Catcalling is now a 'hate crime' - UK Police Force

Elliott S · 20-07-2016 11:50PM

Smondie wrote: »

If you read a bit further you will see someone else made that point and I pulled up more recent examples to show the same.

Yep, even with those examples, they are a tiny, tiny percentage of the female equivalents. Fill a sink with water. Put a drop of dye in. The drop of dye represents the male percentage, the sink of water the female.

Men should be more concerned about all the ads that represent them as blithering idiots. That's a far greater problem.

darkpagandeath · 20-07-2016 11:52PM

Elliott S wrote: »

Yep, even with those examples, they are a tiny, tiny percentage of the female equivalents. Fill a sink with water. Put a drop of dye in. The drop of dye represents the male percentage, the sink of water the female.

Men should be more concerned about all the ads that represent them as blithering idiots. That's a far greater problem.

Have you looked at women's magazines ?

Smondie · 20-07-2016 11:52PM

Elliott S wrote: »

Yep, even with those examples, they are a tiny, tiny percentage of the female equivalents. Fill a sink with water. Put a drop of dye in. The drop of dye represents the male percentage, the sink of water the female.

Men should be more concerned about all the ads that represent them as blithering idiots. That's a far greater problem.

Can you give any examples of ads were men are leering at women's breasts for humour, or men are watching a woman undress?

I agree with you second point

FortySeven · 20-07-2016 11:53PM

Elliott S wrote: »

Yep, even with those examples, they are a tiny, tiny percentage of the female equivalents. Fill a sink with water. Put a drop of dye in. The drop of dye represents the male percentage, the sink of water the female.

Men should be more concerned about all the ads that represent them as blithering idiots. That's a far greater problem.

Anyone else notice how many advert 'families' are lacking fathers?

TSMGUY · 20-07-2016 11:55PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv3qPM8BLdE

Smondie · 20-07-2016 11:56PM

FortySeven wrote: »

Anyone else notice how many advert 'families' are lacking fathers?

It's not socially acceptable to show the nuclear family of two parents of opposite sexes and children. You'd piss some of the special snowflake groups, so we've got to be diverse :

darkpagandeath · 20-07-2016 11:59PM

Smondie wrote: »

It's not socially acceptable to show the nuclear family of two parents of opposite sexes and children. You'd piss some of the special snowflake groups, so we've got to be diverse :

It's fine is it not if it Inter Racial I thought though.

21-07-2016 12:00AM

FortySeven wrote: »

Anyone else notice how many advert 'families' are lacking fathers?

Western society tends to favour the mother regardless of how well or suitable a parents she might be. It's a very much ingrained image in advertising, films, books, you name it. When it comes to children it will be the mother at the helm.

You can say it is discriminatory against men but I think there is something different at play. I'm just not sure what that is. Archetype is what comes to mind but that doesn't seem accurate either.

FortySeven · 21-07-2016 12:01AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Western society tends to favour the mother regardless of how well or suitable a parents she might be. It's a very much ingrained image in advertising, films, books, you name it. When it comes to children it will be the mother at the helm.

You can say it is discriminatory against men but I think there is something different at play. I'm just not sure what that is. Archetype is what comes to mind but that doesn't seem accurate either.

Matriarchy!

TSMGUY · 21-07-2016 12:03AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Western society tends to favour the mother regardless of how well or suitable a parents she might be. It's a very much ingrained image in advertising, films, books, you name it. When it comes to children it will be the mother at the helm.

You can say it is discriminatory against men but I think there is something different at play. I'm just not sure what that is. Archetype is what comes to mind but that doesn't seem accurate either.

Women are the main purchasers in households. It's purely economic. Advertisers don't have a social agenda. When it was profitable to be racist/sexist, they were. Now it's profitable to be progressive. That's all it is and all it ever has been. I'm mixed and my mum always says "Awww, isn't it great they have more mixed people on TV!" and I'm just thinking no, we're only being used because we're in "fashion." It's all very cynical.

21-07-2016 12:04AM

Anyways there are always going to be people with an axe to grind muddying the waters. Men who have been treatment badly and tar all women with the same brush, developing deep seated resentment and frustration as they go along. Women who have been hurt and assume all men are bàstards and should be treated with contempt or as idiots.

21-07-2016 12:06AM

TSMGUY wrote: »

Women are the main purchasers in households. It's purely economic. Advertisers don't have a social agenda. When it was profitable to be racist/sexist, they were. Now it's profitable to be progressive. That's all it is and all it ever has been. I'm mixed and my mum always says "Awww, isn't it great they have more mixed people on TV!" and I'm just thinking no, we're only being used because we're in "fashion." It's all very cynical.

Yes I take that point but I think it is something deeper than economics. It could be perhaps that it is the woman who carries the child in the womb and is the first parent to connect with the child upon birth. That is an experience no man will ever ever have.

darkpagandeath · 21-07-2016 12:06AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyways there are always going to be people with an axe to grind muddying the waters. Men who have been treatment badly and tar all women with the same brush, developing deep seated resentment and frustration as they go along. Women who have been hurt and assume all men are bàstards and should be treated with contempt or as idiots.

Aye but SJW get more oxygen than white men.

darkpagandeath · 21-07-2016 12:07AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I take that point but I think it is something deeper than economics. It could be perhaps that it is the woman who carries the child in the womb and is the first parent to connect with the child upon birth. That is an experience no man will ever ever have.

Giving birth is not special and makes one no more qualified to parent.

TSMGUY · 21-07-2016 12:10AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I take that point but I think it is something deeper than economics. It could be perhaps that it is the woman who carries the child in the womb and is the first parent to connect with the child upon birth. That is an experience no man will ever ever have.

The judicial system is biased in favour of women but as far as advertising goes it's purely based around money. It's not like Mad Men. There's no element of creativity. It's just "how can we maximize turnover from this demographic?" and they'll do anything to achieve that. Companies don't have ideologies or "beliefs", they just have one big fat PROFIT MOTIVE.

mdwexford · 21-07-2016 12:11AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Giving birth is not special and makes one no more qualified to parent.

It is.

21-07-2016 12:13AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Giving birth is not special and makes one no more qualified to parent.

Oh it absolutely doesn't make a good mother out of a bad one simply because she gave birth to the child. We have all heard of awful cases where mothers tortured and murdered their children or stayed silent while abuse was occurring under their noses.

However I do believe that for the most part carrying a child and giving birth creates an opportunity for a bond and connection which can't be easily replicated. Now of course like I said above, that opportunity isn't always nurtured and acted upon in the best way for the child.

darkpagandeath · 21-07-2016 12:14AM

mdwexford wrote: »

It is.

How long do you reckon homo sapiens as a species have being delivering babies ?

mdwexford · 21-07-2016 12:15AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How long do you reckon homo sapiens as a species have being delivering babies ?

Don't know.

TSMGUY · 21-07-2016 12:16AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How long do you reckon homo sapiens as a species have being delivering babies ?

Rhetorical questions are being made a hate crime. Please refrain from hurting others' feelings:rolleyes:

FortySeven · 21-07-2016 12:16AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Anyways there are always going to be people with an axe to grind muddying the waters. Men who have been treatment badly and tar all women with the same brush, developing deep seated resentment and frustration as they go along. Women who have been hurt and assume all men are bàstards and should be treated with contempt or as idiots.

Simplistic view I think. My own eyes were opened to injustice when I was put through the mill. It didn't leave me viewing all women as demons but I quickly learned how unrepresented men are.

Most men are angry at a system that ****s them over without appeal. Some can understandably focus that anger against all women. Plenty don't.

Once your head goes down the rabbit hole though, it's not pretty what miklitant feminism is trying to do and it's getting harder even for normal feminists to not call it out.

darkpagandeath · 21-07-2016 12:16AM

mdwexford wrote: »

Don't know.

A very very long time why I said it's not special.

21-07-2016 12:19AM

FortySeven wrote: »

Simplistic view I think. My own eyes were opened to injustice when I was put through the mill. It didn't leave me viewing all women as demons but I quickly learned how unrepresented men are.

Most men are angry at a system that ****s them over without appeal. Some can understandably focus that anger against all women. Plenty don't.

Once your head goes down the rabbit hole though, it's not pretty what miklitant feminism is trying to do and it's getting harder even for normal feminists to not call it out.

I didn't say this is the case for every hurt man and woman out there. But it is something which exists.

mdwexford · 21-07-2016 12:19AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

A very very long time why I said it's not special.

How does that make it less special.

I've been **** a very long time and it's still special every time.

FortySeven · 21-07-2016 12:20AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes I take that point but I think it is something deeper than economics. It could be perhaps that it is the woman who carries the child in the womb and is the first parent to connect with the child upon birth. That is an experience no man will ever ever have.

I was first contact with my son. The nurse opened my shirt and put him on my chest as my partner couldn't. I was also the first person my kids saw every morning for 9 years.

Plenty childrenn grow up with surrogacy or adoption without knowing the difference.

darkpagandeath · 21-07-2016 12:21AM

mdwexford wrote: »

How does that make it less special.

I've been **** a very long time and it's still special every time.

Oh the act within those participating is special. But Giving birth in a wider context is not. Or we would have died out long ago.

TSMGUY · 21-07-2016 12:22AM

mdwexford wrote: »

How does that make it less special.

I've been **** a very long time and it's still special every time.

LOL, what a left-field analogy.

definition of special

better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.

By definition, giving birth is the opposite of special, it's universal and commonplace.

21-07-2016 12:27AM

FortySeven wrote: »

I was first contact with my son. The nurse opened my shirt and put him on my chest as my partner couldn't. I was also the first person my kids saw every morning for 9 years.

Plenty childrenn grow up with surrogacy or adoption without knowing the difference.

I can't comment on your situation but I assure you that adoption leaves a psychological impact upon the child. It can depend on a number of factors however it does exist and I have the research to back it up.

FortySeven · 21-07-2016 12:35AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can't comment on your situation but I assure you that adoption leaves a psychological impact upon the child. It can depend on a number of factors however it does exist and I have the research to back it up.

I don't question that. Out of interest though, what about those that are adopted as babies and never told? I think the broken bond idea comes through knowledge.

21-07-2016 12:41AM

FortySeven wrote: »

I don't question that. Out of interest though, what about those that are adopted as babies and never told? I think the broken bond idea comes through knowledge.

Unfortunately not. Or at least not in my experiences. It can manifest as a feeling of being incomplete, as something missing. There may be difficulty forming healthy attachments as children and adults. I have heard of adopted people who get to adulthood before finding put and when they do it being a kind of 'aha' moment for them. Suddenly so much makes sense.

The trauma that adoption can leave is underestimated and misunderstood. Actually not telling a child they are adopted goes against good parenting and all research carried out. It is a huge deceit.

Catcalling is now a 'hate crime' - UK Police Force

Comments