Peak Guardian.... again

AngryLoner

I think they just lash this stuff up to get the inevitable share-arounds by the incredulous majority....

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/06/upward-thrusting-buildings-ejaculating-cities-sexist-leslie-kern-phallic-feminist-city-toxic-masculinity

Tacitus Kilgore

Ironing, that is all.

KiKi III

AngryLoner wrote: »

I think they just lash this stuff up to get the inevitable share-arounds by the incredulous majority....

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/06/upward-thrusting-buildings-ejaculating-cities-sexist-leslie-kern-phallic-feminist-city-toxic-masculinity

So you saw through their gambit but still fell for it?

Celticfire

We need more deep holes to throw the writers of horse**** like this into.

Is this yer man that did Tatiana McGrath taking the piss again maybe?..

AngryLoner

KiKi III wrote: »

So you saw through their gambit but still fell for it?

I never claimed to be clever

The feminists would have us all living in holes in the ground!!!..

KiKi III

There’s no denying that building in China looks like a cock.

what do you expect, at this rate, the architects will be strung up like the Nuremburg trial. This is all getting to be a sick joke

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/uknews/police-forces-should-immediately-record-misogyny-as-hate-crime-says-campaigner-as-labour-mayors-back-plan/ar-BB16quoW?ocid=msedgntp

Akesh

This is absolutely peak Guardian; Critical theory opinion pieces that are designed to click bait.

It's a shame as The Guardian was a very good paper several years ago. A lot of people blame Katherine Viner but it was going on for a number of years before she became editor.

I don't know why people pay to read the views of those who should be in a mental asylum.

Still waters

Maybe if women were better architects we wouldn't be in this position, get your shìt together ladies, there's more to life than sandwiches and hoovering

Rodney Bathgate

Still waters wrote: »

Maybe if women were better architects we wouldn't be in this position, get your shìt together ladies, there's more to life than sandwiches and hoovering

Correct. Ironing.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

There’s no denying that building in China looks like a cock.

You just have a dirty mind..

Silentcorner

Still waters wrote: »

Maybe if women were better architects we wouldn't be in this position, get your shìt together ladies, there's more to life than sandwiches and hoovering

There was a woman who took a picture of herself and her daughter in front of a newly erected bridge in Florida a few years ago...she posted it on social media expressing how proud she was to participate in the design and engineering of the bridge and how important it was that women are involved in the process....

The bridge collapsed the next day killing 6 people.

Wibbs

"Upward-thrusting buildings ejaculating into the sky – do cities have to be so sexist?"



"That said, our built environments can still reflect patterns of gender-based discrimination. To imagine the city and its structures as neutral places where complicated human social relations are staged is to ignore the simple fact that people built these places."

No petal, you'll find few women on building sites. Men built these places. If she could wire a plug or put up a shelf without "getting a man in" I'd be gobsmacked.

"Our cities are patriarchy written in stone, brick, glass and concrete.”. See above. The "author" then goes even further down her neurotic fearful little rabbit hole hewn from adolescent angst and ivory tower academia. Go ahead, build your "Feminist City", see how far you get and what form would that even take? Hers seems to be down to naming streets after women, gender exclusive(for women. Of course) busses and trains and snow ploughs that do residential areas first. The sheer breadth of her mind is truly humbling... Hey if buildings are so phallic, maybe caves are the answer. The ancients often saw those as the entrances to Mother Earth. Well if you don't have the men doing the actual heavy lifting that's were you may end up, or would have stayed.

the beer revolu

What's even funnier than these ridiculous articles is the hordes of people losing their absolute shlt over them - often displaying some serious misogyny! Quite ironic, really.

bnt

Skyscrapers go up because gravity works in the opposite direction. So, is gravity feminist? Is it sexist to aspire to oppose gravity, rather than embrace Mother Earth?

Wibbs

the beer revolu wrote: »

What's even funnier that these ridiculous articles is the hordes of people losing their absolute shlt over them - often displaying some serious misogyny! Quite ironic, really.

When misandry and the neurotic ramblings of idiots are mainstream fare for well respected news outlets then I figure what's good for the goose and so forth. In my case the overwhelming emotion, if I could stretch to one is "ah bless". And I have no problem with being misogynistic towards morons who happen to be female. They practically invite it, by proving how contemptibly idiotic they are. Never mind they usually push a stereotype of Women™ as weak minded neurotic fools and victims with no agency and no responsibility, while demanding rights and respect for nothing. That's misogyny in my book as outside of a tiny minority of muppets it doesn't begin to reflect the women I know and have known in my life.

Leg End Reject

We built this gender neutral city
We built this gender neutral city
With cocks and holes ...

Earthhorse

People often tell me The Guardian was good years ago and years ago they were telling me The Guardian was good years ago.

There's a certain class of feminists too that are far more obsessed with men's penises than the men who own them ever were.

Leg End Reject

Earthhorse wrote: »

People often tell me The Guardian was good years ago and years ago they were telling me The Guardian was good years ago.

There's a certain class of feminists too that are far more obsessed with men's penises than the men who own them ever were.

As a woman I'd imagine many of the newer feminists would be happier if they were more hands on with the penises, rather than obsessing about them.

AngryLoner

Earthhorse wrote: »

People often tell me The Guardian was good years ago and years ago they were telling me The Guardian was good years ago.

It was a darn good read 20 years ago. It was already on the slide when K Viner took over and set the controls for the heart of the sun...

Risingshadoo

But it's a bridge!?!

JohnnyFlash

CrankyHaus

Still waters wrote: »

Maybe if women were better architects we wouldn't be in this position, get your shìt together ladies, there's more to life than sandwiches and hoovering

Wasn't one of Ireland's greatest architects a woman?
Your one who had Corbusier wreck her gaff in a fit of jealous rage that she was so good.

Wibbs

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Wasn't one of Ireland's greatest architects a woman?
Your one who had Corbusier wreck her gaff in a fit of jealous rage that she was so good.

Eileen Gray. Yep. Fantastic architect(EDIT: and not just architect either. Had the full artistic package going on. An actual genius). There are quite a few great women architects. They're not to be found among the recent Champagne "feminists" of academia though. Rather than whine about the usual intersectional fripperies they actually go and do stuff, build things, make things happen.

CrankyHaus

Wibbs wrote: »

Eileen Gray. Yep. Fantastic architect. There are quite a few great women architects. They're not to be found among the recent Champagne "feminists" of academia though. Rather than whine about the usual intersectional fripperies they actually go and do stuff, build things, make things happen.

Yes. I've come across this "skyscrapers = willies = male ego" nonsense before, from a man. The common denominator is a failure to understand that a natural solution to density is to build up and that correlation does not equal causation; an ignorance more based on "education" in ideological rubbish masquerading as Arts rather than the gender of the person displaying it.

Chris_Heilong

I despise the Guardian so am not giving them a click but I get the gist it is just another article complaining about the world and trying to convince the public they are victims.

Thelonious Monk

They do print some rubbish but still my favourite paper.

milehip

the beer revolu wrote: »

What's even funnier that these ridiculous articles is the hordes of people losing their absolute shlt over them - often displaying some serious misogyny! Quite ironic, really.

OK Karen.

the beer revolu

milehip wrote: »

OK Karen.

I don't think you understand the, "Karen", phenomenon.
But what a burn, all the same. That's me slithering away embarrassed

KiKi III

Wibbs wrote: »

When misandry and the neurotic ramblings of idiots are mainstream fare for well respected news outlets then I figure what's good for the goose and so forth. In my case the overwhelming emotion, if I could stretch to one is "ah bless". And I have no problem with being misogynistic towards morons who happen to be female. They practically invite it, by proving how contemptibly idiotic they are. Never mind they usually push a stereotype of Women™ as weak minded neurotic fools and victims with no agency and no responsibility, while demanding rights and respect for nothing. That's misogyny in my book as outside of a tiny minority of muppets it doesn't begin to reflect the women I know and have known in my life.

Hmmm I think the article is ridiculous but to summarise you’re take here, it sounds like you’re saying “It’s okay to be horrible to people as long as they deserve it.”

Surely we should make fun of silly ideas as much we want without having to direct abuse at people?

Play the ball, not the gender neutral human.

the beer revolu

KiKi III wrote: »

Hmmm I think the article is ridiculous but to summarise you’re take here, it sounds like you’re saying “It’s okay to be horrible to people as long as they deserve it.”

Surely we should make fun of silly ideas as much we want without having to direct abuse at people?

Play the ball, not the gender neutral human.

Completely ridiculous article.

However, wibbs is only misogynistic towards people who deserve it, who happen to be women. :D:D
We have a misogynist who doesn't know what a misogynist is!

Wibbs

KiKi III wrote: »

Hmmm I think the article is ridiculous but to summarise you’re take here, it sounds like you’re saying “It’s okay to be horrible to people as long as they deserve it.”

Surely we should make fun of silly ideas as much we want without having to direct abuse at people?

Play the ball, not the gender neutral human.

The ball is being kicked by the gender neutral human. It doesn't kick itself. And yes it is my opinion that in many circumstances it's ok to be "horrible" to grown arsed adult fcukwits particularly those who think their ordure is rose scented and have a platform to spread it. They're almost never up for changing their minds or any challenge to their mindset, so debate is largely pointless. Though fcukwits tend to have a very low bar for "horrible", either because they consider themselves such delicate creatures or and often with it use that as a way to shut down debate, by running to victimhood and authority because they know they're spouting bloody nonsense.

Wibbs

the beer revolu wrote: »

Completely ridiculous article.

However, wibbs is only misogynistic towards people who deserve it, who happen to be women. :D:D
We have a misogynist who doesn't know what a misogynist is!

Nope. And the burst of smilies does not a self back slapping victory make.

Though to be fair "misogynist" is a moving target of late and again often wheeled out in lieu of cogent argument, or an ability to read when it suits. You must have missed this part: I have no problem with being misogynistic towards morons who happen to be female. They practically invite it, by proving how contemptibly idiotic they are. Never mind they usually push a stereotype of Women™ as weak minded neurotic fools and victims with no agency and no responsibility, while demanding rights and respect for nothing. That's misogyny in my book as outside of a tiny minority of muppets it doesn't begin to reflect the women I know and have known in my life.

If the article had been written by a man, and no doubt I could find similar that were(until a few paragraphs in I thought Leslie was a man), I'd have said the exact same thing. I suppose that would make me "misandrous" too? You are however to feel free to label me a misfcukwitist. I would welcome such a label.

Are you still allowed use the word 'ball'?..

KiKi III

Wibbs wrote: »

The ball is being kicked by the gender neutral human. It doesn't kick itself. And yes it is my opinion that in many circumstances it's ok to be "horrible" to grown arsed adult fcukwits particularly those who their ordure is rose scented and have a platform to spread it. They're almost never up for changing their minds or any challenge to their mindset, so debate is largely pointless. Though fcukwits tend to have a very low bar for "horrible", either because they consider themselves such delicate creatures or and often with it use that as a way to shut down debate, by running to victimhood and authority because they know they're spouting bloody nonsense.

Again, when you boil what you’re saying down, it amounts to “I can be as mean as I want because she started it”. It’s a remarkably childish way of looking at things. You talk about shutting down debate, but being abusive is rarely conducive to any kind of intelligent dialogue.

If you’re upset about misandry (which is a fair point of view), the answer should be to hold both misandrists and misogynists to the same standard and call both unacceptable. The alternative- allowing both on the basis that other happens - gets us nowhere.

KiKi III

Lord Jameson wrote: »

Really? You have to be 'nice' to a woman acting the fool because she's a woman?

Ok but wasn't aware women were that weak.

Not what I said.

2/10

Wibbs

Lord Jameson wrote: »

Really? You have to be 'nice' to a woman acting the fool because she's a woman?

Ok but wasn't aware women were that weak.

They're not, not even close. Indeed I would say in my experience women are less "weak" than men and more adaptable too. But yes essentially what much of so called modern "feminism" is about is just that. It paints Women™ as eternal agentless adolescent victims who should get more leeway because of their gender and it's always the fault of Men™. Essentially it seeks to paint women in quite an old fashioned light as the delicate sex, while demanding "respect" and allowances regardless.

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you still allowed use the word 'ball'?..

So long as it's in the singular.

the beer revolu

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. And the burst of smilies does not a self back slapping victory make.

Though to be fair "misogynist" is a moving target of late and again often wheeled out in lieu of cogent argument, or an ability to read when it suits. You must have missed this part: I have no problem with being misogynistic towards morons who happen to be female. They practically invite it, by proving how contemptibly idiotic they are. Never mind they usually push a stereotype of Women™ as weak minded neurotic fools and victims with no agency and no responsibility, while demanding rights and respect for nothing. That's misogyny in my book as outside of a tiny minority of muppets it doesn't begin to reflect the women I know and have known in my life.

If the article had been written by a man, and no doubt I could find similar that were(until a few paragraphs in I thought Leslie was a man), I'd have said the exact same thing. I suppose that would make me "misandrous" too? You are however to feel free to label me a misfcukwitist. I would welcome such a label.

I didn't miss that part.
It was the bit that displayed that you don't understand the meaning of the word. Thank for quoting it again.

I probably need to explain but I really can't be arsed.

KevRossi

Probably the most female architect ever, Zaha Hadid, had a penchant for designing buildings that looked like a vagina. She was lauded for this by the same people who call skyscrapers 'penile' (Thereby ignoring the raison d'etre of a skyscraper, which is to build as tall as possible on a given piece of land).

This is Zaha Hadid's proposal for a stadium that she designed shortly before her passing in 2016.

Leg End Reject

KiKi III wrote: »

Again, when you boil what you’re saying down, it amounts to “I can be as mean as I want because she started it”. It’s a remarkably childish way of looking at things. You talk about shutting down debate, but being abusive is rarely conducive to any kind of intelligent dialogue.

If you’re upset about misandry (which is a fair point of view), the answer should be to hold both misandrists and misogynists to the same standard and call both unacceptable. The alternative- allowing both on the basis that other happens - gets us nowhere.

Kiki, you took exception to something I posted before and your manner of dealing with it fell far short of intelligent dialogue so that high horse might be going to your head a bit.

Church on Tuesday

I think this author is reading into things way too much here.

Needs to drop the chip on her shoulder. What tripe.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

Not what I said.

A taste of your own medicine perhaps?

Speaking of trademarks...as soon as you're called out on your inconsistencies, you shift the goalposts to suit your narrative.

It has been a spectacular fall from grace for the Guardian. Clickbait articles like that do not deserve the oxygen of publicity. Ignore the "woke" menace and it quickly becomes redundant.

Wibbs

KiKi III wrote: »

Again, when you boil what you’re saying down, it amounts to “I can be as mean as I want because she started it”. It’s a remarkably childish way of looking at things. You talk about shutting down debate, but being abusive is rarely conducive to any kind of intelligent dialogue.

Nope. It's nada to do with they started it, beyond well, someone writes an article in a mainstream outlet. What do they expect? Agreement? A pat on the head? A participation medal? That all opinions are equally valid? That gets us nowhere, because they're not.

If you’re upset about misandry (which is a fair point of view)

I'm glad you consider it so.

the answer should be to hold both misandrists and misogynists to the same standard and call both unacceptable.

I do, however the two accusations are very much a moving target these days, with the former given way more airtime, and it's rarely seen or considered misandrist.

The alternative- allowing both on the basis that other happens - gets us nowhere.

Indeed, but much of current "feminism" does just that. Indeed goes further with the pendulum swing the other way as some form of reparation for past idiocy. Both positions are idiotic and harmful and childish, but one gets far more leeway in the current mainstream and it does nobody any good.

Wibbs

the beer revolu wrote: »

I didn't miss that part.
It was the bit that displayed that you don't understand the meaning of the word. Thank for quoting it again.

I probably need to explain but I really can't be arsed.

AKA I can't, so I'll back out before the risk of any explanation falling flat. But feel free to point out the inaccuracy of my viewpoint that holds that feminism boils down to women are always agentless victims and it's always men's(the patriarchy's) fault.

KevRossi wrote: »

Probably the most female architect ever, Zaha Hadid, had a penchant for designing buildings that looked like a vagina. She was lauded for this by the same people who call skyscrapers 'penile' (Thereby ignoring the raison d'etre of a skyscraper, which is to build as tall as possible on a given piece of land).

This is Zaha Hadid's proposal for a stadium that she designed shortly before her passing in 2016.

I like a lot of her stuff tbh. That stadium looks pretty swish imho. Gaudi was also fond of adding vulvaic and phallic forms into his architecture. There are examples of both working their way into art and architecture from the Stone Age to now.

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A taste of your own medicine perhaps?

Speaking of trademarks...as soon as you're called out on your inconsistencies, you shift the goalposts to suit your narrative.

It has been a spectacular fall from grace for the Guardian. Clickbait articles like that do not deserve the oxygen of publicity. Ignore the "woke" menace and it quickly becomes redundant.

I love the little club of people thanking this post, loving that Bertie got a dig in at me.

Guess what, folks? I am an imperfect person, I don’t always live up to my own ideals, and sometimes I lost my temper.

Well done to those of you this never happens to, I aspire to reach your lofty heights some day.

the beer revolu

Wibbs wrote: »

AKA I can't, so I'll back out before the risk of any explanation falling flat.

If you insist, but it's tiresome.
You claim to only be misogynist towards people who deserve it and happen to be women, well, that isn't misogyny. Disliking a woman for a particular reason (unless that reason is her gender) isn't misogyny. So, yes, I stand by my point that you don't (or perhaps didn't) understand the meaning of the word.

But feel free to point out the inaccuracy of my viewpoint that holds that feminism boils down to women are always agentless victims and it's always men's(the patriarchy's) fault.

Why would I even want to enter into an argument with you on such a viewpoint? I don't agree with all feminist standpoints and have no intention of defending them.
I just find it funny how upset people get over over-the-top feminists and it nearly always comes out with a large whiff of misogyny.

Leg End Reject

It was on topic, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your post when you suggested that intelligent dialogue should be the first resort.

I don't have any issue with a building resembling a penis, not do I see it as a symbol of misogyny and oppression.

One could equally argue that's it represents a vagina, as one is designed to slot into the other.

Edit: This was a response to a swiftly deleted post.

Risingshadoo

KevRossi wrote: »

Probably the most female architect ever, Zaha Hadid, had a penchant for designing buildings that looked like a vagina. She was lauded for this by the same people who call skyscrapers 'penile' (Thereby ignoring the raison d'etre of a skyscraper, which is to build as tall as possible on a given piece of land).

This is Zaha Hadid's proposal for a stadium that she designed shortly before her passing in 2016.

What's the scale for being the most female architect?

That stadium does look like a vagina. I think it's brilliant.

king_of_mayo

It's gotten to the point where there's problems with everything and everyone. It's all bad to some degree.

We need to start fresh. The cities should be torn down, people forced from them. Reset society. A Year Zero if you will.