UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:and
I don't jump to convict a person. I leave conviction to proper process and not to assertions. (#407)
quote:You have not acknowledged that the majority of those posting on that thread did not make allegations until after the Metropolitan Police had made a statement accusing Savile. You have deflected the blame to a number of other people and all women.
The first comment is that while investigative journalists often preface material by paying lip service to the presumption of innocence, that is a principle in which I strongly believe. I am not sure that many others posting on this thread have the same strength of belief in that principle as I do. (#463)
quote:and
I'm not saying that there's no evidence against Savile which would warrant a prosecution. What I do ask is why Esther Rantzen - who seems from her Wikipedia entry not to have been a person who could have been ignored - did not go to the police with some solid evidence at the time, and when a prosecution could have been commenced. It seems to me that she in particular has a lot of explaining to do. While it would now be too late to do anything about Savile's knighthood, HM might well need to consider taking away Rantzen's CBE. (#403)
quote:and
Rantzen's comments show much more than mere rumour reaching her ears, but rather a basis for a chat to the police.(#410)
quote:It is entirely possible that a number of people at the BBC have a case to answer. They are going to be those in charge at the time or those who were working on Jimmy Savile's shows. But you continued to pick on a woman who heard rumours, not the men in power who turned blind eyes.
The comments from Ms Rantzen say that she should have taken some strong steps at the time.(#463)
quote:and
As for the nurses referred to in the Metro article that Tubbs refers to - what an utter dereliction of duty on their part, if what they now say actually occurred. (#403)
quote:and
What about the nurses? As a group, they would have been able to make their concerns known, even were they unable to be accepted individually (#407)
quote:and
As for the nurses - why did they not take better steps to protect those in their care? Even if, they being simply women, any reports they made would have been rejected, why did they not keep an obvious eye on what was happening in their wards?(#410)
quote:and
The material from the nurses astounds me. They say that they were concerned about Savile, but even if they could not report their concerns, they could amongst themselves have taken direct steps to keep Savile under scrutiny while he was at their hospitals. Instead, they did nothing.(#463)
quote:Thirdly, you are misogynist and sexist when you continue to blame the victims
Nursing has traditionally been a profession dominated by women*, and quite a few of them were pretty tough. Think, for example, of the matrons described in Mary Renault's biography; on a more mundane level, consider a ward sister who wants visitors out after hours. The nursing hierarchy was, by and large, of women until the head matron answered to the, then invariably male, medical superintendent. (#467)
quote:So many of us have pointed out what this would have entailed but you have continued to blame the victims.
I find it hard to accept that had a girl gone to the police in the 70s with complaint about Savile, her complaint would not have been investigated properly. It would have been here. The evidence for that is that during the 60s, there was a series of gang rapes, concentrated in an area of Sydney, but perhaps in other states as well. The case for the accused at trial was always that the girl had consented, and the girl would be cross-examined for days by counsel for each of the accused to try to show this. In each case, it was word against word, and in case after case, there were verdicts of guilty with heavy sentences. This shows to me that the police would accept and investigate the complaint and that in subsequent proceedings, the girl's evidence was that preferred by the jury. (#410)
quote:So many of us on that thread wrote of our own first hand experiences and I even described what Stoke Mandeville looked like in the 70s and you dismissed all those accounts. I can only see this as another example of your sexism and misogyny.
I don't doubt your opinion, but stick to mine. (#481)
quote:I worked out that what made me so angry about your posts was that it was more of the same attitudes that we'd been trying to describe had allowed sexual misdemeanours to flourish.
I noted before that the bulk of "old" cases against pople in authority now coming before the courts here are based on complaints by men who at the time were afraid of being labelled as queer in a generally homophobic society. How does that compare to the UK experience? (#522)
quote:It is the "un" aspect to which I referred. Unintelligent, unsympathetic, unconscious and, I'll bet, unhappy too. Look how miserable the typical racist or homophobe is. Ditto misogynists and all other misanthropes for that matter. I don't think I've seen a happy racist in my life, certainly not a sober one.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Ignorance is no defence, I'm afraid.
And it's this unconscious unthinking sexism and misogyny is what allows the casual objectification of women and their maltreatment.
quote:If there weren't any male nurses at the hospital in question, how was he supposed to avoid that?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But he only targeted women in his attacks.
quote:It's easier to shut people up if you can accuse them of one of the big "-ism"s.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Seems like you really, really want it to be, though.
quote:But if we don't point out and challenge these attitudes, how can we change them?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:It is the "un" aspect to which I referred. Unintelligent, unsympathetic, unconscious and, I'll bet, unhappy too. Look how miserable the typical racist or homophobe is. Ditto misogynists and all other misanthropes for that matter. I don't think I've seen a happy racist in my life, certainly not a sober one.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Ignorance is no defence, I'm afraid.
And it's this unconscious unthinking sexism and misogyny is what allows the casual objectification of women and their maltreatment.
quote:Marvin - I went head to head and argued it out with GeeD on that Hell thread, point by painful point. But Doublethink suggested that we needed to start different threads if we wanted to pursue different strands of the arguments - so I'm following Hell host instructions.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's easier to shut people up if you can accuse them of one of the big "-ism"s.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Seems like you really, really want it to be, though.
quote:You mean you? People can disagree with you for reasons other than your gender, you know.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And his attitude and refusal to accept accounts of women arguing on the thread
quote:I've known plenty. Oh, I know the sort you are referencing as well, but they are not the sum total.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't think I've seen a happy racist in my life, certainly not a sober one.
quote:I, OTOH, think he a consciously prejudiced, disagreeable and confrontational individual, who can manage baseless and insulting remarks on pretty well anything.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't think GeeD is consciously sexist, I think that he's unconsciously sexist
quote:The implication seems to be, "Don't worry about them - they're frightened old poufs who can be ignored". Surely what matters is whether these complaints are true or not, not the sexuality of the accusers?
I noted before that the bulk of "old" cases against people in authority now coming before the courts here are based on complaints by men who at the time were afraid of being labelled as queer in a generally homophobic society. How does that compare to the UK experience? (#522)
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Point of information; various men were interviewed for the exposure documentary. Including the guy who related how he had gone to JS's flat, a schoolgirl had turned up, JS had taken her into his bedroom, noises had issued from the room, JS came out and washed his genitals in the sink, the girl left. This guy stated he did not report the matter because he thought JS might beat him up. His account was interspersed with statements of how demeaned he felt by JS treating him as of no importance.
.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Point of information; various men were interviewed for the exposure documentary. Including the guy who related how he had gone to JS's flat, a schoolgirl had turned up, JS had taken her into his bedroom, noises had issued from the room, JS came out and washed his genitals in the sink, the girl left. This guy stated he did not report the matter because he thought JS might beat him up. His account was interspersed with statements of how demeaned he felt by JS treating him as of no importance.
.
quote:Hey, I'm not arguing that GeeD isn't being a total asshat. Full agreement from me on that one. I just don't see the sexism or misogyny, that's all.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
GeeD has not acknowledged anything said by other posters in that thread. People have bent over backwards explaining the laws and attitudes of that time, what the hospitals were like at the time, how JS had access to patients when he was a volunteer and was given keys to wards as a celebrity. Nurses did report incidents and nothing happened. Nurses have enough to do taking care of patients ill enough to be in hospital.
quote:...I'd have been in full agreement then.
Your opinion is so lacking in basis of fact as to be not worth considering.
quote:I do so dislike arguments from silence. Almost as much as I dislike arguments that say if you don't criticise absolutely everyone who can be criticised it must be because you're prejudiced against the people you did have a go at.
GeeD didn't go after the majority male filled profession of chauffeurs who have stated they knew what was going on and that those who made any reports were fired.
quote:When one vehemently disparages only 1/3 of the professionals who are speaking up about the abuse with the viewpoint they are to blame because they didn't singlehandedly stop the abuse while ignoring the other 2/3 with the professionals blamed being one gender and those not blamed by this poster, sometimes silence does speak of their viewpoint. He went after the nurses repeatedly and with a vengeance while uttering not one peep about anyone else.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I do so dislike arguments from silence. Almost as much as I dislike arguments that say if you don't criticise absolutely everyone who can be criticised it must be because you're prejudiced against the people you did have a go at.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
GeeD didn't go after the majority male filled profession of chauffeurs who have stated they knew what was going on and that those who made any reports were fired.
quote:The wrong kind of versatility
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:I, OTOH, think he a consciously prejudiced, disagreeable and confrontational individual, who can manage baseless and insulting remarks on pretty well anything.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't think GeeD is consciously sexist, I think that he's unconsciously sexist
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Yes. That is an argument from silence.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:When one vehemently disparages only 1/3 of the professionals who are speaking up about the abuse with the viewpoint they are to blame because they didn't singlehandedly stop the abuse while ignoring the other 2/3 with the professionals blamed being one gender and those not blamed by this poster, sometimes silence does speak of their viewpoint. He went after the nurses repeatedly and with a vengeance while uttering not one peep about anyone else.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I do so dislike arguments from silence. Almost as much as I dislike arguments that say if you don't criticise absolutely everyone who can be criticised it must be because you're prejudiced against the people you did have a go at.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
GeeD didn't go after the majority male filled profession of chauffeurs who have stated they knew what was going on and that those who made any reports were fired.
quote:
GeeD in the amended post: What I do ask is why Esther Rantzen - who seems from her Wikipedia entry not to have been a person who could have been ignored - did not go to the police with the evidence she now says she had, and when a prosecution could have been commenced. It seems to me that she in particular has a lot of explaining to do. While it would now be too late to do anything about Savile's knighthood, HM might well need to consider taking away Rantzen's CBE.
quote:in answer both Sioni Sais and I suggested that Esther Rantzen was not the best person in position to challenge the situation with Jimmy Savile,
I can't accept that the word of someone as Esther Rantzen appears to be would not have been listened to (#407)
quote:
me If eye-witnesses were not listened to, what makes you think someone like Esther Rantzen who had only heard the gossip and innuendo could do? You know, the stuff you're telling us not to go on. And why is she being pilloried when she presented a light entertainment programme called That's Life during the time period. She only started Childline in 1986, so after the time when Jimmy Savile was most active (which was the 70s according to the Met Police statement). Why is she supposed to have thought back to rumours from 10-15 years before and thought that needed investigation? (#408)
quote:Still GeeD comes back with another attack on Esther Rantzen, totally ignoring the suggestions that there were alternative people who may have far more liability.
Sioni Sais in answer to #407 I'm surprised too, not because Esther Rantzen was especially repected at the BBC but because her husband, Desmond Wilcox, was editor Man Alive from 1965 and Head of General Features at the BBC between 1972 and 1980. If Esther Rantzen saw or heard anything would she have taken it to he (now late) husband first? You can make of that what you will (#409)
quote:Now, there he's been given another name with real responsibility at the time but he continues attacking Esther Rantzen for her inaction.
GeeD: The comments from Ms Rantzen say that she should have taken some strong steps at the time. (#463)
quote:What I said was sometimes silence does make the argument. GeeD was consistent enough in his attacks on women only even though the majority of professionals with knowledge of the situation were male and he gave blistering criticism to female testimony only - both witnesses and victims despite there being testimony from males as well. He did this consistently throughout the whole thread. I think he's both an asshat and a misogynist based on the above.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:Yes. That is an argument from silence.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
When one vehemently disparages only 1/3 of the professionals who are speaking up about the abuse with the viewpoint they are to blame because they didn't singlehandedly stop the abuse while ignoring the other 2/3 with the professionals blamed being one gender and those not blamed by this poster, sometimes silence does speak of their viewpoint. He went after the nurses repeatedly and with a vengeance while uttering not one peep about anyone else.
I am not sure what is going on here, but curiosity linked to our PMs speech in the Oz Parliament last week. It was a bloody good speech, and hit the nail on the head for the most part. It did so because Jules had specific references to statements that were sexist and misogynist by the man she was roasting - the opposition leader Tony Abbott.
However, in the wake of the speech every polly in my country has been trying to pin sexism and misogyny on everything. Normal arseclownery has been baptised in the confession of St Germaine of Greer as anti-womanist. It's crap.
If Gee Dee was an arse, that's enough to call him/her to hell, isn't it? Why try and make his/her statements what they aren't?
quote:Yes, because she was a "big name" who might have had a better chance of being heard than anyone else. Not because she is a woman.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
GeeD starts with an attack on Esther Rantzen, pages after this has already been discussed and explained that she would have been acting on hearsay and rumour, with a particularly strong attack:
quote:Sioni can confirm or deny this for himself, but I read his post as agreeing with GeeD's point that Rantzen might actually have been in a position to do something about it at the time.
in answer both Sioni Sais and I suggested that Esther Rantzen was not the best person in position to challenge the situation with Jimmy Savile,
quote:
Sioni Sais in answer to #407 I'm surprised too, not because Esther Rantzen was especially repected at the BBC but because her husband, Desmond Wilcox, was editor Man Alive from 1965 and Head of General Features at the BBC between 1972 and 1980. If Esther Rantzen saw or heard anything would she have taken it to he (now late) husband first? You can make of that what you will (#409)
quote:and
As for the nurses referred to in the Metro article that Tubbs refers to - what an utter dereliction of duty on their part, if what they now say actually occurred. (#403)
quote:
What about the nurses? As a group, they would have been able to make their concerns known, even were they unable to be accepted individually. (#407)
quote:
Sioni replied What about them? Links with showbiz and fame in general are prized by charities. Why would anyone interfere with the Good Work of the hospital? Oh, and they were women. (#408)
quote:
GeeD: As for the nurses - why did they not take better steps to protect those in their care? Even if, they being simply women, any reports they made would have been rejected, why did they not keep an obvious eye on what was happening in their wards? (#410)
quote:this is followed by Ariel and GeeD arguing back and forth quite how difficult it was at the time over several posts, to
GeeD The material from the nurses astounds me. They say that they were concerned about Savile, but even if they could not report their concerns, they could amongst themselves have taken direct steps to keep Savile under scrutiny while he was at their hospitals. Instead, they did nothing. (#463)
quote:Dismissive of women, horrendously out of date for the UK at the time, acknowledging that the hierarchy was male and continuing to blame the nurses. It was that male hierarchy that allowed Savile access but it's all the fault of the nurses for not stopping him when he was there - yeah, right.
GeeD: That's what I'm not so sure about. Nursing has traditionally been a profession dominated by women*, and quite a few of them were pretty tough. Think, for example, of the matrons described in Mary Renault's biography; on a more mundane level, consider a ward sister who wants visitors out after hours. The nursing hierarchy was, by and large, of women until the head matron answered to the, then invariably male, medical superintendent. (#467)
quote:I can do this about the victims too ...
GeeD... taking action in the wards. On their own admission they did not do this. (#483)
quote:Actually totally inaccurate at the time. Desmond Wilcox was the big name, Esther Rantzen was just a presenter of a programme and also being castigated through the press for being a husband stealer. A big scandal at the time that she'd got involved with Desmond Wilcox and caused his divorce.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, because she was a "big name" who might have had a better chance of being heard than anyone else. Not because she is a woman.
quote:Perhaps, but would someone who freely admits that their only information about her is from Wikipedia be expected to know that?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:Actually totally inaccurate at the time.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, because she was a "big name" who might have had a better chance of being heard than anyone else. Not because she is a woman.
quote:It's only the word of the week locally.
Originally posted by Gee D:
It’s good to see that CK has used the word “misogynist”, which seems to be the word of the week.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:But if someone only knows their information from Wikipedia, why should they put themselves up as judge and jury against those who were there at the time and ignore all their posts and comments from first hand knowledge? GeeD continued to pontificate from ignorance and pomposity and put the worst possible light he could on the women present at the time.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Perhaps, but would someone who freely admits that their only information about her is from Wikipedia be expected to know that?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:Actually totally inaccurate at the time.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, because she was a "big name" who might have had a better chance of being heard than anyone else. Not because she is a woman.
quote:You mean this post?
Originally posted by Gee D:
There rea onther couple of posts missing as well. In one, CK misuses the word “hypocritical” to mean “he disagrees with me”; in the second, I am all but accused of lying.
quote:I don't believe you've read that thread, even though you've said that you have, because here on post 412 of that thread, I've referenced Roger Graef's Police documentary that was a 1982 fly on the wall exposé of the Thames Valley Police, and here on post 470 where I link to the same programme and ask GeeD directly his response at post 476 is:
What gets me most about this is the sheer hypocrisy of GeeD waltzing onto this thread, telling us all that we're spreading rumour and innuendo and turning into a lynch mob, and in the same breath and thought instructing us to lynch Esther Rantzen, who was peripheral to this at the time, and the nurses who are coming forward to say how guilty they felt at the time for not being able to do more.
quote:And I can tell from GeeD's post on this thread that if he's read the Jimmy Savile thread, he has a real problem reading for comprehension. I'm female, which should be patently obvious to anyone reading the Savile thread.
No, I'm sorry but I have b]never seen the film - and until now have never heard of Roger Graef either.
quote:I wasn't agreeing with Gee D, but asking everyone to 'make what they will' of what could happen if a presenter at the BBC made allegations about another (star) presenter at the BBC while married to a head of department at the BBC.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Sioni can confirm or deny this for himself, but I read his post as agreeing with GeeD's point that Rantzen might actually have been in a position to do something about it at the time.
in answer both Sioni Sais and I suggested that Esther Rantzen was not the best person in position to challenge the situation with Jimmy Savile,
quote:
Sioni Sais in answer to #407 I'm surprised too, not because Esther Rantzen was especially respected at the BBC but because her husband, Desmond Wilcox, was editor of Man Alive from 1965 and Head of General Features at the BBC between 1972 and 1980. If Esther Rantzen saw or heard anything would she have taken it to he (now late) husband first? You can make of that what you will (#409)
quote:You're missing the point so badly I have to start wondering if it's deliberate.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:But if someone only knows their information from Wikipedia, why should they put themselves up as judge and jury against those who were there at the time and ignore all their posts and comments from first hand knowledge?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Perhaps, but would someone who freely admits that their only information about her is from Wikipedia be expected to know that?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:Actually totally inaccurate at the time.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, because she was a "big name" who might have had a better chance of being heard than anyone else. Not because she is a woman.
quote:So you're calling GeeD a sexist because he didn't accurately remember every single post you'd made to a ten-page thread?
GeeD had purported to have read that thread. I had said repeatedly that at the time Esther Rantzen wasn't in a position to do anything and she would just have been going on hearsay and rumour.
quote:I don't like to say I told you so, but I told you so!
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I was hoping that it was something like sexism that is possible to challenge and hopefully help people change their viewpoint.
Ah well, another over-optimistic moment crumbles in the face of reality.
quote:Haven't read the thread and retain your bias. Hmmm, sounds like you and Gee D have a lot in common.
Originally posted by Evensong:
<Throws peanuts from the gallery>
Curiosity is usually uptight. Gee D is usually cool. I haven't read the thread to death but I remain staunch in my bias and discrimination.
quote:That's funny. What I was getting was a deep, deep desire on your part to prove that you were right & good and Gee D was wrong & bad. But hey, we all try to put the best possible spin on our less attractive characteristics. I certainly do.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
…and hopefully help people change their viewpoint.
quote:I wasn't checking in much during the time GeeD was on the Savile thread, but I've just read his posts and I'd say he's as thick as two planks if that wasn't an insult to planks. Especially in his responses to CK's posts on what nurses could in fact have done. Some of his posts do have an underlay of misogyny or racism, but I'm sure he's too stupid to see it.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No, I'm coming round to too thick to read for comprehension and an overweening self-belief that means the world does revolve around him and he is always right.
quote:Only the conclusion that they represent sexism.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I do also note that Marvin hasn't challenged my conclusions on the posts about nurses
quote:If you'd been reading this thread properly, you'd know that, far from simply "not challenging" that view, I've been actively agreeing with it.
or that GeeD was being unreasonable on the Jimmy Savile thread.
quote:Right. So you agree you are arguing from silence. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:What I said was sometimes silence does make the argument. GeeD was consistent enough in his attacks on women only even though the majority of professionals with knowledge of the situation were male and he gave blistering criticism to female testimony only - both witnesses and victims despite there being testimony from males as well. He did this consistently throughout the whole thread. I think he's both an asshat and a misogynist based on the above.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:Yes. That is an argument from silence.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
When one vehemently disparages only 1/3 of the professionals who are speaking up about the abuse with the viewpoint they are to blame because they didn't singlehandedly stop the abuse while ignoring the other 2/3 with the professionals blamed being one gender and those not blamed by this poster, sometimes silence does speak of their viewpoint. He went after the nurses repeatedly and with a vengeance while uttering not one peep about anyone else.
I am not sure what is going on here, but curiosity linked to our PMs speech in the Oz Parliament last week. It was a bloody good speech, and hit the nail on the head for the most part. It did so because Jules had specific references to statements that were sexist and misogynist by the man she was roasting - the opposition leader Tony Abbott.
However, in the wake of the speech every polly in my country has been trying to pin sexism and misogyny on everything. Normal arseclownery has been baptised in the confession of St Germaine of Greer as anti-womanist. It's crap.
If Gee Dee was an arse, that's enough to call him/her to hell, isn't it? Why try and make his/her statements what they aren't?
quote:We'll have to agree to disagree because I think Gee D did a bang up job of proving it in his posts. ETA with his vehement attacks on just about every woman involved.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Right. So you agree you are arguing from silence. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
Had you and curiosity belted down here with a thread stating that GeeD was being a jerk, I would have held my peace. But the accusation of misogyny simply hasn't been adequately supported.
quote:But that's exactly the fucking point: we are here discussing male-on-female abuse within a male-dominated institution and GeeD keeps asking what various women were doing. So he is treating the men differently simply by focusing exclusively on the women who might have made a difference. They don't 'happen to be female' he's focusing on them because they are female.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yeah, there may be a fair bit of idiocy and ignorance in those quotes but I'm struggling to see how any of them display sexism or misogyny.
And no, the plain fact that the targets of GeeD's criticisms happen to be female doesn't mean anything unless you can prove that he'd treat men who did exactly the same thing differently.
quote:Wasn't stopped isn't the same as couldn't be stopped. The tragedy is that he could have been stopped. I'm not impressed by the story of a DJ claiming he would have been sacked if he'd said anything. Maybe he wouldn't have been. Maybe his saying something would have made a difference. Maybe it wouldn't – we'll never know.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Jimmy Savile had unfortunately become a celebrity juggernaut that couldn't be stopped.
quote:Sorry - yes. Late 60s indeed - mistype.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
QLib - matrons went in the late 1960s, in the reforms from 1967.
quote:But, to be fair, Bean was being plankist. I'm not plankist. In fact, I'd just like to point out that some of my best friends are planks, but I still have to ask - why are they silent on this important point? Take it from me, some planks are going to have a lot to answer for before we get to the end of this matter. Their current silence speaks volumes.
Originally posted by Gee D:
So now I'm racist as well! (See Bean Sidhe)
quote:Me either - standing up for what's right can have consequences - those that do it are often considered martyrs/trailblazers. Plenty of 15-minute celebs have subsequently survived their lack of fame by getting a regular job. To say *I'd have been fired* had I spoken out about abuse = *I would not have held on to my cushy, over-paid job*. Cry me a river.
Originally posted by QLib:
I'm not impressed by the story of a DJ claiming he would have been sacked if he'd said anything. Maybe he wouldn't have been. Maybe his saying something would have made a difference. Maybe it wouldn't – we'll never know.
quote:It would be good if everyone had the moral courage to report things regardless of possible consequences. Unfortunately, very many people don't. If someone is supporting several other people and is afraid he won't be able to find another job, I understand where he's coming from. I hope I would have the courage, but I'm not sure.
Originally posted by QLib
Wasn't stopped isn't the same as couldn't be stopped. The tragedy is that he could have been stopped. I'm not impressed by the story of a DJ claiming he would have been sacked if he'd said anything. Maybe he wouldn't have been. Maybe his saying something would have made a difference. Maybe it wouldn't – we'll never know.
quote:No, GeeD is commenting on various people who are at pains to point out how much they were aware of now that it's nice and safe to do so, but who did bugger all at the time.
Originally posted by QLib:
But that's exactly the fucking point: we are here discussing male-on-female abuse within a male-dominated institution and GeeD keeps asking what various women were doing.
quote:Following that logic, someone who calls Shirley Phelps Roper a bigoted homophobic fuckwit is being sexist if they don't also call Fred Phelps a bigoted homophobic fuckwit. Is that about right?
So he is treating the men differently simply by focusing exclusively on the women who might have made a difference. They don't 'happen to be female' he's focusing on them because they are female.
quote:Whether sexism was involved in the Saville case as a whole has fuck all to do with whether it's involved in this thread.
In any case, the fact that women kept silent about their suspicions does not mean that sexism isn't an issue in relation to the Savile case, just as the silence, or even collaboration of some black people in their own oppression doesn't mean racism isn't racism.
quote:Point of fact on this one, GeeD criticised the victims for not speaking out, the nurses for not doing more to stop Jimmy Savile and Esther Rantzen for not taking rumour to the police. Those were the three accusations he made repeatedly
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, GeeD is commenting on various people who are at pains to point out how much they were aware of now that it's nice and safe to do so, but who did bugger all at the time.
quote:GeeD was not treating men and women equally. That's the whole frigging point. He was criticising women vituperatively. Not the male bosses at the BBC, not the chauffeurs, not the male bosses he admitted ran the hospitals, but the nurses, Esther Rantzen and the victims. And he said in his comments at the time that the nursing was a female profession.
Preventing sexism doesn't mean that the women who were involved get a free ride up to (and beyond) the point where every single man who can possibly blamed has been blamed. It means men and women get treated the same way from the start.
quote:On the same page, here you say:
More to the point, did you have any reason to believe it? Rumours and gossip are nasty creatures. Someone starts a rumour, then it's repeated a few times and before long "everyone knows". What no-one knows is how much truth there is in it, and in the meantime, someone's reputation is destroyed.
Were there any truth in it, why did not one of the victims come forward, why did not one of the taxi drivers speak up, and why did you not go to the police with the evidence you had? I suspect that you did not because you had none. You had heard someone say that someone had told her that she'd heard.....
quote:Now I know you're ignorant about the way the Crown Prosecution Service works in this country. It is very cautious. That dismissed 2007 case was one of a number of cases that didn't get to prosecution. And Jimmy Savile seems to have eluded prosecution the way a number of other people have, by the lack of joined up thinking between the individual police forces.
I have very post on this thread. Unlike many here, I don't jump to convict a person. I leave conviction to proper process and not to assertions. The Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge
quote:Does that answer your question?
The first comment is that while investigative journalists often preface material by paying lip service to the presumption of innocence, that is a principle in which I strongly believe. I am not sure that many others posting on this thread have the same strength of belief in that principle as I do.
quote:I'd have left it there if he hadn't come back again to the thread and written something else showing even less understanding.
I don't doubt your opinion, but stick to mine.
quote:Would a nice dinner be involved?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I wonder…if you would have the bottle to blow the whistle if some National Treasure grabbed you by the genitals backstage in a theatre?
quote:Sounds like, to you the term "clusterfuck" might have an entirely different meaning from the one Kelly Alves implied when employed it on the TICTH thread!
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:Would a nice dinner be involved?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I wonder…if you would have the bottle to blow the whistle if some National Treasure grabbed you by the genitals backstage in a theatre?
(I must have low standards or low self-esteem or something because that kind of thing doesn't sound like a problem to me. But then I spent most of the 70s trying to get laid as often as possible, much like Anselmina was saying. Plus men are pigs. We all know that.)
quote:My name is Sioni and I am a man.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
The thing I have found interesting reading this thread is that, as far as I can tell, all those accusing Gee D of sexism are women (and I count myself in this) and nearly all those unable to understand where that claim is coming from are men.
quote:As I said:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Preventing sexism doesn't mean that the women who were involved get a free ride up to (and beyond) the point where every single man who can possibly blamed has been blamed.
quote:Preventing sexism doesn't involve focusing on what women did wrong. Now we've established that all the alleged victims are not necessarily money-grubbing delusional fantasists who were probably gagging for it anyway.
It's true that individuals of both sexes are going to have questions to answer ...
quote:So what, anybody that doesn't agree with the call of "sexism" is only doing so because they're male, and therefore probably sexist themselves?
Originally posted by JoannaP:
The thing I have found interesting reading this thread is that, as far as I can tell, all those accusing Gee D of sexism are women (and I count myself in this) and nearly all those unable to understand where that claim is coming from are men.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:So what, anybody that doesn't agree with the call of "sexism" is only doing so because they're male, and therefore probably sexist themselves?
Originally posted by JoannaP:
The thing I have found interesting reading this thread is that, as far as I can tell, all those accusing Gee D of sexism are women (and I count myself in this) and nearly all those unable to understand where that claim is coming from are men.
quote:Now some of the responses were disbelief how much things have changed. Many people participating on the thread grew up not seeing and experiencing this. But some was an unwillingness to face up to this casual sexism and how its existence made this under age sex and abuse of young girls so prevalent.
underestimating what it's like to grow up in the middle of a culture where certain forms of sexual harrassment were fairly normal.
In fact, in terms of generalized unwanted attention from work colleagues etc 'sexual harrassment' wasn't even a phrase most of us would've been familiar with. Especially those of us still in our teens and early twenties.
<snip>
The point is, in such a culture, where the line is crossed between consentual casual sex and exploitation of vulnerable young women - even underage - becomes very, very difficult to define, let alone highlight.
quote:I wouldn't go that far. I'd say it is harder to notice prejudice against a group unless you are part of the group and have experienced it yourself (though not impossible, as Sioni Sais has pointed out).
So what, anybody that doesn't agree with the call of "sexism" is only doing so because they're male, and therefore probably sexist themselves?
quote:Not backstage at a theatre, but at a party at X's. I cannot now recall if it was the late 60s or early 70s. I was not 17, but in my early 20s. Robert Helpmann made a very direct , uncalled for and unwanted physical pass at me. It was the sort of action that well justified that much attacked obituary of him. I said sufficiently loudly for most people to hear "Get your fucking hand off my balls". Helpmann left straight away, much embarrassed. Strangely enough OM, who is also gay, came to me and made some strongly anti-Helpmann remarks, and saw that I was OK. I did not call the police or even think of doing so. There was no need to do so.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I wonder Gee D, if you would have the bottle to blow the whistle if some National Treasure grabbed you by the genitals backstage in a theatre? Would you dismiss it as one of those things, unaware that it could have happened to hundreds of others, or be discouraged by said NT and his minders telling you that you wouldn't be believed and that any legal action you might contemplate would be fought tooth and nail if a word ever came out?
Still, you're not a nurse or a young teenage girl in the 1970's, so all that doesn't apply. Lucky you.
quote:But that's not the kind of sexism that GeeD is being accused of on this thread. He's being accused of focusing his attacks only on women, and only because they are women.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I noticed the same thing and chalked it up to the fact that except for a minority, for the most part men have never experienced what the majority of women have gone through with respect to sexual abuse and harassment and having been ignored, disbelieved or having suggestions made of "she wanted/asked for it".
quote:The other male posters in this thread haven't made the same repeated attacks on women involved in this story that Gee D has and therein lies the difference.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:But that's not the kind of sexism that GeeD is being accused of on this thread. He's being accused of focusing his attacks only on women, and only because they are women.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I noticed the same thing and chalked it up to the fact that except for a minority, for the most part men have never experienced what the majority of women have gone through with respect to sexual abuse and harassment and having been ignored, disbelieved or having suggestions made of "she wanted/asked for it".
That claim has not been supported in any way, other than the argument from silence which I've already refuted. And every time I challenge it the response is always "how can you say there was no sexism around in the 70s and 80s?" Well, I'm not saying that - all I'm saying is I saw no sexism on the Ship of Fools thread that spawned this one.
quote:I'm not trying to.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And you can't deny that that sexism created the environment in which Jimmy Savile had the scope to operate unobserved.
quote:Can you two quit the posting tennis please. Face it, there is no resolution to your dispute.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'm not trying to.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And you can't deny that that sexism created the environment in which Jimmy Savile had the scope to operate unobserved.
This thread is about whether GeeD was being sexist/misogynist, not whether 1970s/80s society was. And that case has barely even been made, let alone proved.
quote:But is that because the nurses he's attacking were women, or because there simply weren't any male nurses on the wards at the time? To demonstrate sexism, you need to demonstrate that he'd treat a male nurse in the same situation differently. Where's the evidence for that?
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The other male posters in this thread haven't made the same repeated attacks on women involved in this story that Gee D has and therein lies the difference.
quote:Well that's a shame, since that dispute is what the whole fucking thread is about.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Can you two quit the posting tennis please. Face it, there is no resolution to your dispute.
quote:It doesn't matter whether the nurses involved were women only, there were other professions involved in this sorry affair and that was pointed out to Gee D. along with facts about the times and that the nurses did try to report the abuse to superiors and police and were ignored or disciplined. You can't cop out with "but the nurses were women" and not acknowledge the same responsibility of men and hold them accountable as well. Gee D. went after one other woman in a different profession in the BBC, who didn't have the authority at the time to do anything about it. He didn't go after the male managers at the BBC. So he went after more than just the nursing profession, but just only after women.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:But is that because the nurses he's attacking were women, or because there simply weren't any male nurses on the wards at the time? To demonstrate sexism, you need to demonstrate that he'd treat a male nurse in the same situation differently. Where's the evidence for that?
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The other male posters in this thread haven't made the same repeated attacks on women involved in this story that Gee D has and therein lies the difference.
quote:My original OP says:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This thread is about whether GeeD was being sexist/misogynist, not whether 1970s/80s society was. And that case has barely even been made, let alone proved.
quote:Here when challenged on whether it was through ignorance I said:
GeeD's posts stand out as being particularly crassly sexist and misogynistic. I think it needs calling as the prevailing culture of sexism and misogyny allowed sexual predators to flourish, and it's particularly unacceptable on a thread discussing an alleged sexual predator.
quote:Here I again write of unconscious sexism:
And it's this unconscious unthinking sexism and misogyny is what allows the casual objectification of women and their maltreatment.
quote:Most recently I said:
And his attitude and refusal to accept accounts of women arguing on the thread and his perpetuation of attitudes that bred the climate that allowed Jimmy Savile to act the way he is alleged to have acted.
I don't think GeeD is consciously sexist, I think that he's unconsciously sexist and as I said in response to Sioni, the only way of tackling something like that is to challenge it, which is what I am trying to do.
quote:Now if you want me to concede that I was being too charitable accusing GeeD of conscious sexism and misogyny I'll do so. I was assuming too much intelligence, which is worrying.
Part of the reason I called this one was that GeeD was making no attempt to understand quite how he was continuing to reflect those attitudes and perpetuate them. And he was being a pompous prat, pontificating his personal viewpoint without reading any responses or, if he did, not allowing them to deflect his set and rigid opinion.
quote:Because your insistence on the defence of the how the law works is totally irrelevant when we're considering a dead perpetrator and looks like weaselly support and ambivalence for his actions.
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'm still waiting to see how I've defended Savile. CK has set out some quotes in support of the assertion, but totally fails to understand that my comments were not a defence of Savile, but a defence of the rule of law, and the rule that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I would not have thought that a terribly subtle distinction, but maybe so for some people.
quote:Seems to me that GeeD's crime was quite the reverse - instead of copping out by saying "they were women, so couldn't have done anything about it" he tried to explore ways they could have done something about it.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
You can't cop out with "but the nurses were women" and not acknowledge the same responsibility of men and hold them accountable as well.
quote:Esther Rantzen? Yes, and he's already said that was because from a Wikipedia search she appeared to be a "big name" who could surely have spoken out at the time. The BBC managers may have had more real power, but their names are obscure and unheard of outside their sphere of influence.
Gee D. went after one other woman in a different profession in the BBC, who didn't have the authority at the time to do anything about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I was not 17, but in my early 20s. Robert Helpmann made a very direct , uncalled for and unwanted physical pass at me. It was the sort of action that well justified that much attacked obituary of him. I said sufficiently loudly for most people to hear "Get your fucking hand off my balls". Helpmann left straight away, much embarrassed. Strangely enough OM, who is also gay, came to me and made some strongly anti-Helpmann remarks, and saw that I was OK. I did not call the police or even think of doing so. There was no need to do so.
quote:As far as I'm concerned, I've dealt with the other accusations. But this one takes the cake - it's basically saying "the only reason anybody could possibly disagree with me is because I'm a woman and they're a sexist". Well sorry, but the fact is that people can disagree with you simply because they don't agree with what you have said. And that apples no matter how convincing you think your argument is.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I again write of unconscious sexism:
quote:
And his attitude and refusal to accept accounts of women arguing on the thread and his perpetuation of attitudes that bred the climate that allowed Jimmy Savile to act the way he is alleged to have acted.
I don't think GeeD is consciously sexist, I think that he's unconsciously sexist and as I said in response to Sioni, the only way of tackling something like that is to challenge it, which is what I am trying to do.
quote:"Too charitable"? Calling someone a sexist is several orders of magnitude worse than calling them ignorant. Assuming ignorance would have been the charitable course to take, but instead you leaped to the worst possible interpretation.
Now if you want me to concede that I was being too charitable accusing GeeD of conscious sexism and misogyny I'll do so. I was assuming too much intelligence, which is worrying.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:As far as I'm concerned, I've dealt with the other accusations. But this one takes the cake - it's basically saying "the only reason anybody could possibly disagree with me is because I'm a woman and they're a sexist". Well sorry, but the fact is that people can disagree with you simply because they don't agree with what you have said. And that apples no matter how convincing you think your argument is.
Quoting me: And his attitude and refusal to accept accounts of women arguing on the thread and his perpetuation of attitudes that bred the climate that allowed Jimmy Savile to act the way he is alleged to have acted.
I don't think GeeD is consciously sexist, I think that he's unconsciously sexist and as I said in response to Sioni, the only way of tackling something like that is to challenge it, which is what I am trying to do.
quote:Sexism can be changed, you can learn and move on.
quote:Marvin; "Too charitable"? Calling someone a sexist is several orders of magnitude worse than calling them ignorant. Assuming ignorance would have been the charitable course to take, but instead you leaped to the worst possible interpretation.
me: Now if you want me to concede that I was being too charitable accusing GeeD of conscious sexism and misogyny I'll do so. I was assuming too much intelligence, which is worrying.
quote:Actually, looking at the thing from a purely factual point of view there is more that nurses can do than police - they are actually there on the ground (as it were) and can physically put themselves in between an abuser and his victim. The police (and for that matter everyone else who isn't actually there in the same room/ward) can only act retrospectively.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
"...there's no more reason why members of a female dominated "caring" profession should have done more than a fucking male dominated law enforcement agency..."
quote:If you read my posts I said that those who did nothing of both sexes share any blame that would be apportioned against those who did nothing, not just men. I also pointed out that there were nurses who tried and got shut down. Sorry, but the "it was just about nurses" excuse doesn't work.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Seems to me that GeeD's crime was quite the reverse - instead of copping out by saying "they were women, so couldn't have done anything about it" he tried to explore ways they could have done something about it.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
You can't cop out with "but the nurses were women" and not acknowledge the same responsibility of men and hold them accountable as well.
Point is, when I read his posts I saw them as talking about nurses, and what nurses could do to stop someone preying on the patients on their wards. The gender of the nurses is irrelevant to that point.
The way I see it, I might as well accuse you and Curiosity of being sexist because you're trying to focus all the opprobrium onto men and away from women. You would say "but that's because they were the ones in power, it's got nothing to do with them being men per se". And for the avoidance of doubt, you would be right to say that. But you have to accept that the same logic (viz. it's because of their job, not their gender) can apply to GeeD's posts as well.
quote:Esther Rantzen? Yes, and he's already said that was because from a Wikipedia search she appeared to be a "big name" who could surely have spoken out at the time. The BBC managers may have had more real power, but their names are obscure and unheard of outside their sphere of influence.
Gee D. went after one other woman in a different profession in the BBC, who didn't have the authority at the time to do anything about it.
quote:At this point you're probably not the best one to help Gee D on his path of spiritual growth, having called him sexist, misogynistic, and ignorant. That likely shuts down communication. Best to stick with the normal Hell call routine of just venting your spleen and trying to prove yourself right and another wrong. Your really don't have to dress it up as an educational experience.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Sexism can be changed, you can learn and move on.
quote:Why 'strangely enough'? Why wouldn't a decent gay man support you?
Originally posted by Gee D:
Strangely enough OM, who is also gay, came to me and made some strongly anti-Helpmann remarks, and saw that I was OK.
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:At this point you're probably not the best one to help Gee D on his path of spiritual growth, having called him sexist, misogynistic, and ignorant. That likely shuts down communication. Best to stick with the normal Hell call routine of just venting your spleen and trying to prove yourself right and another wrong. Your really don't have to dress it up as an educational experience.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Sexism can be changed, you can learn and move on.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Just a moment, so you knew this man was in the habit of indecently assaulting young men, but you didn't see a need to go to the police or do anything about it ? Isn't this exactly what you were criticizing the nurses and Esther Rantzen for
Originally posted by Gee D:
I was not 17, but in my early 20s. Robert Helpmann made a very direct , uncalled for and unwanted physical pass at me. It was the sort of action that well justified that much attacked obituary of him. I said sufficiently loudly for most people to hear "Get your fucking hand off my balls". Helpmann left straight away, much embarrassed. Strangely enough OM, who is also gay, came to me and made some strongly anti-Helpmann remarks, and saw that I was OK. I did not call the police or even think of doing so. There was no need to do so.*
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Actually, you've made this thread into an argument based on your view of what sexism is, because you think:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well that's a shame, since that dispute is what the whole fucking thread is about.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Can you two quit the posting tennis please. Face it, there is no resolution to your dispute.
quote:Whereas I really don't think calling someone sexist is worse than calling them ignorant and unintelligent. Sexism may come from ignorance, and it's often unconscious and unthinking, but to get from where we were in the 70s to where we are now has meant that an awful lot of people have changed their views on sexism.
Calling someone a sexist is several orders of magnitude worse than calling them ignorant. Assuming ignorance would have been the charitable course to take, but instead you leaped to the worst possible interpretation.
quote:Homophobic - yes, I most definitely was at the time. Not is the sense of having a few beers with some mates on a Friday or Saturday night and then going out with them on a bit of poofter bashing, but in the sense of thinking there was something less about gays, and keeping an eye out for dirty old men in the change rooms at the beach.
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
quote:Why 'strangely enough'? Why wouldn't a decent gay man support you?
Originally posted by Gee D:
Strangely enough OM, who is also gay, came to me and made some strongly anti-Helpmann remarks, and saw that I was OK.
I don't see any sign that you're knowingly or wilfully misogynist, racist or homophobic. I just feel you need to take a jackhammer to your presumptions.
Planks, I'll make it up to you. A nice new coat of Ronseal?
quote:I'd much rather be called ignorant than sexist, racist or any of the other -ists. If you're stupid that's not really your fault, whereas sexism implies a deliberate decision to oppress others. Sexism implies conscious evil, ignorance does not.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Whereas I really don't think calling someone sexist is worse than calling them ignorant and unintelligent.
quote:I would disagree there. While being stupid is not a person's fault, ignorance is something they can alter, and therefore can be something they are responsible for. And I do feel that while sexism can be altered, it may not, initally, be consciously adopted, but the result of nurture. If it is, in the face of evidence of its harm, persisted in, then you are right. There are places where ignorance can also be held to in the face of evidence - not a million miles from this discussion there is at least one example. It's a more complex situation, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'd much rather be called ignorant than sexist, racist or any of the other -ists. If you're stupid that's not really your fault, whereas sexism implies a deliberate decision to oppress others. Sexism implies conscious evil, ignorance does not.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Whereas I really don't think calling someone sexist is worse than calling them ignorant and unintelligent.
quote:To reiterate, your insistence on the "defence of the rule of law" and that "people are innocent until proved guilty" is nonsensical when the perpetrator is dead and nothing is going to court, the police investigating the complaints have made a statement saying that they had, at the time, 30 possible victims, 8 cases of sexual assault and 2 rapes, 100 plus allegations and a time period of 40 years. Now all of those figures have increased several times over. It is special pleading to continue saying innocent until proved guilty in this case and is defending the indefensible.
quote:Because your insistence on the defence of the how the law works is totally irrelevant when we're considering a dead perpetrator and looks like weaselly support and ambivalence for his actions.
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'm still waiting to see how I've defended Savile. CK has set out some quotes in support of the assertion, but totally fails to understand that my comments were not a defence of Savile, but a defence of the rule of law, and the rule that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I would not have thought that a terribly subtle distinction, but maybe so for some people.
quote:you'd look a whole lot more credible if you could read the thread and not have to have the same things repeated ad nauseam.
I would not have thought that a terribly subtle distinction, but maybe so for some people.
quote:I don't agree. That is a basic principle of our civil liberties.
From CK: It is special pleading to continue saying innocent until proved guilty in this case and is defending the indefensible.
quote:That's a bit rich when you at least twice, and with no basis in fact, maliciously accused me of lying.
And if you're going to make barbed comments like:
quote:
quote:
I would not have thought that a terribly subtle distinction, but maybe so for some people.
you'd look a whole lot more credible if you could read the thread and not have to have the same things repeated ad nauseam.
quote:I think I disagree with this. A lot of sexism and racism and homophobia is done casually, out of ignorance, which is why it needs challenging, surely?? If a person is sexist (etc) and knows it and does it to be 'consciously evil' I'll report illegal activity and otherwise avoid them, because the debate on the doorstep is not going to help any of us. But if a person is (in my perception) holding 'ist' views out of ignorance, it's worth talking about, because they might shift. Or in the case of kids at school or my own parents, they've bought the recieved wisdom lock stock and barrel and it's my unfortunate duty to keep drawing their attention to same...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'd much rather be called ignorant than sexist, racist or any of the other -ists. If you're stupid that's not really your fault, whereas sexism implies a deliberate decision to oppress others. Sexism implies conscious evil, ignorance does not.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Whereas I really don't think calling someone sexist is worse than calling them ignorant and unintelligent.
quote:Yes, and i apologise for not replying to it. You raise some interesting points. Can I start with part of the last point - it is probably a difference of idiom, but here to say "I did not think of it" does not mean that a thought of doing x did not cross my mind; it is more along the lines of "I did not think it warranted doing". I did not do so because I thought that Helpmann had been well and truly embarrassed in front of a group of his adulators.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
@ GeeD - did you read this ?
quote:Whereas nowadays most people would think that is an insufficient response to predatory sexual behaviour. Because it is unlikely to stop recurrence against other targets. He'd stay embarrassed perhaps for a few weeks around those specific people - but next year ?
Originally posted by Gee D:
"I did not think it warranted doing". I did not do so because I thought that Helpmann had been well and truly embarrassed in front of a group of his adulators.
quote:I suspect there is some argument to be made for a close-in-age-law. But that is not relevant to the situation you describe and the kind of behaviour Saville is believed to have engaged in.
A contrary argument is put on behalf of the person registered, especially where the offence leading to registration was of a youth or young man convicted of consensual sexual relations with is then girlfriend; he later marries her and remains married many years later.
quote:Saville targetted both, but some comments suggest he was known to grope staff - some that people suspected he preyed on children. But a lot of rumours about him were that he had sex a lot in his dressing room with young women, now we know with underage kids, but most people were not aware of that till after his death.
I had in mind that "girl" was being used in the sense of a minor. I did so because of comments about the sort of wards Savile was visiting. If I was wrong, then I was wrong. Until your comment about no difference between post-pubescent 15 and 20 year olds, I had only thought of chronological age.
quote:Yes its different in the UK.
I don't know when the sex offender registers started where you are. <snip> that a registrable offence is one committed against a child. That appears different to the legislation applicable in your jurisdiction.
quote:Yes but, a lot of what people ask about Saville is why he got away with it for so long without apparent investigation, checking back over his career until very recently you would have seen no record of a series of investigations or even any minor convictions.
So even had I reported the assault to the police, there would have been no registration.
quote:It's because he's a genius and a maverick, and people like that get cut a lot of slack, despite the resulting double standards.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Though God knows it knows it appears to have know effect on Roman Polanski's career - I think he is an exception though.
quote:To turn the usual plea on its head: you are (from your name) a woman, therefore you aren't one of the part of the population which is usually subject to sexist/misogynist insults, therefore you don't get an opinion.
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:I would disagree there. While being stupid is not a person's fault, ignorance is something they can alter, and therefore can be something they are responsible for. And I do feel that while sexism can be altered, it may not, initally, be consciously adopted, but the result of nurture. If it is, in the face of evidence of its harm, persisted in, then you are right. There are places where ignorance can also be held to in the face of evidence - not a million miles from this discussion there is at least one example. It's a more complex situation, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'd much rather be called ignorant than sexist, racist or any of the other -ists. If you're stupid that's not really your fault, whereas sexism implies a deliberate decision to oppress others. Sexism implies conscious evil, ignorance does not.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Whereas I really don't think calling someone sexist is worse than calling them ignorant and unintelligent.
quote:Nope, I can't let that ride. Ignorance is about ignoring, ie a wilful and deliberate refusal to not consider another point of view. Ignorance is the basis of many expressions that "they don't matter" and behaviour that exhibits that.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'd much rather be called ignorant than sexist, racist or any of the other -ists. If you're stupid that's not really your fault, whereas sexism implies a deliberate decision to oppress others. Sexism implies conscious evil, ignorance does not.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Whereas I really don't think calling someone sexist is worse than calling them ignorant and unintelligent.
quote:Didn't I state wilful and deliberate in my post? Looks like you wilfully and deliberately ignored that. Ignorance isn't merely anything, and AFAIK it's no defence in a court of law.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ignorance is merely the state of not knowing about something, and that in itself implies nothing about whether such lack of knowledge is deliberate or not.
Someone who is deliberately ignorant is an ignoramus, which is quite different, and definitely insulting. I'd still say it's less bad than being a sexist though.
quote:I think we agree that is a good idea.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Shall we continue this on the new Purg thread?
quote:There is one reason, and one reason alone as to why Saville was free to indulge his urges right up until his death last year, ---- he was rich and he was famous .
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Sex Offenders register did not really take off in the UK until recently, either. And that fact, along with other attitudes at the time, is why Savile got away with his behaviour for so long.
quote:But in this extract from Savile's autobiography:
Actually, looking at the thing from a purely factual point of view there is more that nurses can do than police - they are actually there on the ground (as it were) and can physically put themselves in between an abuser and his victim. The police (and for that matter everyone else who isn't actually there in the same room/ward) can only act retrospectively.
quote:the police actually were there, in the same room, when Savile returned the girl, and the female police officer was "dissuaded" from taking action by her male colleagues.
[Savile] writes of an incident at the Mecca Locarno ballroom in Leeds, where he worked as a DJ during the 1950s, when a female police officer came in with a photograph of “an attractive girl who had run away from a remand home”.
Savile writes: “‘Ah,’ says I all serious, ‘if she comes in I’ll bring her back tomorrow but I’ll keep her all night first as my reward’.” He then writes that the girl did go into the club and “agreed that I hand her over if she could stay at the dance, [and] come home with me”. He wrote that he did then hand her over to the “lady of the law…[who] was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues, for it was well known that were I to go I would probably take half the station with me”.
quote:GeeD I called you to Hell for dismissing women's experience through ignorance and unwillingness to engage on the Jimmy Savile thread.
I have kept away from this thread (which I have only dipped into, not read in full). When CK called me to Hell, she accused me of hypocrisy and of lying. Her evidence for this? That I had not instantly agreed with her. She then repeated her accusations of lying, in a manner which I could only interpret as malicious. I know nothing of CK's life, and how conversations there proceed. In my little corner of the world, accusations such as she glibly made are not swiftly made. I found these extremely hurtful.
I then posted on another thread. I think it was CK's Hell call for Evensong, but can't be certain. CK's immediate response was to threaten me with a return to the Hell call she had made for me.
The conclusion I drew from this is that CK is simply a bully, and derives pleasure from her bullying. This may not be the real life CK, but it is the way in which she has come across on these boards.
quote:Which is a pretty strong attack on Esther Rantzen while minimising the comments on Jimmy Savile. These sentiments were repeated several times over throughout the thread.
I'm not saying that there's no evidence against Savile which would warrant a prosecution. What I do ask is why Esther Rantzen - who seems from her Wikipedia entry not to have been a person who could have been ignored - did not go to the police with the evidence she now says she had, and when a prosecution could have been commenced. It seems to me that she in particular has a lot of explaining to do. While it would now be too late to do anything about Savile's knighthood, HM might well need to consider taking away Rantzen's CBE.
quote:and in many, many more posts on that thread.
I find it hard to accept that had a girl gone to the police in the 70s with complaint about Savile, her complaint would not have been investigated properly. It would have been here. The evidence for that is that during the 60s, there was a series of gang rapes, concentrated in an area of Sydney, but perhaps in other states as well. The case for the accused at trial was always that the girl had consented, and the girl would be cross-examined for days by counsel for each of the accused to try to show this. In each case, it was word against word, and in case after case, there were verdicts of guilty with heavy sentences. This shows to me that the police would accept and investigate the complaint and that in subsequent proceedings, the girl's evidence was that preferred by the jury.
As for the nurses - why did they not take better steps to protect those in their care? Even if, they being simply women, any reports they made would have been rejected, why did they not keep an obvious eye on what was happening in their wards? Rantzen's comments show much more than mere rumour reaching her ears, but rather a basis for a chat to the police.
quote:In the Styx there has been much discussion about personal insults rather than attacking the issue. I have tried throughout these threads to only comment on what you've said and what comes from that - the sexism, hypocrisy and lack of understanding or ability to read for comprehension. Now you're getting into personal attacks . It's entirely your choice to do that, but I hope others will draw their own conclusions from it.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
GeeD, you are so certain that you know what the nurses were dealing with at the time, from the other side of the world and 40 years ago. I've just described what one of the hospitals in question was like at the time as an inpatient. Just why do you think you know what you're talking about and I don't?
quote:
I don't doubt your opinion, but stick to mine.
quote:What questions? I have answered them all to my knowledge. You, mind you, have not responded to Doublethink's post here
Originally posted by Gee D:
You'll notice that there are a few questions outstanding above that so far you've shied away from answering.
quote:You mean I have posted differently on different threads? Well there's a thing, different threads call for different tones and arguments. I have attacked you personally for your dismissiveness, as I said here for
You probably don't notice that you've shifted ground on this thread more often than the Mississippi Delta, and that one of the lines you've pushed on this and the Savile thread is quite inconsistent with that you've taken on the Evensong thread.
quote:which I called as sexism and argued throughout this thread.
dismissing my and other women's experiences of living through the atmosphere that allowed Jimmy Savile to thrive.
quote:but you didn't even acknowledge that
Originally posted by Gee D:
1. Doublethink's post - a thoughtful answer to mine - does not raise anything calling for an answer.
quote:I stopped posting as I had answered everything you'd asked and you had not come back and asked anything else.
2. If you can't see the questions outstanding, I suggest that you read the thread. I had assumed that you inability to answer them is why you dropped this thread like a hot stone some days ago.
quote:No, I really haven't. You're reading someone else's posts if that's what you've read. I spent 90% of the Savile thread explaining the atmosphere in the 70s and 80s and how that atmosphere allowed Savile to operate. I was arguing that the atmosphere made much of what was seen seem normal and unexceptional and that we were struggling with judging from our perspective now, not what it was like then. I have not said he should be demonised or disinterred or tried. I have said that there is no trial to be had because he is dead, and after the Met Police statement accepted that there were enough allegations to say that he was a predatory sex offender who had been targeting vulnerable youngsters. Try rereading the thread and check if you don't believe me.
3. On the Savile and this thread, you've been calling for the exhumation of Savile, followed by a hanging, drawing and quartering; you have demonised him and those like him. On the Evensong thread, you have opposed the demonisation of paedophiles.
quote:I have been agreeing with alienfromzog and Barnabas62 and a number of other sensible posters. I also questioned the ethos in Hell on the dogpiling thread I started. Perhaps you'd benefit from reading those threads rather than taking umbrage at being called on your posts?
4. I suggest that you read the very sensible comments of alienfromzog (with which I largely agree), and take note of the sound base upon which those comments are founded. Those post present a reasoned argument, quite different to your bullying tactics.