Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: SSM Plebiscite (Read 200788 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 27 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #510 –
Quote from: LP – on
Then is it a relevant example you have offered?

People do get in trouble for opening a door, and heterosexual women do harass gay males, just as heterosexual males harass lesbians, they are real world events!

I don't know the answer here Paul, but I do know it's not in that article, and it makes me personally question the worth of Kate Jenkins in the role! It feels to me like a lead-in to positive discrimination, and I never see a forced solution as a viable solution at all!

It is very easy to say "no thank you, I'm ok" when a child offers you their seat. Anything beyond that reflects poorly on the aggressive party and does not in any way invalidate the principle. You can bet that the example you quote of adverse reaction to opening a door would be very rare and isolated. I'm sure most people (male and female) can understand the social norms and would be ok with it. But clearly some women won't like it, and if they have any sense, they can convey their opinion without aggression or negativity, or just let it slide. Seriously, how often would the average woman in an office or other environment have a door held open for her ? And what about women opening the door for other women ? Is that ok ?

Like I said, much ado about nothing.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #511 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
Like I said, much ado about nothing.

Yet the door example is used in mainstream media coverage.

I realize it's probably a media example of absurdity, but it's used in ways beyond that as well.

Maybe I expect too much, but I expect officials to be unambiguous in their commentary, and they should not color statements or editorials with opinion or politics.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #512 –
Kate Jenkins is simply recounting the stories and experiences that she herself has been told. And you do realise that the article you quoted only contains one sentence about gay women being converted, in a piece that is around 1000 words long and covers many other related issues ? And the headline was not chosen by Jenkins.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #513 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
Kate Jenkins is simply recounting the stories and experiences that she herself has been told. And you do realise that the article you quoted only contains one sentence about gay women being converted, in a piece that is around 1000 words long and covers many other related issues ? And the headline was not chosen by Jenkins.

No doubt that is reality PaulP.

But Jenkins carries the banner, she is the torch bearer, and that line is a door left wide open in a pre-prepared article! It's akin to leaving lollies on the bench and telling a room full of children don't touch as you walk out the door!

If she claims the editor was political or malicious, isn't that like blaming the cat for stealing the steak if you leave it unattended on the bench?

Is it simple naivety, or naivety by choice?

I must admit, I do hold people who are in positions of authority and public profile to a higher standard!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #514 –
Quote from: LP – on
No doubt that is reality PaulP.

But Jenkins carries the banner, she is the torch bearer, and that line is a door left wide open in a pre-prepared article!

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with that article. Nothing.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #515 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
People like Kate Jenkins are absolutely in a position to have more knowledge on these things than the average Joe.

You can take virtually any crime, be it white collar, blue collar, virtually any type of negative, anti social behaviour, and men will outnumber women as perpetrators, most of the time by significant margins. The article below is simply the tip of the information iceberg.

My personal view is that the big problem is that current model(s) of masculinity are extremely toxic and serve both men and women very poorly. But that's another topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime

Well said. The 'masculinity models' have been in dire need of overhaul for many centuries. Organised religion has much to answer for... but, as you might say, that's another topic for another day (along with the knuckle dragging machismo cultural influences).

Sorry Spotted One, but I have to disagree with you on, "...and heterosexual women do harass gay males, just as heterosexual males harass lesbians, they are real world events!" Nuh, you'll find far too many hetero males deriding gay women (out of abject ignorance) but seldom will you find hetero women being anything but engaging with gay males. It is one of those cliches that is, in the main, quite true. In fact I believe you'll find that women in general are far more accepting of and engaging with gay men and women (unless they've been indoctrinated by some fundamentalist religious claptrap).
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #516 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with that article. Nothing.

Fair enough PaulP I'll wear that.

I'm really just highlighting a wedge by mirroring the behavior of extremists, the people spoiling for a fight. That is why I posed the question, because the wedge has been provided by someone who job it actually is to smooth the water.

It can be read as inconsequential, as most people not politically motivated will read it that way, but those who are otherwise motivated can choose the opposite. A great example of that is the very choice of headline!

btw., Surveys in print media have suggested up to 85% of readers only read the headline or the first paragraph, the media know this and it forms part of the decision making process.

Am I being unfair?
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"
 

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #517 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
Well said. The 'masculinity models' have been in dire need of overhaul for many centuries. Organised religion has much to answer for... but, as you might say, that's another topic for another day (along with the knuckle dragging machismo cultural influences).

Sorry Spotted One, but I have to disagree with you on, "...and heterosexual women do harass gay males, just as heterosexual males harass lesbians, they are real world events!" Nuh, you'll find far too many hetero males deriding gay women (out of abject ignorance) but seldom will you find hetero women being anything but engaging with gay males. It is one of those cliches that is, in the main, quite true. In fact I believe you'll find that women in general are far more accepting of and engaging with gay men and women (unless they've been indoctrinated by some fundamentalist religious claptrap).

Organised religion has evolved based on anthropocentrism, dualism and patriarchy.  The spirituality that underlies the various religions is actually pretty good IMO.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #518 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
People like Kate Jenkins are absolutely in a position to have more knowledge on these things than the average Joe.

You can take virtually any crime, be it white collar, blue collar, virtually any type of negative, anti social behaviour, and men will outnumber women as perpetrators, most of the time by significant margins. The article below is simply the tip of the information iceberg.

My personal view is that the big problem is that current model(s) of masculinity are extremely toxic and serve both men and women very poorly. But that's another topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime




Produce your statistics on how men try to convert lesbians more than females try to convert males.







"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #520 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
Well said. The 'masculinity models' have been in dire need of overhaul for many centuries. Organised religion has much to answer for... but, as you might say, that's another topic for another day (along with the knuckle dragging machismo cultural influences).

Sorry Spotted One, but I have to disagree with you on, "...and heterosexual women do harass gay males, just as heterosexual males harass lesbians, they are real world events!" Nuh, you'll find far too many hetero males deriding gay women (out of abject ignorance) but seldom will you find hetero women being anything but engaging with gay males. It is one of those cliches that is, in the main, quite true. In fact I believe you'll find that women in general are far more accepting of and engaging with gay men and women (unless they've been indoctrinated by some fundamentalist religious claptrap).

Come again?

Why does religion as a whole cop it when its got nothing to do with the price of fish?

This overarching discussion is a complete red herring.

People are told by their religions to treat others as they would have others treat them and then a bunch of other things to help guide people to act the right way based on free will. Ultimately people are never blind sheep.  They like to make up their own mind, and wont simply "do as they are told".  So you get the good with the bad in religion, and then use statistics that are pretty well skewed towards the rotten bunch of the physically dominant gender (lets face it, it would be in reverse if women had the upper hand, and thats just pure biology talking).


If you look for a reason to perpetuate misandry, you will find it.  The trick is to read between the lines.  The vast majority of males could easily be perpetrators, yet choose not to, even though they have the power to become part of the problem.  The reason they don't is because they ACTUALLY respect people.  The ones who don't are the outliers, and the statistics would show that the majority of issues are perpetrated by the minority of males that are simply abusing their status.

END>

Stop attacking all men, and these arguments gain more ground, but it garners a lot of support in certain circles who just happen to be major misandrists.  My generation of males (born 1982 and beyond) is bearing the brunt of all the old dinosaurs who are the majority of the issue.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #521 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
Well said. The 'masculinity models' have been in dire need of overhaul for many centuries. Organised religion has much to answer for... but, as you might say, that's another topic for another day (along with the knuckle dragging machismo cultural influences).

Sorry Spotted One, but I have to disagree with you on, "...and heterosexual women do harass gay males, just as heterosexual males harass lesbians, they are real world events!" Nuh, you'll find far too many hetero males deriding gay women (out of abject ignorance) but seldom will you find hetero women being anything but engaging with gay males. It is one of those cliches that is, in the main, quite true. In fact I believe you'll find that women in general are far more accepting of and engaging with gay men and women (unless they've been indoctrinated by some fundamentalist religious claptrap).

While I agree in general, the use of an adjective like engaging is very subjective, unless every-time you have witnessed this behavior you have actually asked "the victim" the question to validate that perception. Provocative isn't it, the choice of adjective from a certain perceptive cannot be labeled invalid, but it doesn't mean because it can't be invalidated that it is valid!

The problem with the door opening example, is that there was no protest at the time, the lack of protest wasn't a valid reaction, and no feedback was offered to the persecuted. Thry's point on this matter is very valid. Subjectively I could say the act of opening the door was nothing more than being engaging, yet it was label as offensive because of a personal perspective, and a committee agreed! When or how can that be predicted, it seems chaotic?

That door opening case as an example is just as valid as Jenkins reference to lesbian conversions, are we really free to pick and choose which carries greater weight? It seems arbitrary to discount one and reinforce the other.

It's not right Baggers, no matter whether positive discrimination is the right solution or not!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #522 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
Organised religion has evolved based on anthropocentrism, dualism and patriarchy.  The spirituality that underlies the various religions is actually pretty good IMO.

Couldn't agree more. In the words of Carl Jung, (paraphrased), 'religion gets in the way of spirituality/spiritual experiences.'
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #523 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
...................

People are told by their religions to treat others as they would have others treat them and then a bunch of other things to help guide people to act the right way based on free will. Ultimately people are never blind sheep.  They like to make up their own mind, and wont simply "do as they are told"........
.................

This is a huge topic which is well beyond a footy forum, but at a bare minimum, you need to distinguish between the rank and file and the hierarchy in most religions, because IMO, the gap is huge. What you say about basic respect for others is indeed representative of the rank and file (who "generally" try to do good), not just contemporaneously, but also throughout history, where you had mendicant orders like the Dominicans which were established specifically to go out into the world and help others and generally do good. The church hierarchy is another matter entirely.

 

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #524 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
This is a huge topic which is well beyond a footy forum, but at a bare minimum, you need to distinguish between the rank and file and the hierarchy in most religions, because IMO, the gap is huge. What you say about basic respect for others is indeed representative of the rank and file (who "generally" try to do good), not just contemporaneously, but also throughout history, where you had mendicant orders like the Dominicans which were established specifically to go out into the world and help others and generally do good. The church hierarchy is another matter entirely.

 

Exactly why attacking religion is wrong.  You want to attack the "CLERGY" of SPECIFIC religions and not religion itself.  As an orthodox christian, who donates what I wish, and receives nothing but spirituality in return, I resent anyone lumping religion into one category.  My local priest is a good family man, as the Greek Orthodox Church allows priests to be married and have their own church.  Our priest visits our family and knows and remembers everyone even though he is well into his 70's.  Where people use dogma to their own end, all they show you is how evil people can be.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson