Ship of Fools: Bibliophile

Thread: Bibliophile Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029022

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Go on, amaze us: which school taught you to make such incoherent, poorly argued, ignorant arguments?

Which ever it is, please return when you've graduated with a clue.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

I put forward perfectly reasonable arguments, you lose you temper and start swearing and ranting at me and now you're the one complaining about me.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Rather than build your case, you put forth general statements and put the burden of proof on those who disagree. It is a dishonest tactic which puts the burden on the responders without putting forth any real effort yourself.
And your further responses are rinse, lather, repeat. So it is no wonder that you engender wrath.

ETA: Hey, wait! Are you a politician?

[ 14. June 2015, 17:21: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Rather than build your case, you put forth general statements and put the burden of proof on those who disagree. It is a dishonest tactic which puts the burden on the responders without putting forth any real effort yourself.

Perhaps you could give an example of what you mean?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

If your arguments that we live in a feminism-dominated culture are so reasonable, then how do you account for the fact that only 13% of university scientists in the UK are women; that women in the US earn roughly 3/4 what men earn in the same livelihoods; that women, particularly women with children, make up the overwhelming majority (in the US) of those considered by Federal definitions "poor;" why women (despite earning less) are routinely charged more than men for the same services (how different is drycleaning a blouse from drycleaning a shirt? How different is cutting women's hair from cutting men's hair? How different is shortening a pair of men's trousers, often done at no extra charge for the garment, from shortening a woman's skirt (double-digit dollars, where I live)?

If Western society is so feminist-dominated, how do we account for the following:

A few years prior to 1992, a study of more than 22,000 doctors found that taking small doses of aspirin reduces the odds of having a heart attack. This study included not one single woman.

Another study of the effects of diet on breast cancer included . . . not one single woman.

Since women and men differ physiologically, wouldn't it make sense that a feminist-dominated society might demand that diseases affecting women in large numbers, like breast cancer, be studied in women?

Yet an editor of the esteemed (in the US, anyway) New England Journal of Medicine said, in response to such criticisms, "Gender bias is not serious in a way that distorts research. It doesn't serve women well to see sexism where it doesn't exist." This editor, it should be noted, was Marcia Angell, a woman. To quote Carol Tavris, from whose book The Mismeasure of Woman the above information is paraphrased, "Titles [in journal articles] reveal the common practice of basing a study exclusively on men but implying or stating that the results are applicable to both sexes." She goes on to add, "In contrast, almost no one assumes that a study done only on women would apply to men also."

In a society where feminism is culturally dominant, as you assert. how do you explain these data?

[ 14. June 2015, 17:45: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

This may sound patronising but ...

Within the ecology of the Ship, Bibliophile is arguing for a minority position while lilBuddha, mr cheesy and I generally are not. This means that if I say something stupid, there's a high chance that someone else will jump in and cover my solecism by saying something sensible, whereas Bibliophile has fewer defenders and has to work harder.

In other words, I think there are very few liberal posters who, without the protection of the herd, would measure up to the high standards of logical debate expected by mr cheesy. Certainly I don't think mr cheesy himself would.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Rather than build your case, you put forth general statements and put the burden of proof on those who disagree. It is a dishonest tactic which puts the burden on the responders without putting forth any real effort yourself.
Perhaps you could give an example of what you mean?

Lol, didn't think you had such a sense of humour.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

In other words, I think there are very few liberal posters who, without the protection of the herd, would measure up to the high standards of logical debate expected by mr cheesy. Certainly I don't think mr cheesy himself would.

I don't know if I'd agree with"very few", but it certainly doesn't pay to get lazy.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I guess I qualify as 'liberal', but I've often been in a minority position on a thread (or even a solitary position).

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Ricardus [Overused]

- I think that's spot on.

It'd be possible to have a sensible discussion about to what extent feminism had become a dominant ideology within Western culture (starting with defining feminism). People could rationally come to different conclusions but still explain their views.

I suspect The Ship would be a difficult place to do that though, the opinions are too one-sided and it's too inflammatory (and huge) a subject.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

LeRoc - So have I for that matter, which is why I weaselled with 'generally'.

[ 14. June 2015, 18:13: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Rather than build your case, you put forth general statements and put the burden of proof on those who disagree. It is a dishonest tactic which puts the burden on the responders without putting forth any real effort yourself.
Perhaps you could give an example of what you mean?

Just in case you didn't get lilbuddha's joke, that is a fine example of what she has just stated.

[ 14. June 2015, 19:03: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Bibliophile

May I say how very Christian it is of you to offer yourself as a martyr to take the ire of shipmates off Tim Hunt. It means they have completely got distracted from the issue of women's involvement in Science. It is one of the swiftest hijackings of an active discussion I have ever seen on Ship of Fools.

Congratulations

Jengie

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Gosh - it didn't take long did it? I wondered how soon it'd be before Bibliolater found himself in Hell.

As soon as I'd read a couple of his posts I thought, 'Ah ah ... I know where you're headed ...'

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

One problem here is the idea that one can talk about "feminism" as if all adherents are fighting for exactly the same issues in exactly the same way.

So women who talk about abuse in academia are obviously part of a plot which has a straight-line to women who campaign for abortion. Except, of course, anyone who thinks about this for more than a nanosecond would realise that a woman talking about work conditions in a university might at the same time have strong pro-life views. Or whatever other issue.

Which is clearly bullshit. If a man is a trade unionist, we don't assume he also has strong views about gambling. Why would we?

That's just for instance. Clearly an argument so full of holes that it makes zero sense. Nothing even approaching reality.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

It surely can't surprise one to find Bibliowhatever in hell when all their views read like either a pastiche stereotype or a list of baiting topics. The only real surprise was that it took this long.

Was someone recently made to walk the plank?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

This thought had also occurred to me. It seems to be a curious mixture of undigested thoughts from a teenager and someone who is very familiar with the culture of the ship.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Or someone who doesn't get out as much as they ought to. Or who lives in Idaho.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
completely got distracted from the issue of women's involvement in Science.

Proof positive. Bibliophile is clearly a female scientist. Who else could prove so distracting?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
This may sound patronising but ...

Within the ecology of the Ship, Bibliophile is arguing for a minority position while lilBuddha, mr cheesy and I generally are not. This means that if I say something stupid, there's a high chance that someone else will jump in and cover my solecism by saying something sensible, whereas Bibliophile has fewer defenders and has to work harder.

In other words, I think there are very few liberal posters who, without the protection of the herd, would measure up to the high standards of logical debate expected by mr cheesy. Certainly I don't think mr cheesy himself would.

Overall, I think your analysis has merit. However, Bibliomightlovebooksbutdoesn'tappeartounderstandtheuseofthebasicunitofabook(words) has not put in the requisite effort to qualify as work.
In order to bolster the case of himsheit, one would have to do the actual work of constructing a real argument to then defend.

[ 14. June 2015, 21:27: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
(starting with defining feminism)

The belief that women are people too.

Which I know comes as a shock to many, but there's pretty solid evidence for it.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

I think that the definition of feminism as "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes" is a pretty good one. I've also defined a few more of my terms in my latest post in 'The trouble with girls' thread. I hope that helps.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
(starting with defining feminism)
The belief that women are people too.

Which I know comes as a shock to many, but there's pretty solid evidence for it.

Someone has to okay Devils Advocate on this [Devil]

and ask you to cite your evidence.

On a Hell call where the callee has been accused ofnot citing their references it is only fair.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

You know all those phylogenetic studies they can do now? I don't have a link to the source just at the moment, but I'm pretty damn sure I read somewhere that they did one of those on women and discovered their DNA is virtually indistinguishable from that of men.

There's a spot where they seem to have 2 copies of a gene when we only code for 1 copy, but that was in it in terms of difference.

Based on this analysis, scientists are proposing that we be classified as the same species.

[ 15. June 2015, 02:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Of course women are people! The questions is are men?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Oh come now, now you're just being silly. Men are people by definition.

[ 15. June 2015, 02:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Well, I read somewhere or another that they have this irregular chromosome...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Well, I read somewhere or another that they have this irregular chromosome...

That's not a bug. It's a feature.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You go on thinking that, now.

(Shame about the damaged half chromosome)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think Ricardus's point has merit and overall I agree that conservative posters do have to work harder than liberal ones who can fall back on the support if their more numerous peers.

Unfortunately, Bibliofailure doesn't appear capable of putting in the hard work necessary to hold his own. Watching him clambering out of his trench and into No-man's Land is like watching troops advancing into heavy machine gun fire. He loses half his platoon within the first few yards.

The problem is, he doesn't see it and persists in repeating the same half-baked points over and over thinking it'll get him through the barbed wire. It's not pretty to watch.

There other more conservative posters who can at least lay down a heavier preliminary bombardment or launch flanking attacks. Biblioflounderer just heads straight into the barbed wire oblivious to his own losses.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

And the definition of madness is....doing something which doesn't work. Still doing it....

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I wonder if Bibliowhatsit will respond to the points about sex equality being nominal not actual. If s/he does not, I will suspect that s/he is just baiting people. In fact, many kinds of equality are nominal. I wonder why.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I suspect that we'll just get the same repeatedly recycled crap, because the textbook Bibliophile is quoting from does not include much actual content.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I doubt if Bibliofacile has access to any text books, still less the capacity to understand them correctly if he has.

He seems to have only one approach to any question, to throw his own unnuanced views at it again and again irrespective of how much evidence or counter-arguments are raised against him.

When he's driving along and comes to a road-junction I expect he simply drives across it and expects everyone else to get out of the way.

As for what books or Bibles he claims to be a 'phile' over, they are probably the comic-book version. I wonder if he's ever read one that hasn't got pictures in?

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if Bibliowhatsit will respond to the points about sex equality being nominal not actual. If s/he does not, I will suspect that s/he is just baiting people. In fact, many kinds of equality are nominal. I wonder why.

Right well I'll try again to get this point through again.

Sir Tim Hunt has been removed from various position by Academic institutions following their 'Equalities Policies'

This demonstrates that that these institutions have an 'Equality Policy' which is, however imperfectly, enforced.

A femininist culture would be a culture where the existence of an 'Equality Policy' would be seen as a good thing.

An anti-feminist culture would be a culture where the existence of an 'Equality Policy', however imperfectly enforced, would be seen as a bad thing.

A dominant culture is a culture that has the power to get its way on points like this. So a dominant feminist culture would have the power and desire to keep these policies in place, to keep the Equality Act in place and to discuss strengthening these policies and laws. A dominant anti feminist culture would have he power and desire to abolish these policies and repeal the Equality Act

Neither this academic institution nor, as far as I'm aware, any other academic institution or corporation which has had an equality policy has abolished it, or even seriously talked about abolishing it. Neither is there any serious talk or prospect of the Equality Act being repealed. The only serious talk and prospect is about these rules being strengthened.

Therefore the culture that is getting its way on this point is a feminist culture. Therefore the feminist culture is dominant.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Oh dear. I'm getting a strong smell of men's rights here. The wimminz have tukken over the world. Men is done wrong, can't have their kids, can't wear the trousers, the wimminz haz wun.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

A dominent culture wouldn't need Acts of Parliament to enforce it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Confused]

I'm not sure that follows. All it tells us is that feminist reaction against this sort of thing can be influential.

It doesn't mean that feminism is the dominant ideology in our society.

If I may say so, you do tend to put things into simple black-and-white and binary categories.

Someone could pick up on an instance of gender inequality (and there are plenty of examples) and say that a 'patriarchal' anti-feminist note is the dominant one in our society.

I don't believe these things fall out into such neat categories as that. Perhaps it's time you started reading books without pictures in or learning joined-up writing ...

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A dominent culture wouldn't need Acts of Parliament to enforce it.

A non dominant culture wouldn't be able to get such Acts of Parliament passed in the first place.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Alan's point about acts of parliament is interesting in relation to patriarchy. It's often said that the legal erasure of married women (coverture) is a prime example of patriarchal relations writ into law, but of course this was removed to an extent by the various Married Women's Property Acts of the late 19th century.

But, and it's a big but, the fact that these acts changed the law, doesn't mean that the culture was changed. In other words, women could still be seen as property, although legally they were not.

How you measure cultural change is more uncertain than counting acts of parliament. Thus, we have laws against racist discrimination - does this mean that we live in a non-racist culture? Hardly.

But Bibliomensrights is making a very black and white equation - there are various legal stipulations for sex equality, therefore feminism is dominant. Not so.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh dear. I'm getting a strong smell of men's rights here. The wimminz have tukken over the world. Men is done wrong, can't have their kids, can't wear the trousers, the wimminz haz wun.

Feminist culture being dominant is not the same thing as women being dominant. Men can be feminist too of course. In fact without the existence of feminist men neither the Equality Act, nor other equality legislation nor any of these 'Equality Policies' would exist in the first place.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A dominent culture wouldn't need Acts of Parliament to enforce it.
A non dominant culture wouldn't be able to get such Acts of Parliament passed in the first place.

There were no slaves in the parliament that abolished slavery, just a majority of predominant wealthy men who saw slavery to be immoral and/or economically inefficient.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
A femininist culture would be a culture where the existence of an 'Equality Policy' would be seen as a good thing.

Um, no. A feminist culture would be a culture where the existence of an 'Equality Policy' would be unnecessary.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A dominent culture wouldn't need Acts of Parliament to enforce it.
A non dominant culture wouldn't be able to get such Acts of Parliament passed in the first place.
There were no slaves in the parliament that abolished slavery, just a majority of predominant wealthy men who saw slavery to be immoral and/or economically inefficient.

Exactly. The dominant culture there was an anti-slavery culture. That did not make it a slave culture.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Exactly. The dominant culture there was an anti-slavery culture. That did not make it a slave culture.

Fuck me sideways.

Have you not considered that the law needed to be changed for the very reason that society was saturated with slavery? If it was not a "slave culture" why did it take Wilberforce and co more than 20 years to pass the abolition legislation?

You're out of your depth, son. Go back to reading your fairy stories or theology books or whatever else it is that you normally do for kicks.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
A femininist culture would be a culture where the existence of an 'Equality Policy' would be seen as a good thing.
Um, no. A feminist culture would be a culture where the existence of an 'Equality Policy' would be unnecessary.

Well if I'm getting so wrong than enlighten me then.

If the dominant culture is anti-feminist and if at the same time the 'Equality Policy' and laws exist it means one of two things.

Either a dominant anti-feminist culture wants these 'Equality Policies' and laws to exist

Or A dominant culture does not have the power to stop these policies and laws from existing.

Perhaps you could say which one of these two is the case and why you think it is the case?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A dominent culture wouldn't need Acts of Parliament to enforce it.
A non dominant culture wouldn't be able to get such Acts of Parliament passed in the first place.

This isn't how it works. Women didn't vote themselves the right to vote; men voted women the right to vote. In the United States, our congress regularly passes laws that polls show the majority of Americans oppose.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Goodness me, men voted women the right to vote -- therefore we must have a 'feminist' culture ...

[Roll Eyes]

I don't know where you're posting from Bibliophile, but whichever planet it is it appears to have a logic and nuance by-pass culture ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It sounds like part of the right-wing backlash to me. Women/gays/blacks have taken over the world, and men/straights/whites have become the victims of the dominant cultures, which are feminist, homosexualist, pro-black, or however it's expressed.

It has to use very unsubtle concepts like 'dominance' to express this, and has to deny any sense of conflict or contestation. Thus if laws are passed about sex equality, that is feminist dominance, and so on.

In other news, film at 11.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
And the definition of madness is....doing something which doesn't work. Still doing it....

And this applies to the people arguing with the idiot as well.
It is quite clear that Bookfucker is either a troll or phenomenally dense. Coming to Hell to call it names might be marginally satisfying, but might as well be arguing with an answer machine.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

For some reason, I saw this observation about Twitter and thought of this thread.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
A femininist culture would be a culture where the existence of an 'Equality Policy' would be seen as a good thing.
Um, no. A feminist culture would be a culture where the existence of an 'Equality Policy' would be unnecessary.
Well if I'm getting so wrong than enlighten me then.

If the dominant culture is anti-feminist and if at the same time the 'Equality Policy' and laws exist it means one of two things.

Either a dominant anti-feminist culture wants these 'Equality Policies' and laws to exist

Or A dominant culture does not have the power to stop these policies and laws from existing.

Perhaps you could say which one of these two is the case and why you think it is the case?

Oh for fuck's sake, the entire problem with this conversation is that you think there are only two cases.

We're talking about the interaction of culture and law. Not your bloody light switch.

Let me hit you a little harder with the clue stick. For starters, the opposite of "dominant feminist culture" is NOT "dominant anti-feminist culture".* The whole world doesn't automatically divide into two neat pro- and anti- halves like that. It's a spectrum.

I realise that there's a hell of a lot of evidence on the Ship already that you only actually have 2 spaces in your brain, and a ball bearing that rolls from one to the other, but here in the real world there's a middle that needs to distributed.

* The actual opposite is "non-dominant feminist culture". Or, alternatively, you could talk about "dominant non-feminist" culture. The fact that you think that the opposite is "anti-" rather than "non-" is, IMHO, the primary cause of you driving folk crazy.

[ 15. June 2015, 15:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Welcome to the binary world of the right-wing. Somebody is dominant, and somebody else is subordinate. And since equality legislation has been passed, feminists are dominant, and I suppose gays are dominant, and blacks are dominant. Poor straight white men, eternal victims of the spotless mind!

The idea of social conflict or 'ideological contestation' seems to have eluded the right-wing, for some reason. I suppose it smacks of post-modernism, hence left-wing dominance.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

No. The comments pages of the average news website show that it's not confined to the right-wing. Far too many people on both "wings" are so wedded to their own side that they assume EVERYONE is on a side.

The whole of life gets treated like sport. Which, given how popular and wealthy professional sport is, isn't as much of a surprise as I'd like it to be. Winners and losers make life so much easier to understand.

(Rugby league here was so horrified by the existence of a draw in a major match, they actually changed the rules to try and prevent draws ever happening. Morons.)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think that's right. I just notice the particular martyred form of it found amongst right-wingers, bemoaning the triumph of women, gays, blacks. Men's rights sees a virulent form of it, and other forms of anti-feminism, the wimminz haz done us in.

But radical feminism, as was, also had a kind of binary quality, anything male was bad, and penises were toxic, I don't know if this still goes on, probably.

[ 15. June 2015, 15:50: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
, the wimminz haz done us in.

Don't tempt

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
, the wimminz haz done us in.
Don't tempt

Well, I often wonder if there is a kind of weird erotic pleasure among men's rights people - look at me, I am hog-tied by wimminz, and they have grabbed my python, and are siphoning it, woe is me, ooops.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I have a friend who says they often like women with guns too - hence the internet memes about Women Kurdish fighters with Kalashnikovs.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But radical feminism, as was, also had a kind of binary quality, anything male was bad, and penises were toxic, I don't know if this still goes on, probably.

Unfortunately, yes, especially in academe. Note that although this particular article was written by a man, the concept of "gender feminism" was invented by Christina Hoff Summers, who is a woman and a feminist. I chose this article because it was a good quick intro to the subject.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, it's like trying to mold a bust out of custard-- success factor practically nil.
( page jump vertigo- was reffering to " reasoning with Bibliophile.)

[ 15. June 2015, 16:11: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
, the wimminz haz done us in.
Don't tempt
Well, I often wonder if there is a kind of weird erotic pleasure among men's rights people - look at me, I am hog-tied by wimminz, and they have grabbed my python, and are siphoning it, woe is me, ooops.

(Probable preaching to the choir warning)

Yeah, that's why the whole " girl power" movement wound up being bullshit. Its premise was basically, use your position as a desirable object to manipulate the truly dominant folk into getting what you want.

If you have to manipulate folk, you don't really have power. If peopl are only listening to you because they find your assertiveness erotic, they aren't really listening to you.

Anything to avoid that whole idea that wimminz might have some other intrinsic purpose than being an extension of the men in their lives.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Oh certainly there are some, quetzacoatl.
IMO, the sincere men's rights proponents are looking at the detriments of their individual situation rather than the benefits their group enjoys. Same mechanism in many anti-affirmative action campaigners. "[i]I[/] am x and I am disadvantaged, therefore bring x is not an advantage". It is faulty logic, but easily manipulated and both ascribes a cause and puts it away from self.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But radical feminism, as was, also had a kind of binary quality, anything male was bad, and penises were toxic, I don't know if this still goes on, probably.

ISTM, it is and always was a small part of the movement. Contrary to male fear and fantasy, most women are straight. So you lot are needed. Though silicone and eccentric motors have reduced day to day dependency, still need men to make more womyn.
And now we reveal why women are paid less than men in the sciences. I bet research into asexual reproduction in higher-order mammals is under-funded as well.

[ 15. June 2015, 16:13: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

mousethief,

If you don't know, Christina Hoff Summers identifies as a feminist but she's a libertarian and very critical of large parts of the modern feminist movement. I think she gives an interesting perspective, but many contemporary feminists would regard her as an opponent.

She's one reason I said this:

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
It'd be possible to have a sensible discussion about to what extent feminism had become a dominant ideology within Western culture (starting with defining feminism).

Her definition might be rather different to most.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I came across very radical forms of feminism at university in the late '70s/early '80s - much of it informed by US models, I have to say (which is why I've never believed the standard European line that there isn't a Left in the US).

As Mousethief says, a lot of it was pretty out-there and whacko ... and as Oscar observes, binariness isn't restricted to one side or the other of the political spectrum.

Binariness does seem to be a feature of Bibliophile's world-view too -- I expect he's from Binaryville, Dualist County, Idaho.

There's about as much nuance in his arguments as there is in a Chick Tract. Heck, even a Chick Tract would score more highly in the subtlety stakes ...

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

What lilb said. I have been calling myself a feminist since I was fourteen ir so, and I didn't run into the " dicks are bad" version of feminism until I saw " I shot Andy Worhal" in my thirties. Until then, my experience of feminism had been general principals of 1. Women insisting that their point of view was valid 2. Holding up worthy and influential women as role models, when traditional history had downplayed or ignored their contributions (See: the history of computer technology) 3. Holding that gender based expectations and stereotypes hurt people of either gender. ( "free to be, you and me" was just as much a men's lib manifesto as it ws a women's lib. God Bless Rosie Greer.) The version of feminism I cut my teeth on was very much about uniting people, not dividing them.

[ 15. June 2015, 16:33: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

It is intriguing that Bibliophile has to coin terms for the Dominant Anti-Feminist Society. Most scholars when talking of such tend to oppose feminism with "Patriarchy".

Jengie

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I read Bibliophile as saying that our culture is predominantly feminist in the same way that the Eastern Bloc was predominantly Marxist.

That is, any apparatchik who wanted to get to the top had to make the right noises about Marx, and any national events had to trumpet the country's Marxist ideology, even though no Eastern Bloc country bore any resemblance to anything Marx himself would have recognised as the ideal society.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Given the twist and bends he has made to say that women don't get paid less because they're women, I think that is an incredibly generous read.
And given he couldn't articulate that point clearly in several pages effort...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think we've been able to work out what Bibliofool was trying to trying to say, Ricardus. We either don't agree with it or think he's been rather long-winded in expressing it.

I don't happen to agree with him, but would defend to my last breath his right to say it ...

Providing the rest of us reserve the right to take the mickey out of him for him binary blusterings.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I have been calling myself a feminist since I was fourteen ir so, and I didn't run into the " dicks are bad" version of feminism until I saw " I shot Andy Worhal" in my thirties. Until then, my experience of feminism had been general principals of 1. Women insisting that their point of view was valid 2. Holding up worthy and influential women as role models, when traditional history had downplayed or ignored their contributions (See: the history of computer technology) 3. Holding that gender based expectations and stereotypes hurt people of either gender. ( "free to be, you and me" was just as much a men's lib manifesto as it ws a women's lib. God Bless Rosie Greer.) The version of feminism I cut my teeth on was very much about uniting people, not dividing them.

Any father of daughters should be a feminist.

Any man who loves his wife or partner should be a feminist.

Anyone who cares are about any form of violence should be a feminist.

Feminism as you define it Kelly. We all win when women are powerful and feel good about being themselves. It's the most important social issue in the world. I am personally surrounded by intelligent powerful women.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
It is intriguing that Bibliophile has to coin terms for the Dominant Anti-Feminist Society. Most scholars when talking of such tend to oppose feminism with "Patriarchy".

Jengie

Yes, I guess this is someone who is not in the swing of the normal sociological or political discourse. It's quite a shock to me to hear such black and white thinking, or as used to be said, non-dialectical. Obviously, reforms go on within patriarchy, women get the vote, they are treated less like property, they can get an education and a career, yet we could still say that patriarchal structures and attitudes continue.

I suppose the Tim Hunt thing showed these subterranean attitudes surfacing, and showing that influential people in science and elsewhere are still sexist and misogynist.

Then the right-wing speak out absurdly and say that feminism now has its own hegemony, when of course, traditionally, feminism was opposed to the patriarchal hegemony. It is interesting, like seeing a bog person brought up from the peat bog, who retains recognizable traits and features, that I had forgotten about.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
no prophet's flag is set so...: Any father of daughters should be a feminist.

Any man who loves his wife or partner should be a feminist.

Anyone who cares are about any form of violence should be a feminist.

I usually refrain from calling myself a feminist, because I'm not sure whether as a man I have a right to that title.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I usually refrain from calling myself a feminist, because I'm not sure whether as a man I have a right to that title.

I used to think this, but no-one could tell me something else, except awkward things requiring explanation like "pro-feminist". So I thought eventually that it's sort of like the "gay marriage" label. Better if we just call it marriage. Better if we just call it feminist.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Her [Christina Hoff Summers'] definition might be rather different to most.

Hmm. The definition of feminism she espouses is given here: "A first wave, 'mainstream,' or 'equity' feminist wants for women what she wants for everyone: fair treatment, without discrimination."

If that's different than most feminists, then her point is pretty well made.

[ 15. June 2015, 20:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We all win when women are powerful and feel good about being themselves.

Surely that depends on how you define winning?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Winning in this context: a figure of speech which means that there isn't a negative outcome for anyone, or to use another figure of speech, "no down side". But perhaps some idioms are beyond some idiots?

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

The majority of people on SoF are smug middle class arseholes, with seemingly no experience of any kind of life outside their own middle class arsehole, self-congratulatory bien pendant bubble. The sore of wankers who post twats about who should be sacked next for making a joke or having an opinion that offends them. The worst thing is that they think they are enlightened and liberal when in fact they are just wankers (although I'm sure they are really very nice people.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, we love you too. [Axe murder]

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A dominent culture wouldn't need Acts of Parliament to enforce it.
A non dominant culture wouldn't be able to get such Acts of Parliament passed in the first place.
This isn't how it works. Women didn't vote themselves the right to vote; men voted women the right to vote. In the United States, our congress regularly passes laws that polls show the majority of Americans oppose.

I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat this but a feminist dominated culture is not the same thing at all as a female dominated culture. As for Congress regularly passing laws that the majority of Americans oppose that is a sign that the dominant culture doesn't always coincide in its view with the majority culture, although the latter can often follow the former.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Exactly. The dominant culture there was an anti-slavery culture. That did not make it a slave culture.
Fuck me sideways.

Have you not considered that the law needed to be changed for the very reason that society was saturated with slavery? If it was not a "slave culture" why did it take Wilberforce and co more than 20 years to pass the abolition legislation?

You're out of your depth, son. Go back to reading your fairy stories or theology books or whatever else it is that you normally do for kicks.

The dominant culture became anti slave trade and the banning of the slave trade was the result. this was a gradual process but was complete by the time that abolition of the slave trade. Parliament had some years earlier accepted in principle that the trade should be abolished but conservative minded MPs delayed the full abolition of the trade on what they saw as practical grounds. Once these objections had been overcome the Commons voted to abolish the trade by an overwhelming majority. This was the result of a change in the dominant culture not the cause.

The same was true of the abolition of slavery itself some years later.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
The majority of people on SoF are smug middle class arseholes, with seemingly no experience of any kind of life outside their own middle class arsehole, self-congratulatory bien pendant bubble. The sore of wankers who post twats about who should be sacked next for making a joke or having an opinion that offends them. The worst thing is that they think they are enlightened and liberal when in fact they are just wankers (although I'm sure they are really very nice people.

Phew. I'm in the clear.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It sounds like part of the right-wing backlash to me. Women/gays/blacks have taken over the world, and men/straights/whites have become the victims of the dominant cultures, which are feminist, homosexualist, pro-black, or however it's expressed.

It has to use very unsubtle concepts like 'dominance' to express this, and has to deny any sense of conflict or contestation. Thus if laws are passed about sex equality, that is feminist dominance, and so on.

In other news, film at 11.

A dominant feminist culture is not the same thing and a woman dominated culture as I keep having to point out. Also I get the point about contestation and conflict. My point is that these sorts of conflicts are always won by the dominant culture. If a culture can't win these sorts of contests then its not dominant.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Exactly. The dominant culture there was an anti-slavery culture. That did not make it a slave culture.
Fuck me sideways.

Have you not considered that the law needed to be changed for the very reason that society was saturated with slavery? If it was not a "slave culture" why did it take Wilberforce and co more than 20 years to pass the abolition legislation?

You're out of your depth, son. Go back to reading your fairy stories or theology books or whatever else it is that you normally do for kicks.
The dominant culture became anti slave trade and the banning of the slave trade was the result. this was a gradual process but was complete by the time that abolition of the slave trade. Parliament had some years earlier accepted in principle that the trade should be abolished but conservative minded MPs delayed the full abolition of the trade on what they saw as practical grounds. Once these objections had been overcome the Commons voted to abolish the trade by an overwhelming majority. This was the result of a change in the dominant culture not the cause.

The same was true of the abolition of slavery itself some years later.

I find it mildly amusing that you think Parliament is automatically "the dominant culture".

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That is the case. Bibliophile does have the historical facts on his side.

There was a gradual build-up of opinion against the slave trade which transcended differences of political opinion and theological position - so you'd find a High Tory like John Wesley opposed to it as well as a strong agnostic or atheist like the Whig Charles James Fox.

Evangelicals like Wilberforce opposed it, of course, as did a Unitarian such as Josiah Wedgwood - whilst the very evangelical George Whitefield was in favour of slavery on what he considered practical grounds ...

It's been estimated that the landmark petition calling for the abolition of the slave trade that was signed in Manchester Cathedral was signed by about a fifth of the city's male population -- in 18th century terms about as broad a cross-section of social classes as you were going to get at that time.

Sure, only men were invited to sign it as far as I am aware - and I can't remember whether it was only open to those who had the franchise in terms of being able to vote - but I suspect it may have extended further than that as there were ordinary mill-workers and so on who signed as far as I can gather.

So it was a case of legislation finally catching up with the popular mood.

To an extent, that may have parallels with contemporary views of gender equality - but I'm not convinced there's an exact equivalent going on here - but Bibliophile has clarified what he's driving at.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

In fairness, Orfeo, I don't think Bibliophile was saying that Parliament was the 'dominant culture', rather that a change in the dominant culture's attitude towards the slave trade led to Parliamentary legislation to abolish the trade - and later slavery itself.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Welcome to the binary world of the right-wing. Somebody is dominant, and somebody else is subordinate. And since equality legislation has been passed, feminists are dominant, and I suppose gays are dominant, and blacks are dominant. Poor straight white men, eternal victims of the spotless mind!

The great majority of people at the top of the dominant culture are men (and not just men but mostly straight white men). The dominant culture of our society is feminist because these people are pro feminist.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In fairness, Orfeo, I don't think Bibliophile was saying that Parliament was the 'dominant culture', rather that a change in the dominant culture's attitude towards the slave trade led to Parliamentary legislation to abolish the trade - and later slavery itself.

Exactly. As I say the dominant culture isn't necessarily the same as the majority culture but in this case both were anti-slave trade by the time the vote to ban the trade was passed.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Welcome to the binary world of the right-wing. Somebody is dominant, and somebody else is subordinate. And since equality legislation has been passed, feminists are dominant, and I suppose gays are dominant, and blacks are dominant. Poor straight white men, eternal victims of the spotless mind!
The great majority of people at the top of the dominant culture are men (and not just men but mostly straight white men). The dominant culture of our society is feminist because these people are pro feminist.

Would that it were so! If it were, there would be no glass ceiling.

[ 15. June 2015, 22:22: Message edited by: jacobsen ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by : Bibliophile
....

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Fuck me sideways.

Fuck me gently with a chainsaw.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So it was a case of legislation finally catching up with the popular mood.

But that is my point. Emphasis on catching up.

I don't have time right now to write much more, but anyone who's ever voted is well aware that Parliament is not a terribly good reflection of where culture is at on any SINGLE issue. Sometimes the sort of people who are MPs are ahead of the populace, and sometimes they're way behind it.

EDIT: And that's still assuming "the populace" is some kind of monolithic entity, which is rarely the case. The great majority of issues there are fault lines based on age and wealth, to pick the most obvious.

You know why some reforms take 20 years? Because everyone's waiting for enough of the dinosaurs to die off.

[ 15. June 2015, 23:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Welcome to the binary world of the right-wing. Somebody is dominant, and somebody else is subordinate. And since equality legislation has been passed, feminists are dominant, and I suppose gays are dominant, and blacks are dominant. Poor straight white men, eternal victims of the spotless mind!
The great majority of people at the top of the dominant culture are men (and not just men but mostly straight white men). The dominant culture of our society is feminist because these people are pro feminist.

Could you give some examples of the ways in which the dominant culture of our society is feminist.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Slavery. Really? So, the majority of Britain is anti-Slavery. The ending of slavery in Britain was a populist movement. Safe enough proclamation. And now black people are equal in Britain, have equal opportunity to gain the same jobs and receive equal pay for those jobs.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I have been calling myself a feminist since I was fourteen ir so, and I didn't run into the " dicks are bad" version of feminism until I saw " I shot Andy Worhal" in my thirties. Until then, my experience of feminism had been general principals of 1. Women insisting that their point of view was valid 2. Holding up worthy and influential women as role models, when traditional history had downplayed or ignored their contributions (See: the history of computer technology) 3. Holding that gender based expectations and stereotypes hurt people of either gender. ( "free to be, you and me" was just as much a men's lib manifesto as it ws a women's lib. God Bless Rosie Greer.) The version of feminism I cut my teeth on was very much about uniting people, not dividing them.
Any father of daughters should be a feminist.

Any man who loves his wife or partner should be a feminist.

Anyone who cares are about any form of violence should be a feminist.

Feminism as you define it Kelly. We all win when women are powerful and feel good about being themselves. It's the most important social issue in the world. I am personally surrounded by intelligent powerful women.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
The majority of people on SoF are smug middle class arseholes, with seemingly no experience of any kind of life outside their own middle class arsehole, self-congratulatory bien pendant bubble. The sore of wankers who post twats about who should be sacked next for making a joke or having an opinion that offends them. The worst thing is that they think they are enlightened and liberal when in fact they are just wankers (although I'm sure they are really very nice people.

"Bien pendant"? What's that, "correctly hanging"?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I beg your pardon, fishface, I am a smug proletarian asshole.

[ 16. June 2015, 02:39: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
"Bien pendant"? What's that, "correctly hanging"?

"Well hung"?

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Any father of daughters should be a feminist.

Any man who loves his wife or partner should be a feminist.

Anyone who cares are about any form of violence should be a feminist.

Feminism as you define it Kelly. We all win when women are powerful and feel good about being themselves. It's the most important social issue in the world. I am personally surrounded by intelligent powerful women.

Oh God, this is Hell, I have to say it. I have to.

As kindhearted as I am sure you words are meant, how meta is it, my friend, to see someone mansplaining the concept of feminism to a (nearly) cradle feminist?

Yes, but I think this does illustrate the awkwardness of being a male feminist: as much as I try to just treat people like people, I can't really turn the 'man' thing off.

Really, the most you can hope from me is a stereotypically male appreciation and support of feminism.

At best, I don't get it.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

[Overused]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Winning in this context: a figure of speech which means that there isn't a negative outcome for anyone, or to use another figure of speech, "no down side". But perhaps some idioms are beyond some idiots?

Well that's the thing, isn't it? You say "no negative outcome for anyone", but the fact of the matter is that if more women are getting the top jobs that means fewer men are getting them. For the men concerned, that could easily be seen as a negative outcome even though it is a positive one for society as a whole.

The whole point of equality (as I see it) is that not everyone can win, therefore we should work to ensure that the winners can come from any and all parts of society. If everyone could win anyway then we wouldn't need to worry about it.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Exactly. As I say the dominant culture isn't necessarily the same as the majority culture but in this case both were anti-slave trade by the time the vote to ban the trade was passed.

This is historically incoherent. There was enormous opposition to the anti-slavery movement in England because it was such an ingrained part of the fabric of society - not least because so many powerful people and interests made money from it.

It is true that many people were involved in the anti-slavery campaign but as you've stated above, mass support for something does not equate to it being the dominant culture. In fact, if we are talking about "dominant" in terms of the actions of the rich and powerful, then it took a very long time for British society to reject slavery.

Wilberforce's work leading to the Slave Trade Act of 1807 is often seen as the point where slavery ended, but this is not the case. In fact Parliamentarians took more than 20 further years to ban slavery from the whole British Empire.

It is even said that Wilberforce himself was complicit in slavery in Sierra Leone after 1807 - apparently as a "best of bad options" for managing the abolitionist colony.

As others have said, it is very rare that there is a light-switch moment in history when attitudes immediately move from one thing to another. When powerful political, cultural, historical and economic interests are involved, it takes a very long time to change things - and even longer to change individual attitudes.

The only contemporary example I can think of where there has been a rapid change in dominant attitude is when the Nazis were destroyed in post-war Germany and when views which had recently been very powerful were suddenly unacceptable.

Which all just goes to show that you, Bibliophile, don't actually know much about the crap you spout. Throwing out terms which you've self-defined in narrow and intellectually incoherent ways does not make good argument.

Even the examples you use are shown to be a shallow and shite way to see things time after time.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well that's the thing, isn't it? You say "no negative outcome for anyone", but the fact of the matter is that if more women are getting the top jobs that means fewer men are getting them. For the men concerned, that could easily be seen as a negative outcome even though it is a positive one for society as a whole.

That's right, and explains why so many work so hard to retain the cookies they've inherited and avoid giving them to anyone else.

quote:
The whole point of equality (as I see it) is that not everyone can win, therefore we should work to ensure that the winners can come from any and all parts of society. If everyone could win anyway then we wouldn't need to worry about it.

Society should reflect the needs of everyone, not just the historical norms which have lifted the few at the expense of the many. This might mean that some men lose out in academia and elsewhere. Hard cheese.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

What is mansplaining?

Is it a man explaining something?

If so, how do we avoid it?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
What is mansplaining?

Is it a man explaining something?

If so, how do we avoid it?

Oh sweetie, bless your heart! It is a man explaining something, typically to a woman, in a condescending manner.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

So why not just call it being condescending instead?

Or is that something only men do?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Condescension is not a male-only trait, no. But mansplaining.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

Lilbuddha: [Killing me]

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Or is that something only men do?

No it's not, but men are much more prone to it.

I suspect men are taught (and perhaps evolved) to show off more than women, and one way they do this is to demonstrate they know stuff. They also tend to have more aggressive conversation, bluntly jockeying for status.

Apparently the term started with a guy pontificating about a new book to a woman he'd met at a party, Rebecca Solnit. It turned out he hadn't even read it, just a review, and Solnit had to tell him four times that she was actually the author.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

Apparently the term started with a guy pontificating about a new book to a woman he'd met at a party, Rebecca Solnit. It turned out he hadn't even read it, just a review, and Solnit had to tell him four times that she was actually the author.

That's not so much mansplaining as being a prat!

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Generally the term "mansplaining" is used when a man tries to explain something to a woman about her own experience, with an unvoiced assumption that he can see it in a more rational way than she can, or that his opinion of the matter is what's really important. So an example of this might be something like "I know you think that there's a lot of pressure on women to be thin and to look a certain way, but you don't need to worry! I find curvier women more attractive." So the gender of the man is relevant, and it's not just about being condescending (though it is condescending as all shit, usually).

This has also branched out into "whitesplaining" when white people try to explain that others have got it all wrong about racism etc.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Or you know, for that matter, "I know you think that we're living in a patriarchal society that regularly screws women over, and outspoken feminists end up living in a sea of rape and death threats and doxxing, but don't worry, it's actually a feminist dominant society because we've finally got round to giving women some protection under the law."

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well that's the thing, isn't it? You say "no negative outcome for anyone", but the fact of the matter is that if more women are getting the top jobs that means fewer men are getting them. For the men concerned, that could easily be seen as a negative outcome even though it is a positive one for society as a whole.
That's right, and explains why so many work so hard to retain the cookies they've inherited and avoid giving them to anyone else.

quote:
The whole point of equality (as I see it) is that not everyone can win, therefore we should work to ensure that the winners can come from any and all parts of society. If everyone could win anyway then we wouldn't need to worry about it.
Society should reflect the needs of everyone, not just the historical norms which have lifted the few at the expense of the many. This might mean that some men lose out in academia and elsewhere. Hard cheese.

We all win because society now has resources that were previously unavailable to it. The question is how to convince people that is worth a loosening of the grip on entitlement.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Many of us are blind to the pervasiveness and insidiousness of privilege. This comic does a good job of explaining it, and can be extrapolated to all sorts of compounding bias affecting privilege (and related "access to opportunity").

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
We all win because society now has resources that were previously unavailable to it. The question is how to convince people that is worth a loosening of the grip on entitlement.

Indeed. But that relies on everyone agreeing that the greater good of society as a whole is worth a diminishment in their own position. Not everyone agrees with that.

If I'm worse off, it doesn't really matter that a dozen other people are better off because of it. All I see is the fact that I'm worse off.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

You're basically saying what I just said.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Many of us are blind to the pervasiveness and insidiousness of privilege. This comic does a good job of explaining it, and can be extrapolated to all sorts of compounding bias affecting privilege (and related "access to opportunity").

I keep going back to the computer industry. When people looked at computer tech as boring office support, it was relegated to female office personel. When tech began to take off, all that talent and experience developed in the secretarial pool was dismissed.
I was listening to NPR the other day, and some financial analyst-- a woman, didn't catch the name-- was talking about how eco- crisis is forcing us to look at how individualist, aggresively capitalist global economic policies are failing on just about all fronts, global warming being the biggest sympom of a general breakdown. She went on to talk about the Koch's militant attitude toward collectivism, and how collectiveism is exactly what we need right now.

And I just started shaking my head, because the group of people traditionally culturated and societally encouraged towards collectivism-- cooperation, sacrifice, flexibility, communication, community-- is women.* Basically, our gender biased culture has backed us into a corner where the exact people we have groomed to express the very qualities that might save us -- literally, physically-- are still very far removed from positions where they can apply those qualities in dynamic ways.

* I definitely think it is possible-- indeed, desirable-- for men to have these qualities, but the fact is, those qualities are much more expected ( and therefore socially rewarded) in women.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
You're basically saying what I just said.

True, but in starker terms.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
You're basically saying what I just said.
True, but in starker terms.

No, more selfish terms.
Kelly's view is based on the good of society, your post on the good of the self.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

But, that's the issue.

Legislation (should) act for the good of society. Therefore, for the good of society, equal opportunity legislation exists to try to remove inequalities in opportunity based on gender, race etc.

However, when it comes down to individual behaviour, the good of society may not be the foremost consideration. So, if someone is so inclined, they can act in ways that are for the best interest of themselves (or, their family or simply "people like me") against the best interests of society as a whole.

And, in areas of human relationships (eg: employer - employee) things are so complicated that it is often impossible to confirm that someone has not acted in the best interests of society. Which is why sexism, racism etc still persist in employment - because the institutional nature of such bigotry rests in the attitudes of large numbers of individuals who (usually unconsciously) fail to put the interests of society first.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

(in response to Alan Cressswell) which is why we need regulations and anti-discrimination laws.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

In response to Alan,
My post was half in jest.
He posted what she posted, but with a slightly different inflection. So I posted what he posted with a slightly different inflection.
It was also about how we view things. We can easily justify things by the way we present them without denying the underlying reality.

[ 16. June 2015, 18:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Any father of daughters should be a feminist.

Any man who loves his wife or partner should be a feminist.

Anyone who cares are about any form of violence should be a feminist.

Feminism as you define it Kelly. We all win when women are powerful and feel good about being themselves. It's the most important social issue in the world. I am personally surrounded by intelligent powerful women.

Oh God, this is Hell, I have to say it. I have to.

As kindhearted as I am sure you words are meant, how meta is it, my friend, to see someone mansplaining the concept of feminism to a (nearly) cradle feminist? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Except that wasn't what I was arguing. I was arguing that men have a stake in feminism. I don't "mansplain" anything, except when I refuse to ask for directions when driving and then get lost. In that situation I should stop trying to be more of an idiot than I really am and just apologise for being objectively stupid.

Your point is a different one I think: that men should not try to lead anything whatsoever when it comes to feminism. I agree. Just be allied, and understand that we all have a stake in it.

And now because it is hell, I will repeat my last inappropriate comment: "fuck me gently with a chainsaw" (which I have now recalled, is actually from the 1988 movie Heathers).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
(in response to Alan Cressswell) which is why we need regulations and anti-discrimination laws.

But, regulation and law doesn't change base assumptions and cultural expectations. Lab managers (almost always men who have worked the system of long hours away from their family, or women who have basically had to behave like men) consider that family friendly working hours are a luxury to be denied to their staff (afterall, they didn't have them), or subconsciously assume that female staff will worker shorter overtime hours than men because of children, or won't be as willing to travel to conferences etc, etc ... While that doesn't change, while the systems favour traditional "masculine" roles with better pay than "feminine" roles, then we are living in a patriarchal society.

No amount of law passing and fine words will make this culture "dominated by feminism" until there has been real change.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
(in response to Alan Cressswell) which is why we need regulations and anti-discrimination laws.
But, regulation and law doesn't change base assumptions and cultural expectations.

I think it does, but over a very long timescale: generations.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Yes, generations. And, this is basically the first generation

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Every law is against the interests of at least someone. If a law were advantageous to everyone, then people would do it anyway and there wouldn't be a need to make a law. No country has a law that says "It is compulsory for everyone to breathe."

Of course, it is possible to oppose every law that is disadvantageous to anyone on principle. But that would amount to becoming an anarchist.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Alan, do you think there may actually be some jobs for which family-friendly (as you put it) hours simply aren't possible? And if so, what should be done with those jobs?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Do you think I'm here to solve all the problems of the world?

I was just pointing out how stupid someone would need to be to assert that feminism is dominant in our society.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Your point is a different one I think: that men should not try to lead anything whatsoever when it comes to feminism. I agree. Just be allied, and understand that we all have a stake in it.

I never, ever ,ever said that. Go back and check.

The statement you fired back at me was a simple comment reflecting my experience that the kind of feminism people were talking about--"Men are intrinsically bad"-- was so far out of my personal education and role-models of feminism that I had to see a movie about Valerie Solanas to gain exposure to it. Right directly in that quote I talked about how feminist values served the best interests of men ultimately.

Quote one time I have said men can't be feminists (ETA: or even spearhead feminist movements). Mousethief, LeRoc, Quetzal, and a lot of other guys could testify I have said the exact opposite many times.

You were lecturing the wrong person. Fuck yourself with a chainsaw.

[ 16. June 2015, 23:44: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
We all win because society now has resources that were previously unavailable to it. The question is how to convince people that is worth a loosening of the grip on entitlement.
Indeed. But that relies on everyone agreeing that the greater good of society as a whole is worth a diminishment in their own position. Not everyone agrees with that.

If I'm worse off, it doesn't really matter that a dozen other people are better off because of it. All I see is the fact that I'm worse off.

The authors of the book 'The Spirit Level', published a few years ago, make the argument that in fact everyone is better off* in a society with more equality, although they acknowledge that the net gains are greater for those from outside the mainstream.

Link to review and summary of book here

*However, they don't measure this in terms of how big the pile of cash you have to sit on is - more how long you will live and how healthy you will be during that life. Which is probably more relevant than cash.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Alan, do you think there may actually be some jobs for which family-friendly (as you put it) hours simply aren't possible? And if so, what should be done with those jobs?

I'm no Alan Cresswell, but many aspects of un-family-friendliness, could be mitigated. It would have costs, but if those jobs must be done, such as those which involve lengthy absence from home, then the additional cost has to be accepted.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Alan, do you think there may actually be some jobs for which family-friendly (as you put it) hours simply aren't possible? And if so, what should be done with those jobs?

At the very least, make sure that workplace regulations put the same accommodation and/ or consequences on employees as far as how their time off is or is not excused, regardless of their gender.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, generations. And, this is basically the first generation

Well, depends on your current age. Sex Discrimination Act 1984... there's an absolutely fascinating pamphlet in the Attorney-General's Department library (AGD being where I used to work) from the time, detailing how the proposed Act is a communist plot to wreck our families and lower our birth rate so the Russians can take us over.

One of the most fascinating things about the pamphlet is that it is labelled "Third Edition".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Every law is against the interests of at least someone. If a law were advantageous to everyone, then people would do it anyway and there wouldn't be a need to make a law. No country has a law that says "It is compulsory for everyone to breathe."

Of course, it is possible to oppose every law that is disadvantageous to anyone on principle. But that would amount to becoming an anarchist.

I would modify this slightly, and say that every law is against the perceived interests of someone. Sometimes the issue is simply that perception is so goddamn short-sighted.

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

With a move from 9-5 working patterns to a 7 day week model a number of areas are becoming less family friendly. Some health service staff who work in fields where standard hours are the norm, are looking at having to change to working weekends, they'll get week days off instead and some weekends, but will see less of their children and other family.

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

Indeed - given the size of the NHS, if Call Me Dave's plan to make it truly 24/7 even gets within a country mile of succeeding it will have a huge impact on the family lives of its staff.

AG

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

And increase the wage bill - which will mean a real terms cut somewhere.

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

...and increase the number of agency staff filling the gaps because the NHS can't pay enough to keep/attract staff...

etc etc etc

AG

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: I would modify this slightly, and say that every law is against the perceived interests of someone. Sometimes the issue is simply that perception is so goddamn short-sighted.

I can live with that.

quote:
Alan Cresswell: Do you think I'm here to solve all the problems of the world?

Get on with it, will you?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
The authors of the book 'The Spirit Level', published a few years ago, make the argument that in fact everyone is better off* in a society with more equality, although they acknowledge that the net gains are greater for those from outside the mainstream.

Link to review and summary of book here

*However, they don't measure this in terms of how big the pile of cash you have to sit on is - more how long you will live and how healthy you will be during that life. Which is probably more relevant than cash.

They're looking at average life expectancy/health across entire populations, seeing it go up, and then assuming that every individual within the population has seen an increase.

The far more likely scenario is that those at the bottom have seen big improvements while those at the top have stayed in the same place. Or to put it another way, those at the top have seen no benefit from the shrinking of their 'pile of cash'.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

The far more likely scenario is that those at the bottom have seen big improvements while those at the top have stayed in the same place. Or to put it another way, those at the top have seen no benefit from the shrinking of their 'pile of cash'.

You really believe that those at the top of society have seen a decline compared to those at the bottom. Riiight.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

The far more likely scenario is that those at the bottom have seen big improvements while those at the top have stayed in the same place. Or to put it another way, those at the top have seen no benefit from the shrinking of their 'pile of cash'.
You really believe that those at the top of society have seen a decline compared to those at the bottom. Riiight.

Well, in the situation raised where life expectancy/health has improved across an entire population then the most likely scenario is one where the bottom (the least healthy) have seen a significant improvement whereas the top has seen a very small, if any, improvement. In that situation, those at the top have declined relative to those at the bottom.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

By almost every known measure, those at the very top have incomes increasing more rapidly than those at the bottom. This is dreamland stuff.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Yes. But we're not talking about income. We're talking about health and life expectancy.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And,

Even if the study in question (showing improvements for the whole of society as a result of increased equality) looked at wealth as well as health, it might be concluded that the welath distribution is not evening out is because society has significant inequalities.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The far more likely scenario is that those at the bottom have seen big improvements while those at the top have stayed in the same place. Or to put it another way, those at the top have seen no benefit from the shrinking of their 'pile of cash'.

IIRC correctly their findings are that even those at the top suffer less from stress-related diseases in more egalitarian countries.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The far more likely scenario is that those at the bottom have seen big improvements while those at the top have stayed in the same place. Or to put it another way, those at the top have seen no benefit from the shrinking of their 'pile of cash'.
You really believe that those at the top of society have seen a decline compared to those at the bottom. Riiight.

How you get "decline" from "stayed in the same place" is quite beyond me.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

The far more likely scenario is that those at the bottom have seen big improvements while those at the top have stayed in the same place. Or to put it another way, those at the top have seen no benefit from the shrinking of their 'pile of cash'.

What the hell are you basing this on? What I've seen shows a rising disparity in wealth.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I'm gonna guess they are discussing a purely UK dynamic, because in the US, the trend seems to be rich people getting ridiculously rich while the poor gets poorer and poorer. The only relief from that seems to be that a small amount of job growth has slowed down the decline of the poor.

Y'all socialists don't know how lucky you are.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm gonna guess they are discussing a purely UK dynamic, because in the US, the trend seems to be rich people getting ridiculously rich while the poor gets poorer and poorer. The only relief from that seems to be that a small amount of job growth has slowed down the decline of the poor.

Y'all socialists don't know how lucky you are.

From a Guardian article on a Credit Suisse report:

quote:
The UK is the only G7 country to record rising wealth inequality in 2000-14. Wealth inequality has risen four times faster in the seven years after the crash compared with the seven years before. The rich in the UK are becoming richer faster than ever. Wealth inequality rose under Labour; it rose faster under the coalition.

So who's lucky?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

[reply to Kelly]

That dynamic happens here too.

The problem is that we're all getting in a tangle. There was a link to a study that showed that increased equality in society resulted in an improvement in society as judged by average health and life expectancy. Which is not, necessarily related to wealth at all. The (very plausible IMO) conjecture was that if the average increases that's likely to be caused by an improvement at the bottom - the rich already have good health care and so their "score" in terms of health and life expectancy will be difficult to lift, whereas those with a poor health score have lots of room to improve.

The confusion came when someone mentioned "pots of cash" in relation to this. It may well be that wealth wasn't included in the score of the study cited because inequality in wealth distribution was one of the factors that they were measuring - rather than just race, gender and sexuality. Though, of course, they are related - we'll have racial equality when there is no difference in ability to get a given job or the salary received for a black man or a white man, until then racial inequality will also be reflected in a wealth inequality. Ditto for gender and sexuality.

[ 17. June 2015, 16:48: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

I think Marvin 's referring to the Spirit Level data, not what's happening in the UK at the moment. They say give the list (in order of increasing inequality) as:

Japan, Finland, three more Scandinavian countries, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, France, Canada, Switzerland, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Israel, New Zealand, Australia, UK, Portugal, USA and finally Singapore.

Interesting how equal Japan is; depressing about the UK. I have a nasty feeling that inequality was reduced by the depression then WWII, and now it's just creeping back to laissez-faire levels.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm gonna guess they are discussing a purely UK dynamic, because in the US, the trend seems to be rich people getting ridiculously rich while the poor gets poorer and poorer. The only relief from that seems to be that a small amount of job growth has slowed down the decline of the poor.

Y'all socialists don't know how lucky you are.
From a Guardian article on a Credit Suisse report:
quote:
The UK is the only G7 country to record rising wealth inequality in 2000-14. Wealth inequality has risen four times faster in the seven years after the crash compared with the seven years before. The rich in the UK are becoming richer faster than ever. Wealth inequality rose under Labour; it rose faster under the coalition.
So who's lucky?

Hang on to your NHS. You are lucky.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

There are moves to privatise the NHS by the back door. Lots of the legislation is already in place to do this, and those who are challenging the companies moving in are now fighting a rearguard action. Particularly as the Conservatives who drove this lot forward are back in power.

Sadly CallmeDave reckons the US is a good model, not Scandinavia.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

This from The Guardian shows that the Conservatives are hand-in-glove with the health industry. I've no doubt everything is legal but that doesn't mean it's decent and won't influence ministers.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There are moves to privatize the NHS by the back door. Lots of the legislation is already in place to do this, and those who are challenging the companies moving in are now fighting a rearguard action. Particularly as the Conservatives who drove this lot forward are back in power.

Sadly CallmeDave reckons the US is a good model, not Scandinavia.

Riot in the streets (metaphorically, for legal clarification). Don't let them do it.

Let me tell you where I am coming from-- a year ago I was fully covered under Covered California. This year, two things happened: some idiot lost the photocopy of my passport that was taken when I submitted my initial application, and my income went from zero (when I was at school living on student loans) to $6000 (the half year I worked after I graduated.) First they yanked my enrollment altogether because they decided I was not a citizen. (Somewhat ethnic last name). Then when they did reinstate it, they decided my increased income, while desperately below poverty level, was too much for me to qualify for the Medicaid option.

I have a bad back and a tetanus booster that I need to attend to, out of pocket. Tell Dave to fuck himself. I implore you.

[ 17. June 2015, 18:26: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There are moves to privatise the NHS by the back door. Lots of the legislation is already in place to do this, and those who are challenging the companies moving in are now fighting a rearguard action. Particularly as the Conservatives who drove this lot forward are back in power.

Sadly CallmeDave reckons the US is a good model, not Scandinavia.

To be fair, Scandinavia has been privatising their healthcare over at least 15 years. The old model just didn't work over here.

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

Private involvement was introduced under the last labour government, the coalition get a lot of blame for it, but it was already happening.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I am curious what Bibliophile's world-view is. I am guessing Christian Republican, American exceptionalist. Does that sound right? It certainly seems exotic on this forum. Is this really how Christianity computes for some?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

You're seeing what the average American Shipmate is fleeing when they rush into the warm embrace of the Ship.

[ 17. June 2015, 23:09: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am curious what Bibliophile's world-view is. I am guessing Christian Republican, American exceptionalist. Does that sound right?

No, not right. You must have missed this post of mine on the Vietnam thread

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- Heck, you'll be telling us next that the US colonists had some kind of God-given right to rise up against the legitimate Government that ruled them at the time ...
I think this question might get repeated in response to my last answer so I will answer it now. The US colonists had no such right. The lawful government of the colonies in 1776 was the British crown. Not only did the colonists have no God given right to rebel but Christian colonists were, in my view, morally obliged to be 'Tories' Romans 13 1-7.

The founding fathers for the most part were rich hypocritical slaveholders who used the rhetoric of 'liberty' to avoid paying their taxes and respecting their lawful government. The US government did not become the lawful government of the States until the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I'm gonna post this in Hell because it's a Cracked article, but a. it's also got its sources linked in the text and, b. boy, is it timely.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am curious what Bibliophile's world-view is.

I'll just go with totally bonkers.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Pointless to try to argue with someone so embracing of a view of history which has no resemblance to the truth.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am curious what Bibliophile's world-view is.
I'll just go with totally bonkers.

My guess is that he's read some posts from our deano and is trying to be an American equivalent.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

That's assuming Bibliophile is American. I don't recall any specific mention of his nationality. Although his posts on the Vietnam thread make him look like a poster boy for "American Patriotism" (in scare quotes because I'm not sure it's patriotic to wish thousands of your fellow citizens to be killed and maimed in a civil war half way around the world)

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Given the timing of the posts, I think he is most likely in Europe. But obviously has an enormous ego to post with such authority on subjects which he clearly knows very little about.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

i) Sorry America. Even if he (or just possibly she, but unlikely) is American, it's unfair to associate Bibliophile with anything. Except possibly books, as I've known some seriously weird booksellers in my life.

ii) My feeling about Bibliophile is like that of Viscount Melbourne for T B (Tom) Macauley. He said "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything."

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I must confess that I was surprised at Bibliophile's view of the Founding Fathers - because I'd had him down as some kind of US Exceptionalist or something ...

In the light of what he's posted, I suspect he's playing games or else is some kind of right-wing US libertarian who doesn't sign up to all of the myths of US Particularity -- or whatever the term is.

These do exist. I've met some of them in real life.

So he's probably having a good chuckle at our expense for having him down as a stereotypical red-neck Republican from one of the fly-over States.

Even though, by and large, he tends to post like one.

He'll be patting himself on the back now and congratulating himself on his sophistication for throwing us off the scent.

Still, whether he's from Wisconsin, Wyoming, Washington State or Washington DC he still wears his butt-hole where his mouth should be and we can all smell his farts.

There, I broke my promise not to offend him. Shows I'm fallible too. And that I break my promises, just as successive US administrations (and other governments) have ...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Can you all just quit it with the "Who is Bibilophile really" games?

Or do you all need to work out the right box to put someone in before your brain can fire out an appropriate response to a post?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I am curious what Bibliophile's world-view is. I am guessing Christian Republican, American exceptionalist. Does that sound right?
No, not right. You must have missed this post of mine on the Vietnam thread

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- Heck, you'll be telling us next that the US colonists had some kind of God-given right to rise up against the legitimate Government that ruled them at the time ...
I think this question might get repeated in response to my last answer so I will answer it now. The US colonists had no such right. The lawful government of the colonies in 1776 was the British crown. Not only did the colonists have no God given right to rebel but Christian colonists were, in my view, morally obliged to be 'Tories' Romans 13 1-7.

The founding fathers for the most part were rich hypocritical slaveholders who used the rhetoric of 'liberty' to avoid paying their taxes and respecting their lawful government. The US government did not become the lawful government of the States until the Treaty of Paris in 1783.

Canadian!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

( avoiding the identity speculation, because I don't really give a shit)

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... "American Patriotism" (in scare quotes because I'm not sure it's patriotic to wish thousands of your fellow citizens to be killed and maimed in a civil war half way around the world)

Thank you!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fair comment, Orfeo but we all try to 'place' people. I can understand how it might irritate though.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

He is from the planet Fuckwit studying a high-level course in being a complete dick.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Or do you all need to work out the right box to put someone in before your brain can fire out an appropriate response to a post?

orfeo: male....Australian.....gay......legal profession......calculating.......calculating......
No.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
He is from the planet Fuckwit studying a high-level course in being a complete dick.

mr cheesy: male....made of cheese......possibly fermented........calculating......calculating.....

Worked this out ages ago. You lot are slow.

[ 18. June 2015, 17:59: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Or do you all need to work out the right box to put someone in before your brain can fire out an appropriate response to a post?
orfeo: male....Australian.....gay......legal profession......calculating.......calculating......
No.

I'm disappointed. You left out "musical" and "prone to outbursts of blazing rage".

[ 19. June 2015, 02:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Musical? But you listen to Tori Amos.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
He is from the planet Fuckwit studying a high-level course in being a complete dick.

I thought he was teaching it, having graduated with full honours?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Musical? But you listen to Tori Amos.

To really appreciate good music you need to be occasionally exposed to the crap.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Bloody Admins. Think they're so witty.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Then hosts, who are less than admins, are half-witty?

[ 19. June 2015, 17:28: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Then hosts, who are less than admins, are half-witty?

Well, if you want to continue the implications of that line of thought all the way down to people with no official status at all, such as yourself, that's your business.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Well played, Uberminion, well played.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I know why you pretend I don't exist, Bibliophile.

[ 21. June 2015, 16:39: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Oh come on! If you are playing in the litterbox, you are going to get shit on your hands. Don't blame the cat for not caring.

[ 21. June 2015, 16:45: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Martin, there are times when it takes a lot of work to try and work out what you're trying to say. Bibliophile wouldn't be unique in deciding that they've better things to do with their time, and hence not respond to (or even read) what you post.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Alan, you really think Bibliophile is honestly engaging anyone? I mean, he could be sort of a troll-savant; being not bright enough to properly argue but having the uncanny ability to avoid accidentally addressing any rebuttal with a relevant comment.
But I shave with Occum's razor, so....

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
he could be sort of a troll-savant; being not bright enough to properly argue but having the uncanny ability to avoid accidentally addressing any rebuttal with a relevant comment.

Well, we know that argument is an intellectual process, a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Bibliophile seems to be under the impression it's just contradiction. Or, maybe he's confused it with abuse.

Obligatory link

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Can I have this dance?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sensei. He understands perfectly well. I'm his worst nightmare.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sensei. He understands perfectly well. I'm his worst nightmare.

I don't understand much of what you say I have to admit. The one bit I did understand was in the Vietnam War thread you asked a number of tims what would Jesus have done in the Vietnam War, the implication being that he would not have served in the military. I you want I can answer that point now.

Jesus, as you know, specifically commends the faith of a serving army officer in Matthew 8 5-13. I'm sure its true that Jesus would never have joined the military but that does not mean that Christians are forbidden from serving in the armed forces. Our Savior, of course, was also homeless and unemployed. That does not mean that Christians are forbidden from getting jobs, paying rent or buying houses.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Jesus, as you know, specifically commends the faith of a serving army officer in Matthew 8 5-13.

A serving officer who was also a slave owner whose sick slave was probably his young sex slave. So good to know that Jesus is all good with slavery and homosexual sex with a minor, as well as wars and fighting.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Jesus, as you know, specifically commends the faith of a serving army officer in Matthew 8 5-13.
A serving officer who was also a slave owner whose sick slave was probably his young sex slave. So good to know that Jesus is all good with slavery and homosexual sex with a minor, as well as wars and fighting.

There is absolutely no evidence that the relationship between the centurion and his slave was in any way sexual. As for the slave ownership Christians are commanded to obey the law and since slave ownership is illegal in every country in the world today Christians may not own slaves.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Absolutely no evidence of sexual abuse of slaves in the ancient Roman world?

You might read this.

The sexual mores of that society drew sharp distinctions between freeborn Roman citizens and non-citizens. Protection from sexual misconduct was one the rights which distinguished citizens from non-citizens, as the article makes clear. And slaves were undoubtedly non-citizens.

All of this is very well evidenced. Just not very often discussed when considering attitudes to slavery found in the NT documents.

Of course you can argue that in the specific gospel reference there is no direct mention of the possibility. That doesn't mean that the real risk of sexual abuse did not exist for all slaves at that time.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So you can love those you napalm?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Oh dear God, help me. The reasoning process in the last little collection of posts has me inclining to agree with Bibliophile.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To be fair to Bibliophile some of his reasoning makes sense - and he expresses himself more clearly than Martin60 does.

The problem, it seems to me, is that Bibliophile appears to reason in two rather than three dimensions - whereas Martin tries to think in 3D but attempts to express himself in five - or 45 ...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Martin60 is my most important argument for the existence of universes with a logic different from ours. I'm convinced that there is a universe out there where everything he sais makes perfect sense.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Jesus, as you know, specifically commends the faith of a serving army officer in Matthew 8 5-13.
A serving officer who was also a slave owner whose sick slave was probably his young sex slave. So good to know that Jesus is all good with slavery and homosexual sex with a minor, as well as wars and fighting.
There is absolutely no evidence that the relationship between the centurion and his slave was in any way sexual. As for the slave ownership Christians are commanded to obey the law and since slave ownership is illegal in every country in the world today Christians may not own slaves.

Which isn't to say that Christians don't own slaves, or treat their staff with the care we associate with slavery. We have to be careful not to conflate "What is" with "What should be".

btw, while there is no such mention, I doubt Jesus never put a table or two together, even during his ministry.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

This is ridiculous, we cannot possibly say anything about anyone involved in that story from this distance. Even if abuse was widespread, we cannot then say that this was or was not happening here.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I'm sorry (wait, no I'm not), but some of you are being absolute twits.

Bibliophile argued something from presence - the positive knowledge that the Bible passage involves a military man. You can't sensibly respond to that by trying to mount an argument from probability - well, we can guess about the sexual habits of a slave-owner.

Go ahead, guess. But if you think that's any kind of useful answer to Bibliophile's point you're kidding yourselves. It's one thing to point out flaws in an argument, but when the person you're criticising succeeds in making a coherent point and you do everything you can to deflect rather than concede the point, it ends up being you that look bad instead.

Jesus was not a militant pacifist who refused to associate with soldiers. Nor did he refuse to associate with slave-owners. Or tax collectors for that matter. The whole sex thing is a distraction and an irrelevance. GET OVER IT.

[ 22. June 2015, 11:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: Jesus was not a militant pacifist who refused to associate with soldiers.

There's no rule that pacifists shouldn't associate with soldiers. I'm a near-pacifist and I have a number of soldier friends, a couple of which have served in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It's just a tangent, orfeo. Of course you're right about presence and probability. But if Bibliophile can shift ground here and there, and does, there didn't seem to me to be too much harm in some of us joining in the groundshifting, to see what we might unearth. Clearly I was wrong.

Very happy to take the tangent out of here, and I'll try to come up with a Keryg or Purg thread instead.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

I think you missed my point, Orfeo. Of course the sexual thing is a distraction. The point I was attempting to make was very simple. Bibliophile implied that, by commending the faith of the centurion, Jesus was therefore endorsing his participation in the military. If he wants to make that argument, he has to apply it to the whole of the centurion's lifestyle, not just the part he's chosen.

In terms of arguing from presence and probability, fine with regards to sexual activity. But that the centurion was a slave owner is as present in the text as was the fact he was a soldier. To dismiss that with a "Christians are commanded to obey the law" (as Bibliophile did) is simply inadequate, since we have plenty of biblical and historical accounts of Christians choosing to break civil law as an direct consequence of their faith and convictions. If Jesus is vindicating the centurion's military career, he's also vindicating his owning of slaves.

As for the specific point I made as to the sexual relationship between the centurion and his slave, Bibliophile is also wrong that there is no evidence of this; the evidence is textual & historical (and therefore disputable, which is why I said 'probable', though perhaps 'possible' or 'likely' are more suitable words). Here's a blog outlining the some arguments for the slave being a sexual partner. The main arguments are around the use of the word 'pais', the centurion's obvious affection for him, and the fact that it was bog standard practice for Romans to have sex their slaves, male and female (as Barnabas's link says), so long as they were doing the penetration.*

I didn't intend there to be a massive tangent. I simply wanted to point out just because he praised the faith of a centurion, you can't conclude that Jesus therefore endorsed enrolment in the military. It's too large a moral leap. That's it. I tried to do so using snappy Hellish diatribe, rather than reasoned elaboration and explanation. P'raps I need more practice...

Maybe Barny's idea of a tangent thread is a good one, if anyone's interested in exploring the nature of the relationship between the centurion and his slave any further.

* Ironically, the blog falls into the same trap as Bibliophile, by concluding that, by praising the centurion's faith, Jesus was endorsing their same-sex relationship.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think you missed my point, Orfeo.

I think you missed mine, even though it was in upper case.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think you missed my point, Orfeo.
I think you missed mine, even though it was in upper case.

Maybe goperryrevs reacts as I do to uppercase and bold-type. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Sheesh, Orfeo. You get over it. I almost entirely agree with you, except when you say the whole sex thing is an irrelevance (though I agree it's a distraction).

If it was a total irrelevance, then Bibliophile wouldn't have felt that he needed to argue his position by denying that there was evidence their relationship was sexual, and by justifying his slavery with the 'christians obeying the law' clause. It seems the centurion needed to live up to a certain level of 'moral' behaviour in order to be praised by Jesus, and a sexual relationship with the slave would put that interpretation in jeopardy (within Bibliophile's worldview). The presence or not of a sexual relationship is only that relevant; which is admittedly, not very. But it's not irrelevant.

The main point I've tried to make is the same as you.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Jesus was not a militant pacifist who refused to associate with soldiers. Nor did he refuse to associate with slave-owners. Or tax collectors for that matter.

And as an extension, that (based only on that passage) we can't say whether or not Christians should join the military.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Maybe goperryrevs reacts as I do to uppercase and bold-type.

I defos do need practice on the hellish diatribe...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sensei. He understands perfectly well. I'm his worst nightmare.
I don't understand much of what you say I have to admit. The one bit I did understand was in the Vietnam War thread you asked a number of tims what would Jesus have done in the Vietnam War, the implication being that he would not have served in the military. I you want I can answer that point now.

Jesus, as you know, specifically commends the faith of a serving army officer in Matthew 8 5-13. I'm sure its true that Jesus would never have joined the military but that does not mean that Christians are forbidden from serving in the armed forces. Our Savior, of course, was also homeless and unemployed. That does not mean that Christians are forbidden from getting jobs, paying rent or buying houses.

How does that answer anything?

Oh and hi and thanks for responding!

So would Jesus have flown a B52, a Starfighter with napalm pylons or just a Cessna Bird Dog?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Maybe goperryrevs reacts as I do to uppercase and bold-type.
I defos do need practice on the hellish diatribe...

Me too.

I've started this thread in Kerygmania, if anyone else is interested.

[ 22. June 2015, 21:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

If it's any consolation - or provocation - I understood goperryrevs was trying to make and thought that he and Orfeo were at cross purposes for a while ... whilst actually saying the same sort of thing in different ways ...

But hey ... that might not be helpful.

The point is, of course, that it takes more than convenient proof-texting to come to a conclusion about any of these points and issues -- and simple, straight-forward, somewhat unreflective proof-texting appears to be Bibliophile's main stock in trade at times.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sensei. He understands perfectly well. I'm his worst nightmare.
I don't understand much of what you say I have to admit. The one bit I did understand was in the Vietnam War thread you asked a number of tims what would Jesus have done in the Vietnam War, the implication being that he would not have served in the military. I you want I can answer that point now.

Jesus, as you know, specifically commends the faith of a serving army officer in Matthew 8 5-13. I'm sure its true that Jesus would never have joined the military but that does not mean that Christians are forbidden from serving in the armed forces. Our Savior, of course, was also homeless and unemployed. That does not mean that Christians are forbidden from getting jobs, paying rent or buying houses.
How does that answer anything?

Oh and hi and thanks for responding!

So would Jesus have flown a B52, a Starfighter with napalm pylons or just a Cessna Bird Dog?

Silly Martin, he would not have done any of this.
He would continue his water miracles, perhaps with deuterium oxide. Changing water into weapons.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If it was a total irrelevance, then Bibliophile wouldn't have felt that he needed to argue his position by denying that there was evidence their relationship was sexual

So wait, if I declare in a discussion over a Biblical passage that the disciple whom Jesus loved was actually a wolfhound named Saskia, and you respond by denying that there is any evidence to support that claim, I can go around pointing out that you didn't regard it as a total irrelevance just because you felt the need to deny it?

That's handy.

If you'd stuck with slavery we wouldn't be having this conversation. But no, you had to throw in the notion of a "sex slave". Which was silly in my opinion. For starters, I suspect for most people a "sex slave" is not simply a slave that you have sexual relations with. A "sex slave" is a person you keep in slavery for the purpose of having sex with.

It jumped out the screen. If it wasn't for the fact that other people responded fairly rapidly, I was going to quote "young sex slave" and put [Paranoid]

next to it. And now you're at least acknowledging that it wasn't very relevant, so let me just say that there was a big disconnect between visual impact and actual importance.

[ 23. June 2015, 01:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think you missed my point, Orfeo.
I think you missed mine, even though it was in upper case.
Maybe goperryrevs reacts as I do to uppercase and bold-type.

It's okay, if you spell it out a letter a time I'm sure you can still figure out what the words were. There were only 3 words, and none of them were more than 3 letters.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

[Confused]

counts letters again. But orfeo, "over" has 4 letters.

I'll go take the proof texting argument to the Styx.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So wait, if I declare in a discussion over a Biblical passage that the disciple whom Jesus loved was actually a wolfhound named Saskia, and you respond by denying that there is any evidence to support that claim, I can go around pointing out that you didn't regard it as a total irrelevance just because you felt the need to deny it?

Pehaps I am still explaining myself badly, though I'm doing my best. And perhaps I need to explain why I said what I said in the first place because that it stuck out as you say it did means that my point was lost in translation.

Bibliophile essentially said:
Jesus praised the centurion, therefore Jesus approved of the centurion being in the military.

There is a logical flaw in this, which, rather than pointing out directly, I tried to expose with a snappy reductio-ad-absurdum. If Jesus' praise means he approved of the centurion's military involvement, then it must also means he approved of other life choices of the centurion, so I just pointed a couple of those possible choices out to show Bibliophile that his logic was faulty.

ISTM that Bibliophile would rather explain away those other life choices, rather than acknowledge his logic was faulty, which was kind of what I expected. But, like Barny pointed out. Sometimes you need to shift a bit of topsoil to find out what's underneath.

And the difference betwen your wolfhound and the centurion's slave & sexuality is that there is no evidence for the former, but some evidence for the latter, and not a small number of scholars / historians who would say so.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you'd stuck with slavery we wouldn't be having this conversation. But no, you had to throw in the notion of a "sex slave". Which was silly in my opinion. For starters, I suspect for most people a "sex slave" is not simply a slave that you have sexual relations with. A "sex slave" is a person you keep in slavery for the purpose of having sex with.

The whole point of what I said was that it was an attempted rhetorical flourish and (as I said), a quick reductio-ad-absurdum. I could have just stuck with slavery, but the effect would have reduced. But, yeah, like I said, perhaps I don't do the Hellish diatribe so well, and obviously the point I was attempting to make got lost in translation.

And as an aside, one of the meanings of 'pais' is a young male concubine, which, er, is a young sex slave. But it literally just means 'child' - boy or girl, and so could be used in many contexts. But it frequently refered to the junior partner in the erastes-eromenos relationship, which was an older man with a younger man, which could be a mentor-apprentice or master-slave relationship. Since their worldview was that the sperm contained 'life', by having sex with their juniors, they were doing them a favour. ISTM persuasive that this is the likely meaning of the word, given the context, in this story. Of course, I could have spent a few paragraphs explaining this in my original post, but it would have been a distraction from the very simple point I was trying to make - and you can't really complain that it's an unecessary distraction and at the same time say that I didn't devote the necessary paragraphs to ellaborate the statement.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

And as an aside, one of the meanings of 'pais' is a young male concubine, which, er, is a young sex slave. But it literally just means 'child' - boy or girl, and so could be used in many contexts. But it frequently refered to the junior partner in the erastes-eromenos relationship, which was an older man with a younger man, which could be a mentor-apprentice or master-slave relationship.

orfeo, I knew this argument also. I suspect you didn't. It's one of the reasons I set up the thread in Keryg, not Purg. An argument can be made from the text itself and the various meanings of the Greek Koine "pais". I'm also sorry I didn't make that clear, but I think the historical argument about the misuse of slaves is better than the etymological argument in the way it demonstrates the context of the text.

Anyway, differences in understanding can be aired in Keryg. I recognise that such calm thinking pollutes the intentional pissed-offness of this thread.

Personally, I'm not that pissed off with Bibliophile. Gamaliel's proof-texting view seems to hit the nail on the head from what I've seen so far. But Bibliophile is also welcome to join the Keryg thread and prove me and Gamaliel wrong.

With which thoughts, I'm out of here and hopefully out of your hair!

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Orfeo, I am sure that when you said none of them were more than 3 letters you really meant none of them was more than 3 letters but you were sadly diverted at the time. Hours and days of argument have been spent over better legislative drafting than that.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The centurion was a man who loved Jewish culture ESPECIALLY its religion with its conservative sexual ethic. He built a synagogue.

He loved his enemies.

He was a decent man through and through. He used his power as a soldier and in his most intimate relationships accordingly.

Would that already decent trajectory, boosted out of orbit by his interaction with Jesus, have led to more or less abuse of power?

A generation later, would such a Judeo-Christian gentile army officer, like Cornelius, have unthinkingly participated in the rape of Jerusalem?

Or napalmed native people in their own homes?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Seemed to me to be a blatant attempt to bait Bibliophile, a bear of little brain*.

Fair enough to expose massive holes in his argument, but to introduce speculative "proof" texting to buttress an argument is beyond ridiculous.

And the worrying thing is that many of you don't seem to realise this.

*although in fairness, it appears he is only here to bait others, continually repeat his drivel as if it proves anything and avoid answering points of debate he doesn't like. But that doesn't mean we have to respond in kind.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Sorry, orfeo, but I'm not letting that stand unanswered.

Hells bells, mr cheesy, do you really think from our long track records on SoF that either goperryrevs or I are really into blatant anything?

That's not the same as sometimes getting just a little frustrated with the self-righteous certainties of narrow minds. In any case, we've both put our hands up, said we misjudged our posts, said sorry, shown willingness to take the tangent elsewhere. What more do you want? Blood?

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Thanks B. As I said, my only intention was to highlight the flaws in Bibliophile's own prooftexting. Meh, I guess I've defended myself enough, though. See you in Keryg.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Orfeo, I am sure that when you said none of them were more than 3 letters you really meant none of them was more than 3 letters but you were sadly diverted at the time. Hours and days of argument have been spent over better legislative drafting than that.

You get what you pay for.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
counts letters again. But orfeo, "over" has 4 letters.

Don't ask me why, but the part of my brain that was writing that believed I had written "let it go", not "get over it".

And it's not like I was watching Frozen or anything.

I briefly tried to think of a way of making up my own facts and suggesting this was all your fault, but I just didn't have it in me this evening.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Either is correct.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I'm guessing you've finished your first undergraduate year and have been told to improve your essays, so you are here testing out your pet theories. Am I right?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'm just closing this thread to avoid duplications. If you wish to insult Bibliophile for crimes against common sense and decency, please continue posting here.

DT
HH

Thread closed

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0