Cuddling is sexist

Old Jakey

Well lads, just a heads up that putting your arm around your girlfriend is now sexist. But hey, even describing her as 'your' girlfriend is probably deeply oppressive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11863757/Is-it-now-sexist-to-put-your-arm-around-your-girlfriends-shoulder.html

Also please don't smile at a woman as that too is sexist

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11463793/I-smiled-at-a-woman.-This-means-Im-a-sexist.html

And women wonder why men think feminism is a joke!

Still would, though.

That's me off the Christmas card lists of the sisterhood. :eek:



P.S. I was referring to Ms. Mirren, not Ms. Proudman.

noway12345

Who is Martin Daubney?

liquoriceall

Except of course Helen Mirren didnt say anything about cuddling....she refered to men in public slinging their arm over their girlfriend like a declaration of ownership!

eviltwin

If it's an article in a newspaper it must be true :rolleyes:

noway12345

I think men shouldn't be so sensitive! Oh no, maybe one of them might an article in a newspaper about me now!

Manach

eviltwin wrote: »

If it's an article in a newspaper it must be true :rolleyes:

As opposed to the hierarchy of trusted sources that, at a guess here, mirror your leanings?

Eugene Norman

I'm more of a hand holding or arm in arm guy myself. Hand on shoulder is fairly possessive alright but some girls like it ( and a reasonable height differential is necessary).

Nowt to do with cuddling. Let the outrage at the outrage stop here.

One eyed Jack

Old Jakey wrote: »

Well lads, just a heads up that putting your arm around your girlfriend is now sexist. But hey, even describing her as 'your' girlfriend is probably deeply oppressive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11863757/Is-it-now-sexist-to-put-your-arm-around-your-girlfriends-shoulder.html

Also please don't smile at a woman as that too is sexist

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11463793/I-smiled-at-a-woman.-This-means-Im-a-sexist.html

And women wonder why men think feminism is a joke!

And some men even wonder if some men swallowing clickbait nonsense like this, only have themselves to thank for making themselves the butt of the joke!

I don't wonder why some men think feminism is a joke, I wonder why they're bothered by it at all?

But then I'm probably one of those sexist old farts who couldn't give a tinkers tit what bee Helen Mirren has in her bonnet this week, nor do I give two fcuks what hackneyed "journalists" are click-baiting about today in the hope that they'll be tweeted, facebooked, linkedin'd, etc.

Honestly, for any man to be bothered by this, I'd suggest a course of 'perspective'.

jjC123

Not once in that article is Helen Mirren quoted as saying "cuddling is sexist"

eviltwin

Manach wrote: »

As opposed to the hierarchy of trusted sources that, at a guess here, mirror your leanings?

Ah well it's the telegraph and so it must be correct then. Must now adjust my thoughts, cuddling bad because feminism. Honestly yis need to get a life and stop making mountains out of molehills. Such a pointless thing to get annoyed over.

strelok

is there a limit to the stupid **** feminists are entitled to say before it's deemed acceptable for a man to go 'hold on, this is ****ing stupid'

****, i asked a question. sorry, i'm obviously over reacting.

noway12345

strelok wrote: »

is there a limit to the stupid **** feminists are entitled to say before it's deemed acceptable for a man to go 'hold on, this is ****ing stupid'

****, i asked a question. sorry, i'm obviously over reacting.

Is there anything a person can say that's pro women that wont have the masculinists outraged?

strelok

noway12345 wrote: »

Is there anything a person can say that's pro women that wont have the masculinists outraged?

declaring that men showing affection for their female partners is an insidious male attempt to control and posses them = pro women

eviltwin

strelok wrote: »

declaring that men showing affection for their female partners is an insidious male attempt to control and posses them = pro women

Only no one actually said that

strelok

eviltwin wrote: »

Only no one actually said that

"“It annoys me when I see men with an arm slung around their girlfriend’s shoulders. It’s like ownership"

noway12345

strelok wrote: »

declaring that men showing affection for their female partners is an insidious male attempt to control and posses them = pro women

This case was ridiculed ages ago. I was talking in general. Masculinists are just angry men outraged at every little thing. Like in this case.

jjC123

strelok wrote: »

is there a limit to the stupid **** feminists are entitled to say before it's deemed acceptable for a man to go 'hold on, this is ****ing stupid'

****, i asked a question. sorry, i'm obviously over reacting.

[fem-uh-nist]
adjective, Sometimes, feministic
1.
advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.

^I'd like to think that the above encapsulates the majority of people and as with any majority of people there are bound to be some idiots/a**holes floating around.

It'd be like if I said "is there any limit on the stupid **** taxpayers are allowed to say". Such a broad group of people that the statement is basically redundant.

strelok

noway12345 wrote: »

This case was ridiculed ages ago. I was talking in general. Masculinists are just angry men outraged at every little thing. Like in this case.

right, so we have to ban bossy (and sassy/fiesty now too apparently), advertisement after advertisemnt after advertisement is the cause of a media ****storm because of feminist outrage, a man wearing a shirt after heading a team that landed a rocket on a comet is enough to almost start world war 3 but masculinists are just angry men outraged at every little thing


the lack of self awareness is ****ing hilarious. this has been the year of impotent feminist rage at the slightest inane provocation.

eviltwin

strelok wrote: »

"“It annoys me when I see men with an arm slung around their girlfriend’s shoulders. It’s like ownership"

Yes, that's not cuddling. Haven't you ever seen a man or woman with the possessive hold of their partner? A cuddle is a sign of affection, your arm slung over your mate is not affectionate. It's easy to tell the difference.

strelok

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes, that's not cuddling. Haven't you ever seen a man or woman with the possessive hold of their partner? A cuddle is a sign of affection, your arm slung over your mate is not affectionate. It's easy to tell the difference.

i suppose it's like pornography, you know it when you see it

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes, that's not cuddling. Haven't you ever seen a man or woman with the possessive hold of their partner? A cuddle is a sign of affection, your arm slung over your mate is not affectionate. It's easy to tell the difference.

Isn't that though surely a matter of opinion? I mean, Helen Mirren is entitled to view me putting my arm around my wife's shoulder whatever way she likes, but her opinion should never be taken that she is correct in her assumption. If it bothers her, then isn't the issue her responsibility, as opposed to her trying to make it my responsibility?

I don't agree with men who make a big deal out of what some woman said today, but I also don't agree that I should have to take what some woman said today, seriously either.

I don't think it's for Helen Mirren, or anyone else for that matter, to ascribe any sort of sinister motivations to simple affectionate gestures. She's a brilliant actress, can she not just be happy with the attention she gets for that much?

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Isn't that though surely a matter of opinion? I mean, Helen Mirren is entitled to view me putting my arm around my wife's shoulder whatever way she likes, but her opinion should never be taken that she is correct in her assumption. If it bothers her, then isn't the issue her responsibility, as opposed to her trying to make it my responsibility?

I don't agree with men who make a big deal out of what some woman said today, but I also don't agree that I should have to take what some woman said today, seriously either.

I don't think it's for Helen Mirren, or anyone else for that matter, to ascribe any sort of sinister motivations to simple affectionate gestures. She's a brilliant actress, can she not just be happy with the attention she gets for that much?

I agree with you. She's entitled to her opinion and whatever she meant is just her opinion. To drag feminists into it as though we all agree with her or will start to agree with her is ridiculous but that's newspapers for you. Maybe she does find cuddling sexist or maybe her comments were taken out of context, either way it's not worth getting annoyed by.

Dial Hard

I daresay that's not pro-women at all; it's ridiculous third/fourth-wave feminism that very few women that I know (and I strongly identify as feminist) have any time for.

Old Jakey

liquoriceall wrote: »

Except of course Helen Mirren didnt say anything about cuddling....she refered to men in public slinging their arm over their girlfriend like a declaration of ownership!

Yeah putting your arm around your gf, what kind of disgusting pig does that?! A boyfriend should obviously walk behind her at distance while holding her shopping.

Brian from Bray

Jaysus, is there anything that isn't sexist these days ?

Wibbs

It should be a rule that actors and actresses are never allowed to speak in public, unless they're parroting the lines of writers and sticking to the script. This goes triple when the subject turns to more intelligent discourse, as it almost inevitably ends badly.

Neon_Lights

I think those who react by speaking out negatively and critically of these kind of articles are weak minded individuals, its a given that they're sensationalist, instead of critiquing what a feminist said you should be out there achieving your own goals. Not sitting in butthurt reading anti men articles.

tritium

So Helen mirren, famous for decrying sexism and ageism in her industry while she basks in her latest 'hottest whatevergenerian' award and collects a paycheck on the back of same has an opinion on something.

No, sorry, can't seem to give a **** about a bit of a serial whiner coming out with self serving rubbish like this. She must have a movie coming out or something

RDM_83 again

eviltwin wrote: »

I agree with you. She's entitled to her opinion and whatever she meant is just her opinion. To drag feminists into it as though we all agree with her or will start to agree with her is ridiculous but that's newspapers for you. Maybe she does find cuddling sexist or maybe her comments were taken out of context, either way it's not worth getting annoyed by.

Well its written up in the Guardian now so you can believe it :rolleyes:
If somebody makes a strong point of self identifying as X, receives considerable positive reception from X'ians when making a previous point about X, and places the point they are making in terms of traditional X'ian analysis.
Its not crazy to think that maybe they do represent a branch of X and are coming from a certain X'ian perspective.

Its only when X is feminism that people get annoyed about this logic, nationalism, republicanism, conservatism, catholicism, Marxism and its ok

One eyed Jack

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Well its written up in the Guardian now so you can believe it :rolleyes:
If somebody makes a strong point of self identifying as X, receives considerable positive reception from X'ians when making a previous point about X, and places the point they are making in terms of traditional X'ian analysis.
Its not crazy to think that maybe they do represent a branch of X and are coming from a certain X'ian perspective.

Its only when X is feminism that people get annoyed about this logic, nationalism, republicanism, conservatism, catholicism, Marxism and its ok

I don't think anyone ever finds broad, sweeping statements acceptable though, which is why Helen Mirren coming out with that sort of stuff is more to do with Helen Mirren, than it has anything to do with feminism. I'd say the same of any other group tbh, my opinion isn't simply a defence of feminism or anything like it. It's a criticism of Helen Mirren's opinion.

Potatoeman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think anyone ever finds broad, sweeping statements acceptable though, which is why Helen Mirren coming out with that sort of stuff is more to do with Helen Mirren, than it has anything to do with feminism. I'd say the same of any other group tbh, my opinion isn't simply a defence of feminism or anything like it. It's a criticism of Helen Mirren's opinion.

Wouldn't it make sense to identify as the type of feminist the person is then, if it's going to be associated with ideals that are unrepresentative.

One eyed Jack

Potatoeman wrote: »

Wouldn't it make sense to identify as the type of feminist the person is then, if it's going to be associated with ideals that are unrepresentative.

That would only make sense if I gave a damn about identity politics (which I don't). Someone basing their opinions on whatever label they identify with, is about as useful to me as people who say things like "as a man", "as a woman", "as a parent", "as a <insert whatever label you like here>". It doesn't lend their opinions any more weight, any more that I think the opinions of one individual represent the opinions of a whole group, any more than I think Pope Frank speaks for, or represents, all Roman Catholics on all issues.

He doesn't, and neither does Helen Mirren speak for all women who identify as feminist. Of course if a person has a beef with feminism, it's easy see why they might want to cast all women who identify as feminist in the same light. But that wouldn't just be stupid, it would be completely and utterly illogical, and I would have no interest in their opinion after that.

It's no different than suggesting that one man, on the basis that he is a man, speaks for, or represents all men.

Potatoeman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would only make sense if I gave a damn about identity politics (which I don't). Someone basing their opinions on whatever label they identify with, is about as useful to me as people who say things like "as a man", "as a woman", "as a parent", "as a <insert whatever label you like here>". It doesn't lend their opinions any more weight, any more that I think the opinions of one individual represent the opinions of a whole group, any more than I think Pope Frank speaks for, or represents, all Roman Catholics on all issues.

He doesn't, and neither does Helen Mirren speak for all women who identify as feminist. Of course if a person has a beef with feminism, it's easy see why they might want to cast all women who identify as feminist in the same light. But that wouldn't just be stupid, it would be completely and utterly illogical, and I would have no interest in their opinion after that.

It's no different than suggesting that one man, on the basis that he is a man, speaks for, or represents all men.

Labels do serve a purpose though. They don't tell you everything about someone but in this case they tell you about their beliefs. In this case feminism doesn't seperate second wave from third which means the label people use doesn't give enough detail of the persons beliefs.

One eyed Jack

Potatoeman wrote: »

Labels do serve a purpose though. They don't tell you everything about someone but in this case they tell you about their beliefs. In this case feminism doesn't seperate second wave from third which means the label people use doesn't give enough detail of the persons beliefs.

The label a person applies to themselves only tells you what that label means to them. It's ludicrous to assume all women who identify as feminist all hold the same beliefs or goals or any of the rest of it.

So what if Helen Mirren identifies as feminist? So does Hillary Clinton, and I have far more time for Hillary than I do for Helen. Why? Because at least when Hillary opens her mouth, she talks far more sense than Helen, and that's why I'm more inclined to pay attention when Hillary speaks about social and political issues, than I'd be inclined to pay any attention when Helen speaks.

They're both lovely to look at and all, but one of them needs to stop talking out of her perfectly formed rear end.

Potatoeman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The label a person applies to themselves only tells you what that label means to them. It's ludicrous to assume all women who identify as feminist all hold the same beliefs or goals or any of the rest of it.

So what if Helen Mirren identifies as feminist? So does Hillary Clinton, and I have far more time for Hillary than I do for Helen. Why? Because at least when Hillary opens her mouth, she talks far more sense than Helen, and that's why I'm more inclined to pay attention when Hillary speaks about social and political issues, than I'd be inclined to pay any attention when Helen speaks.

They're both lovely to look at and all, but one of them needs to stop talking out of her perfectly formed rear end.

Hillary is probably not a great example. She's a populist politician first and whatever form of feminist she currently is second.

The problem with the label now is that there are different waves within it with very different ideals. I don't think everybody has caught up to this as they would probably use more specific terms.

StonyIron

It's a typo - shouldn't it be cuddling is *sexy*?

One eyed Jack

Potatoeman wrote: »

Hillary is probably not a great example. She's a populist politician first and whatever form of feminist she currently is second.

Hillary isn't a great example if you're looking to paint feminism as an idiotic ideology, but she's a great example if you view feminism as an ideology which shows women leadership and confidence. Hillary's got bigger cohones than more of her male counterparts!

That, to me at least, is what feminism should embody - strength, determination and courage among women, and less of the Helen Mirren first world problems type whingefest.

If you look at Hillary's track record in her career path and her personal life, you'll see she embodied the principles of feminism long before she ever became a 'populist politician'.

The problem with the label now is that there are different waves within it with very different ideals. I don't think everybody has caught up to this as they would probably use more specific terms.

That's a problem now with every ideology you'd care to mention, except individualism. Individualism is the same ideology it always was - people only thinking of themselves and what the various identity labels mean to them personally, and therefore how they can use their interpretation of the ideology to further their own agenda and lend an unworthy amount of weight to their otherwise usually ignored opinions.

StonyIron

I think you'll always get people who take an ideology to ridiculous extremes though.

Feminism is something that's very necessary and I'll absolutely stand up for equality.

There are still massive problems with lack of women's rights in various parts of the world and I would include Ireland when it comes to issues around abortion.

However, I'll hold doors, I'll change tyres and I'll cuddle and there's nothing sexist about it!

I hold doors for guys too. I don't think anyone likes a door swung into their face.

Feminism like any other ideology has extremists that abstract something to the point it actually starts to lose its meaning and become a tad scary.

Feminism is supposed to be about empowering women, not about settling an old score by attacking modern men who are probably largely feminists themselves.

Potatoeman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hillary isn't a great example if you're looking to paint feminism as an idiotic ideology, but she's a great example if you view feminism as an ideology which shows women leadership and confidence. Hillary's got bigger cohones than more of her male counterparts! .

She also comes out with things like this:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That, to me at least, is what feminism should embody - strength, determination and courage among women, and less of the Helen Mirren first world problems type whingefest.

If you look at Hillary's track record in her career path and her personal life, you'll see she embodied the principles of feminism long before she ever became a 'populist politician'.

Those are only good traits as long as your cause is just. Third wave feminist could also embody those ideals and still be illogical, hate filled, dishonest and irrational. The above traits are more about empowerment.

The actual definition is:
The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Note that it is only the advocacy of women's rights.

I really don't like the current trend of changing the definitions of words to whatever people personally want them to mean.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a problem now with every ideology you'd care to mention, except individualism. Individualism is the same ideology it always was - people only thinking of themselves and what the various identity labels mean to them personally, and therefore how they can use their interpretation of the ideology to further their own agenda and lend an unworthy amount of weight to their otherwise usually ignored opinions.

Individualism is a core value of liberalism. Which isn't as present in the left anymore as there seem to be a growing number of authoritarians. Many of these people still would describe themselves as liberal or part of the liberal left.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

It should be a rule that actors and actresses are never allowed to speak in public, unless they're parroting the lines of writers and sticking to the script. This goes triple when the subject turns to more intelligent discourse, as it almost inevitably ends badly.

This rule really should have been enforced after Jenny McCarthy started peddling her views on vaccinations!

Cold War Kid

Old Jakey wrote: »

Well lads, just a heads up that putting your arm around your girlfriend is now sexist. But hey, even describing her as 'your' girlfriend is probably deeply oppressive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11863757/Is-it-now-sexist-to-put-your-arm-around-your-girlfriends-shoulder.html

Also please don't smile at a woman as that too is sexist

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11463793/I-smiled-at-a-woman.-This-means-Im-a-sexist.html

And women wonder why men think feminism is a joke!

I'd safely assume most women agree that the above particular brand of feminism is a joke.

Cold War Kid

strelok wrote: »

is there a limit to the stupid **** feminists are entitled to say before it's deemed acceptable for a man to go 'hold on, this is ****ing stupid'

****, i asked a question. sorry, i'm obviously over reacting.

In fairness, who are you talking to? Men (and women) do regularly say "Hold on, this is ****ing stupid" about nonsense like what Mirren said, and more power to them/us.

One eyed Jack

Potatoeman wrote: »

She also comes out with things like this:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.

And what of it like? Honestly? If you think she's talking a load of crap, you can safely ignore it, you're not under any obligation to take her opinion seriously, just like you're under no obligation to take Helen Mirren seriously. Do they represent the views of all women who identify as feminist when they speak? Of course they don't.

Those are only good traits as long as your cause is just. Third wave feminist could also embody those ideals and still be illogical, hate filled, dishonest and irrational. The above traits are more about empowerment.

You speak as though feminism, modern feminism, third or fourth wave feminism is actually one homogeneous group, like when one speaks, they speak for all or something. As convenient and all as it is for you to try and paint it that way, that sort of rationale only reflects worse on you personally than it does on the person you're attempting to criticize as though they represent the opinions of all women who identify as feminist.

How is that any different from some wagon who comes out with the "all men are bastards" nonsense, like "all feminists are nutbars"? They aren't anything like it. There's a mere handful of media headline grabbers that the media actually love to use to whip up an oul bit of "outrage", but other than that, do you think anyone really gives a fcuk?

The actual definition is:
The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Note that it is only the advocacy of women's rights.

Nothing new there? Feminism advocating for the rights and welfare of women, grand, as it should be. Helen Mirren coming out and suggesting that men putting their arms around women's shoulders is a sign of ownership? Whatever sweetheart, grow up! :rolleyes:

I really don't like the current trend of changing the definitions of words to whatever people personally want them to mean.

"Current" trend? Language has been evolving for millennia, people changed the definition of words to suit themselves all the time. The word "gay" used to mean "happy", and for years I used call myself "curiousguy" on forums and wonder why the fcuk was I being bombarded by gay men! Took me a while to cop that one :pac:

Individualism is a core value of liberalism. Which isn't as present in the left anymore as there seem to be a growing number of authoritarians. Many of these people still would describe themselves as liberal or part of the liberal left.

Words change, the definition of words changes, but people throughout history have been pretty consistent for the most part - some people are just arseholes that want to impose their will upon other people, and all that differs is the ideology they appropriate to do so. Many more people simply don't care about the ideologies, and are more focused on the opinions expressed rather than what ideology fuels that person's opinion.

Potatoeman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And what of it like? Honestly? If you think she's talking a load of crap, you can safely ignore it, you're not under any obligation to take her opinion seriously, just like you're under no obligation to take Helen Mirren seriously. Do they represent the views of all women who identify as feminist when they speak? Of course they don't.

You singled her out as a great feminist example. I simply replied with a quote from her. Which highlighted her lack concern for the people that lose their lives during war.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You speak as though feminism, modern feminism, third or fourth wave feminism is actually one homogeneous group, like when one speaks, they speak for all or something. As convenient and all as it is for you to try and paint it that way, that sort of rationale only reflects worse on you personally than it does on the person you're attempting to criticize as though they represent the opinions of all women who identify as feminist.

How is that any different from some wagon who comes out with the "all men are bastards" nonsense, like "all feminists are nutbars"? They aren't anything like it. There's a mere handful of media headline grabbers that the media actually love to use to whip up an oul bit of "outrage", but other than that, do you think anyone really gives a fcuk?

They are all part of the same group. They are not representative of all the subsections of that group though.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nothing new there? Feminism advocating for the rights and welfare of women, grand, as it should be. Helen Mirren coming out and suggesting that men putting their arms around women's shoulders is a sign of ownership? Whatever sweetheart, grow up! :rolleyes:

Yes but it also means it is not about equality between the sexes. It's why feminist organisations will actively fight against changes to things like fathers custody rights, paternity test and anything else that might favour women.

So when people say "I'm a feminist because I believe in equality" it's not technically accurate as it's only for equality for women in area's where they are disadvantaged.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"Current" trend? Language has been evolving for millennia, people changed the definition of words to suit themselves all the time. The word "gay" used to mean "happy", and for years I used call myself "curiousguy" on forums and wonder why the fcuk was I being bombarded by gay men! Took me a while to cop that one :pac:

Words change, the definition of words changes, but people throughout history have been pretty consistent for the most part - some people are just arseholes that want to impose their will upon other people, and all that differs is the ideology they appropriate to do so. Many more people simply don't care about the ideologies, and are more focused on the opinions expressed rather than what ideology fuels that person's opinion.

They change because they are widely accepted as changing in meaning. This does not mean that you get to change them yourself anytime and expect people to know what you mean. It's like misogyny being used instead of sexist. Anytime I hear that now I don't assume anything as it could mean any number of things.