman who actually had to endure being touched), I'm going to lead this in a direction where I can make a glib point about men's rights and try and make someone else feel like an asshole because the world doesn't actually just accept people as people" Then when someone new to the discussion challenges you as well, you change the argument again: "I was just pointing out that Kirsten was being dismissive." If that's the case, why didn't you, after my response to Skacel say "Oh, I feel you've been a bit dismissive there." Actually, why didn't you say that in any of your posts over the last couple of days?

Fortunately before now I don't think I've been involved in having anything that could even loosely be described as a debate with you on here, but I've seen enough of what you've written when arguing with others to come to know that there's really no point. In fact, I'm pissed off at myself that I've ended up replying again when I was just going to leave it where it was.

Apologies if I didn't make that clear, I haven't changed my side of the debate at all, my points remain the same. Anyway, as I've said, it wasn't the thing that pissed you off that I had a problem with as I 100% agree with you that it was shit though it doesn't matter whether that person was a man or a woman in my opinion.

Sorry for being infuriating

[Adam Easy Wishes]

You never apologise when you're arguing with a man.

[Alkaline]

It's almost like it's a deliberate ploy to wind people up. To make statements in such a way as to appear argumentative while still giving enough wriggle room to be able to say that there is no argument occurring. That's probably a pet hate of mine.

That's not fair, while I'm as guilty as everyone else on here for winding people up this was a genuine attempt to open a discussion about gender labelling/sexism/feminism etc and whilst it maybe wasn't the correct thread for it, it isn't something that's not worth discussing just because my (and others) opinions differ from those of the original poster.

The latter is definitely a pet hate of mine on here.

[Alkaline]

You never apologise when you're arguing with a man.

Yeah, I'm not sure that's true but it probably makes me misogynistic or something...

[Soda Jerk]

Nothing to do with sexism, but what's the deal with trailers, for trailers? I saw an advert today, advertising that a trailer is coming soon. WOT?

 

Recently I also saw a REVIEW of a trailer on Youtube.

 

This needs to stop.

[James Broonbreed]

Trailers for games too, where there's zero in game footage. Waste of fuckin' time.

[Scootray]

Pretty sure we have a gender inequality thread somewhere.

My pet hate is that it's not being used.

Or that one has yet to be created. Or that mods have stopped being so heavy handed and haven't created it yet.

[kirsten]

Come on now, it kept Moon Moon out for a few days.

[Murrr]

Don't try to tell me that Moon Moon's take on this issue wouldn't be absolute GOLD. 

[kirsten]

I was genuinely hoping he'd weigh in at some point.

[Moon Moon]

Well if they have a fine ass they have a fine ass. Nothing else to say. I tend to stay away from topics with long replies needed. Soz guys.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Moon Moon

[Surfer_Rosa]

Well if they have a fine ass they have a fine ass. Nothing else to say. I tend to stay away from topics with long replies needed. Soz guys.

[fatboy]

people at work who don't have the common courtesy to say hello/morning/fit like? to each you when you arrive at work, when you ask them you are met with a death glare or even better completely ignored

[Old Gold]

It sounds like they pure hate you.

[Soda Jerk]

people at work who don't have the common courtesy to say hello/morning/fit like? to each you when you arrive at work, when you ask them you are met with a death glare or even better completely ignored

 

Manners are dead. The two young girls in my office just don't seem to know how to converse with people politely. Colleagues will make small talk with them, and they just mumble irritably, no eye contact. Or they just sit with earbuds in, so people cant communicate with them, in an office where communication is quite essential.

 

Rude young people. A bit of national service will sort 'em.

[Moon Moon]

 

Rude young people. A bit of national service will sort 'em.

not this again

[britheguy]

hard pears