The_Kew_Tour wrote: » Did she actually say that? At this stage I would not be surprised
"You really can't compare the two as female nudity and male nudity are treated in such different way. Male nudity won't have the same negative impact on a man's social standing. "There isn't the same amount of shame attached to male sexuality as there is to female sexuality. We have been shamed and silenced for hundreds of years and we carry that history with us. "There is no point in comparing the two as the impact and the consequences are completely unequal for men and women for having photos shared."
BA pays damages to passenger who was moved A male passenger who claimed British Airways discriminated against him has received an apology and compensation from the airline. Mirko Fischer, 33, was told to move after he swapped seats with his wife so she could sit next to the window and ended up sitting next to a boy he did not know. BA's policy for unaccompanied minors stipulates that adult males travelling alone cannot sit next to children flying on their own. The policy is currently under review, a BA spokesman said. Mr Fischer was travelling from London to his home in Luxembourg when cabin crew intervened during the flight in April last year. He accused staff of harassing him and claimed the policy contravened the Sex Discrimination Act. Mr Fischer said he felt "embarrassed, humiliated and angry" while BA initially said when staff made the request for him to return to his allocated seat they genuinely believed he was travelling alone. BA and Mr Fischer, who was represented by Daniel Tivadar, of 3 Hare Court, agreed an out-of-court settlement yesterday. The airline is understood to have admitted sex discrimination in Mr Fischer's case and agreed to pay £750 in damages and £2,161 in costs. Mr Fischer donated the damages payout and more than £2,000 of his own money to the child protection charities Kidscape and Orphans in the Wild, the BBC reported. A BA spokesman said: "We are pleased to have settled this matter with Mr Fischer and are sorry for any difficulties which were caused."
py2006 wrote: » I think at this stage these articles from her are deliberate. Possibly reactionary to what we are saying on here
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Yup: Or how about that in Ireland if two 15-year-olds have sex, the boy has just committed a criminal act but the girl will not.
ivytwine wrote: » I think the poor crater was being blackmailed by criminals from abroad, rather than a woman. Horrible case.
deaddonkey15 wrote: » Yes but my understanding is that the boy was initially encouraged by a female as part of the gang to send/record nude content which was then used to blackmail him. It happened to a GAA player too: http://www.thejournal.ie/gaa-star-online-sex-scam-2791418-May2016/
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » A girl may not be convicted of having sex, if she is under 17, only on the basis of that supposed crime-ie having sex. Same with the guy-he also would not be convicted. That area of the law is in relation to having sex with someone who is over the age of 17-ie a child having sex with an older person. But if the girl had been coercive, maybe even using force, then that would be grounds for a conviction. Also, if she had molested a significantly younger child, again, grounds for a conviction.
Man loses 'Romeo & Juliet' law challenge The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge against the law under which a 15-year-old boy was charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl. His lawyers had argued that the law should be overturned because it allowed for the prosecution of teenage boys for having sex with teenage girls but prevented prosecution of the girls. The High Court ruled against him and this morning, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision. The case was described as a challenge to the so-called "Romeo and Juliet" legislation. Section 3 of the Act created an offence of defilement of a child under 17 and provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison. Section 5 of the Act states a girl under 17 cannot be guilty of such an offence. The High Court ruled that while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not disproportionate because the risk of pregnancy is born by girls only. Chief Justice Ms Justice Susan Denham said section 5 of the act excluded the girl from criminal liability when the offence was sexual intercourse.
py2006 wrote: » She must know at this stage that she is clickbait
orubiru wrote: » This seems like such a pointless exercise. Why would anyone even think this article is a good idea and not see how it damages their own movement? Right so we set things up such that "Sexist" is about one of the worst things you can be. OK. Next we produce a rationalization that says a woman can behave EXACTLY like a sexist but you can't call her a sexist because it's different. Can someone explain to me how this is not a classic bullying and/or gaslighting tactic? I'm thinking of a situation where like a manager gives you an official reprimand because you were an hour late for work and gives a different employee an unofficial warning because they were "60 minutes" late and the company rule book clearly only states that being "one hour" late is punishable. It's unfair treatment. What is the point of writing an article trying to justify this? Does she not see how it makes her look like a sneaky little bully? Trying to justify being a terrible person based on a technicality. Yeah, you guys, I know I am acting like a sexist and talking like a sexist but I'm not a sexist... honest. Nice try. I can't wait for her next article where she will argue that Donald Trump was only saying he likes to "clasp them by the genitals" and that Brock Turner didn't actually commit sexual assault because he was simply "having some non-consensual action". Right?
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » As in, trolling ? A national newspaper publishing trolling ? Well I ask you.
orubiru wrote: » Why would anyone even think this article is a good idea and not see how it damages their own movement?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Well, when she usually sounds out these opinions on people, she is in her echo chamber and will just get a load of 'Well said, Louise' backslaps. Occasionally you will get the odd person on fb that will challenge her, but it's rare enough and even then it's clear that she must then immediately block them as they almost never post again. Her reply to this guy is a good example of the nonsense she would say if she were to reply to those who question her views:
darkpagandeath wrote: » It's come to a new low German feminists and safe spacers were shouting our favourite terrorist cry in public. Made me sick to my stomach. As I said in the thread I seen it in made my blood boil and they should try chanting that in front of The truck killers victims family's. I can now see how they can wear shirts with I would rather have a rapist than a racist on the... sickening.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Yup: You can listen to the interview where she said the above here. Or how about this kind of thing. Here we have feminists protesting in Argentina, spitting on and beating men publicly. No real outcry over it but yet imagine if men were ever to behave in such a way to women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOCD_T9Qqpc
py2006 wrote: » Its like Dunphy on the Rte panel. Annoying and mostly wrong but he gets the viewers as a result. Although he is intelligent enough to know what he is doing.
The_Kew_Tour wrote: » Wow. Just found a video of this on twitter. Its been new low after new low past few days. Can you imagine if this Truck Driver downed these Feminists instead and Men marched shouting the same. No words
Widdershins wrote: » :mad::(
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » Its even more disturbing when your remember what happened to women only months ago-the spate of rapes that occurred across Germany, blamed on migrants?http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/736402/violence-against-women-german-refugees-rape-sexual-assault-robberies-stuttgart-battered Saw someone else speaking about how many women were carrying a 'not our president' sign in Germany...well, how astute. He's the American President, m'lady-of course he's not your president. But then LoN and Una don't wanna hear that. Her and her ilk rarely wanna admit that women can get it wrong so often, just like men do.
darkpagandeath wrote: » Imagen the other way around world news.... Men attack women for being Religious.....
The_Kew_Tour wrote: » I love how people are trying to stand up to Fascism but act like Fascism to stop it. Same for Sexism and other like
orubiru wrote: » It goes further than that though. With Feminist Theory they are actually trying to twist the definition of Sexism such that a woman cannot actually be Sexist. They aren't really doing that to benefit society either. They are doing that to benefit themselves and to excuse bad behavior. We have a word "Sexist" to describe prejudiced behavior that is based on gender. Someone we describe as Sexist can be understood to be probably an unreasonable and irrational person and probably someone who may not treat you well because of your gender. So when we call someone sexist we are saying that they are not a good person. Over time, as equality has become the norm in society, the label has carried more and more weight. Louise is now trying to argue that the label "Sexist", and the connotations that come with the label, cannot possibly be applied to a woman. So a man who treats women badly or unfairly gets a label that we can ALL understand quite easily. He is a sexist. However, a woman who treats men badly or unfairly needs a different label. She isn't "Sexist". She just doesn't treat men fairly, you know. She isn't "Sexist". She just doesn't like men. I can imagine that you would see this kind of thing in courtrooms quite a lot. The defendant will be accused of a crime that carries a particular penalty and the defense lawyer will try to argue that TECHNICALLY it's a lesser crime with a lesser penalty. So they are trying to do the same thing here. To be branded "Sexist" is not a nice thing so Louise O'Neill needs something that allows her to behave exactly like a sexist man while avoiding the label that comes with that. She obviously thinks that this rationalization is the best way to do it. I would argue that this just comes across really badly. Kind of like accepting that you've been a bit of an asshole but then also refusing to accept any kind of responsibility, or make any kind of apology, for it or even trying to justify it. I am sure that this could be considered an abuse and/or gaslighting tactic.
DredFX wrote: » It is impossible for women to be sexist, she says... It's the same disingenuous crap that some African Americans pull the moment they're called racist. 'We can be prejudiced, but we can't be racist cus we ain't got power.' It's a reference to an imaginary socioeconomic definition rather than just the lexical one, the latter of which 99% of rational-minded people use. If I call you a racist, it's because I think you did something racist. Your ancestors being slaves and your community's average income being lower than mine doesn't change that. And their strategy and tactics are clear. They try to take any word with a -ist or -ic suffix and preclude its application to the so-called oppressed demographics of society because of how dirty it is. Prejudiced doesn't invite a gasp from your mouth. Racist or sexist does, however. That's Louise's tactic in that piece of yellow journalism that she calls an opinion. You can label us feminists man-haters but you can't call us sexist, oh nooo, because it's impossible. Excuses, excuses. If people still wonder whether she has a clear problem with men, that article alone should quell their doubts.
sydthebeat wrote: » Just watching that Argentinean video, where the hell are the police? Afraid to stand against an angry mob of bare tits?
