butchersapron
Bring back hanging
articul8 said:
No one said that you did. They suggested that you offered her writing asex column as a justification for why she couldn't make you cum and why you felt this is important.
Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags
- Thread starter Prince Rhyus
- Start date
- Status
No one said that you did. They suggested that you offered her writing asex column as a justification for why she couldn't make you cum and why you felt this is important.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
...Actually you might need more assistance than that
revol68
what, fucking what?
Yeah but I don't think that comment in isolation is sexist, anymore than a comment on Gideon's looks would mean someone judged him as a man by his looks rather than his politics.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Did someone order a taxi in the name of Dogger Bank? There's a pissed off cabbie in reception who's half-convinced someone's taking the piss."Fucking shipping forecast" this, "piss-taking wankers" that. Not a happy chappy.
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
When Gideon has written a sex advice column and someone then comes along and says 'him? Fuck's sake what a turn-off' then you might have the beginnings of an argument. But only after men have been belittled into sex objects and whether they are 'acceptable' as the final argument-closer for hundreds of years
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
I was suggesting that someone whose smug attitude and shit politics were deeply unattractive to me was not best placed to write seductively about sex. Is this so wrong? Really?
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
Yes, yes it is. Glad we've cleared that up for you.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
articul8 said:
Have you seen many comments suggesting that she couldn't make you cum due to her face and that saying shit like that is OK as she did some sex shit?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
articul8 said:
Seductively. Partridge.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What do you even thinkan sex column is? Seductively? Fucking hell.
Plane takes off.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I'm checking my privilege right now.
on a side note, I was saying to frogz that this privilege rhetoric wasn't unfamiliar for some reason.Onna bit of thinking the weather underground and others on the american new left came to mind, and they used to bang on about 'white skin privilege'.
which is a different thing. Or maybe related.
anyway.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Oh? Ok...so it'd be fine to shag a known neo-nazi then? Think I need a lesson in urbanite sexual ethics
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
I refer the hon. gentleman to my previous post. You should probably just leave it now
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
articul8 said:
Or maybe just...
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
This is an interesting defense in that it is no defense at all. Just because other people may behave like nasty pieces of shit (and I am not saying that I agree with you about the other posters on this thread) does not mean it is Ok for you to be a nasty piece of shit. What it does suggested is that you may now accept your comment was wrong but haven't got enough spine to say so. Or maybe I am giving you too much credit and you are just trying to weasel your way out with any excuse you can come up with
revol68
what, fucking what?
I have acknowledged that in my first response. It still doesn't make articul8's comment evidence of sexism in itself.
Anyway the face she made rather than the face she has is disgustingly smug.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
You're the only one bothered about whether it's 'fine to shag' any particular woman here.
Nice one
Well-Known Member
Is it a sign of my inner patriarchal oppressor tendencies that every time I see a picture of her, I marvel at what a smug, punchable face she has?
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
Reducing her to the possibility of sexual attractiveness or otherwise is sexist. You're really not getting this are you?
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Ok your trolling yeah? No one could actually have the thought process that result in writing these words and meaning them.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
You've made several outright unacceptable remarks all over this thread, and haven't apologised for a single one. I thought you would have apologised over an hour later. This above you've written is (again) sexist nonsense. Just so it's crystal-clear to you. No woman writing a sex column is under any obligation to be sexy to anyone at all, neither her editor nor including her readers. Sex columns do not have to be written seductively or by sexist-ly characterised 'sexy' female journalists. Only sex columns in outright sexist publications like GQ or FHM endorse that demeaning idea.
You are condemning the editor at the time (Simon Kellner or Andrew Marr maybe) for giving the job to a woman whose appearance does not match your desire-to-intercourse.
Your vile attitudes suggest that editors (male ones, in all current broadsheets, as it happens, I wonder why that is with attitudes like yours in the Red Pepper newsroom?) should judge the worthiness of a columnist or sexual affairs on the basis of what the columnist looks like if they are women. You are driving wedges between us.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
But this is not what you said, your orginal post was
Not her opinions or her politics, but her face.articul8 said:
Jenerys
Stormborn
Did you hear the "chicken forecast" earlier on radio 4? Frickin ace
- Status
Similar threads
