Go on... rape her... she won't report it... [UniLad magazine article]

[revol68]

Edie has explained exactly what she found oppressive about it. Do you need a bloke to explain it before you take it seriously?

Nice, that's exactly the snidey sort of implication I was talking about, way to try and shut down any serious discussion about sexism and gender.

It has fuck all to do with peoples genders, it's to do with their arguments and behaviour, I don't see anything oppressive in this thread, I don't think somene feeling oppressed because discussions on thread lead onto ones on prostitution (not much of a fan of the phrase "whoring") makes the person bringing up prostitution oppressive especially when the poster in question is actually challenging the exploitation and oppression in the sex industry. I will say that the term uncomfortable would probably be better suited than oppressive regarding Edie's feelings, unless there is evidence people are actually trying to attack her by talking about such issues.

Frankly I couldn't care less about Edie's history, it's nothing to do with me and I wish it wouldn't get brought up because I don't think it helps discussion, instead it personalises the issue and leads to overly emotional crap like we are seeing now, where Edie doesn't feel comfortable and neither do people arguing against her as they are wary of being accused of using it to attack her.

 

[ViolentPanda]

lamest.wiggle.evah

You're acting like a little kid poking a wasp nest with a stick.

 

[ymu]

You said "a bloke can categorically state that he is not being oppressive and that is taken as read...".
Man as all-powerful. That's a stereotype.


Woman as weak-minded is a stereotype.



Last verse, same as the first. A stereotype.

And yes, everyone knows you're deploying these stereotypes ironically.

I'm taking the piss out of those stereotypes, not relying on them to support my argument.

You say you know that, so why did you bother with that post?

Don't you think it's strange that a bloke who can write articulately about women internalising oppression can't recognise that he himself may have internalised the means of oppression? Can't even acknowledge that it's possible, rather than repeatedly insisting that he's simply been misinterpreted and there's nothing to apologise for?

 

[Blagsta]

No I'm well aware of that, what I'm wary of is claims that this is oppressive or isn't based on subjective claims, so that what it becomes reduced to tallying up opinions.

I mean the implication I was picking up on was that Blagsta is somehow being oppressive but I can't see any evidence for this in this thread alone, all I've seen is assertion, if someone wants to make an argument as how he or anyone else is being oppressive then fair enough, we can then engage in a discussion around that but I just as I don't take simply accept claims that sex work isn't exploitative because some sex workers don't think it is, neither do I accept that someone is being oppressive just because someone says they are.

Now maybe I'm missing some long standing history or beef but on this thread I simply can't see evidence of oppression though I have seen some people posting quite manipulative things to make out that Blagsta is victimising Edie, mostly the posts by 5tella that were to my mind completely out of order.

No. Ymu was palling up to me a few months ago via PM and I've never really interacted much with stella before. Me and Edie have a good board relationship going back over 10 years. Which makes ymu and stella's actions on here even more batshit.

 

[revol68]

I'm taking the piss out of those stereotypes, not relying on them to support my argument.

You say you know that, so why did you bother with that post?

Don't you think it's strange that a bloke who can write articulately about women internalising oppression can't recognise that he himself may have internalised the means of oppression? Can't even acknowledge that it's possible, rather than repeatedly insisting that he's simply been misinterpreted and there's nothing to apologise for?

oh come off it, of course everyone could internalise the means of oppression (men and women btw!) but you raising this issue in this thread isn't some innocent question, it was clearly meant to imply they had internalised it and were oppressing women. you might as well claim you asking me if I needed a bloke to say it before I took it seriously was just an innocent question with no subtext.

In short you and quite a few others are being underhand pricks and should wise up.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Every time he self-justified instead of making a simple apology, yes.

"Self-justified". Interesting phrase, because it shows you representing him as, in effect, "guilty". If you did indeed call him a cunt because of the above, then you were doing so without giving him the benefit of an opportunity to explain himself, because you'd already decided, with that first "cunt", that there was nothing he could say that could explain himself or put his case that would satisfy you.

I hate discourse analysis, don't you?

 

[ymu]

No. Ymu was palling up to me a few months ago via PM and I've never really interacted much with stella before. Me and Edie have a good board relationship going back over 10 years. Which makes ymu and stella's actions on here even more batshit.

I was palling up to you by PM? I don't even remember a PM exchange with you, but if there was one, you seem to have taken it as meaning that I'm not allowed to call you out when you act like a shit.

Is it all mates who can't be criticised and enemies who can't be agreed with for you? Would explain a lot, tbh. But I don't operate like that. I'll say what I think regardless of who is saying it. I have a lot of respect for what you say sometimes, and I despair of the way you say it a lot of the time.

I think the way you have hounded Edie across threads is beyond disgusting, and it's time you knew it. That's all.

 

[kabbes]

I like Blagsta. I think he generally has a good heart and he comes from the right place in his approach. I don't think he meant any harm whatsoever in his comment.

I have to admit, though, that I think ymu's and stella's basic point is right, even though I reserve the right to tut disapprovingly at their method of delivery of that point. It is nonsense to talk about internalisation of being the oppressed with recognising that the flip side of that is an internalisation of being the oppressor. And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam.

It's unintentional, yes. But that's what internalisation means -- something unintentional.

I earnestly wish this hadn't become such a bunfight though, because it has sorely divided some of the posters whose contributions I admire the most.

 

[revol68]

Maybe if ymu or 5tella came out and said exactly what it was that Blagsta has done to be oppressive instead of dancing around it and engaging in snidey innuendo we'd be able to move on.

 

[ymu]

"Self-justified". Interesting phrase, because it shows you representing him as, in effect, "guilty". If you did indeed call him a cunt because of the above, then you were doing so without giving him the benefit of an opportunity to explain himself, because you'd already decided, with that first "cunt", that there was nothing he could say that could explain himself or put his case that would satisfy you.

I hate discourse analysis, don't you?

I think it's pretty easy, if something you have said has offended someone, to acknowledge that offence has been caused and move on, ideally having thought a bit about what it was that caused offence when you did not intend it to.

I called him a cunt each time he self-justified instead of providing an explanation. I am still waiting for the explanation, because all I can see is a one-liner intended to undermine Edie.

 

[revol68]

I like Blagsta. I think he generally has a good heart and he comes from the right place in his approach. I don't think he meant any harm whatsoever in his comment.

I have to admit, though, that I think ymu's and stella's basic point is right, even though I reserve the right to tut disapprovingly at their method of delivery of that point. It is nonsense to talk about internalisation of being the oppressed with recognising that the flip side of that is an internalisation of being the oppressor. And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam.

It's unintentional, yes. But that's what internalisation means -- something unintentional.

I earnestly wish this hadn't become such a bunfight though, because it has sorely divided some of the posters whose contributions I admire the most.

But what exactly did Blagsta do that manifested this apparent internalisation?

That's what inquiring minds want to know!

 

[revol68]

I think it's pretty easy, if something you have said has offended someone, to acknowledge that offence has been caused and move on, ideally having thought a bit about what it was that caused offence when you did not intend it to.

I called him a cunt each time he self-justified instead of providing an explanation. I am still waiting for the explanation, because all

what did he say that was offensive, just because someone says you offended them doesn't mean you should have to apologise for offending them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm taking the piss out of those stereotypes, not relying on them to support my argument.

You say you know that, so why did you bother with that post?

To make a point, the point being it's hypocritical to rail against the use of stereotypes, and then to use them when it suits you.

Don't you think it's strange that a bloke who can write articulately about women internalising oppression can't recognise that he himself may have internalised the means of oppression?

See, you're pulling a flanker there. Your responses to Blagsta show that you believe he has done so, but you've constructed your question in such a way as to imply that there's room for doubt, that he "may have internalised the means of oppression".
In answer to your question, though, I don't find it strange that any male (or indeed any female) might internalise some means of oppression without realising. People aren't deeply reflexive through all their waking hours, and a lot depends on what their "triggers" are.

Can't even acknowledge that it's possible, rather than repeatedly insisting that he's simply been misinterpreted and there's nothing to apologise for?

You weren't asking him to acknowledge that such an act was possible, though, you were calling him a cunt because you'd found him guilty of committing such an act. No-one is likely to acknowledge or apologise anything if they're being cunted all over the shop.

 

[kabbes]

But what exactly did Blagsta do that manifested this apparent internalisation?

That's what inquiring minds want to know!

The choice of analogy. That choice carries with it a weight of past conversations, as well as the condemnation of social morality.

The thing is that I am super-sensitive to this stuff and I have to admit that I didn't notice it straight away either. I thought, "yeah, fair point, good demonstration that one man's 'normal' is another man's 'odd'". But once the weight of context had been pointed out, I had to admit that it was more complicated than it first appeared.

 

[ymu]

Maybe if ymu or 5tella came out and said exactly what it was that Blagsta has done to be oppressive instead of dancing around it and engaging in snidey innuendo we'd be able to move on.

I think we've both explained it very clearly, several times, and I think others have made the point well too. kabbes has parsed it all for you above.

The responses have largely ignored the point we are making in favour of saying that no one had a right to feel offended by his comment, for some reason that may or may not be connected with them viewing Blagsta as a non-oppressive type.

 

[revol68]

The choice of analogy. That choice carries with it a weight of past conversations, as well as the condemnation of social morality.

The thing is that I am super-sensitive to this stuff and I have to admit that I didn't notice it straight away either. I thought, "yeah, fair point, good demonstration that one man's 'normal' is another man's 'odd'". But once the weight of context had been pointed out, I had to admit that it was more complicated than it first appeared.

And yet you still can't lay it out for me, jesus h, I feel like I got myself involved in an Umberto Ecco novel.

 

[5t3IIa]

What did your post add? Why did it have to dismiss Edie's views as worthless in order to make whatever obscure point it was making about the semantic definition of 'normal'?

You still haven't explained this, and I would like to know. You could have just acknowledged that it could easily be misread and apologised, but you've chosen the usual self-justification approach, so explain your choice of words and what you intended to achieve by them.

The first paragraph ^ is my point. Thanks for putting it so succinctly, ymu.

Blagsta did it, Blagsta said it. Could have been anyone. He says this and gets made an example of. Oh dear.

I fail to see what is batshit about it. The implication seems to be ymu and I are being hysterical lol.

 

[revol68]

I think we've both explained it very clearly, several times, and I think others have made the point well too. kabbes has parsed it all for you above.

The responses have largely ignored the point we are making in favour of saying that no one had a right to feel offended by his comment, for some reason that may or may not be connected with them viewing Blagsta as a non-oppressive type.

No you haven't, and neither has kabbes he's hinted round it in vague terms.

You on the otherhand have really done little more than be a snidey prick insinuating that I will only take a "bloke" seriously, whilst dodging the substance of my posts.

 

[ymu]

But what exactly did Blagsta do that manifested this apparent internalisation?

That's what inquiring minds want to know!

What is it that you're not getting. kabbes said it very clearly in the post you are replying to: "And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam."

That is what Blagsta did, and repeatedly does, to Edie, whether he recognises it or not (and I am 100% certain he doesn't because he's a decent bloke). He needs to recognise it, that's all.

 

[5t3IIa]

What is it that you're not getting. kabbes said it very clearly in the post you are replying to: "And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam."

That is what Blagsta did, and repeatedly does, to Edie, whether he recognises it or not (and I am 100% certain he doesn't because he's a decent bloke). He needs to recognise it, that's all. Then he be decenterer.

I said the SLAM thing earlier and was ignored. Perhaps kabbes' identical version will get some recognition?

I honestly don't understand why no one is getting this

 

[revol68]

What is it that you're not getting. kabbes said it very clearly in the post you are replying to: "And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam."

That is what Blagsta did, and repeatedly does, to Edie, whether he recognises it or not (and I am 100% certain he doesn't because he's a decent bloke). He needs to recognise it, that's all.

No, no one has actually fucking quoted me the comment in question, nor given me any background to it.

And are you going to address or apologise for your own snidey behaviour, quite clearly meant to slam the door shut on my views on the grounds that I have a penis?

 

[equationgirl]

Can't we just move back to the discussion we were having before all this kicked off? It's getting a bit tedious and has completely derailed a really interesting discussion.

When I was doing my PhD, it was interesting to note the gender split within the mathematics department. At undergraduate level it was pretty much 50:50. Surprisingly, at MSc and PhD student level it was also around 50:50. But for post-docs, there was a dramatic change - the number of women dropped to 5-10%, and they were pretty much all short-term contracts so were never around for more than a year or so. There were no female lecturing or professorial staff. the only full-time female staff were the 3 administrators.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Can't we just move back to the discussion we were having before all this kicked off? It's getting a bit tedious and has completely derailed a really interesting discussion.

When I was doing my PhD, it was interesting to note the gender split within the mathematics department. At undergraduate level it was pretty much 50:50. Surprisingly, at MSc and PhD student level it was also around 50:50. But for post-docs, there was a dramatic change - the number of women dropped to 5-10%, and they were pretty much all short-term contracts so were never around for more than a year or so. There were no female lecturing or professorial staff. the only full-time female staff were the 3 administrators.

That is a dramatic change! Why do you think that is?

 

[ymu]

You weren't asking him to acknowledge that such an act was possible, though, you were calling him a cunt because you'd found him guilty of committing such an act. No-one is likely to acknowledge or apologise anything if they're being cunted all over the shop.

It wasn't the best choice of approach, no. But in those 'cunt' posts I was also pointing out why his latest attempt at self-justfication wasn't good enough and inviting him to try again. He was free to prove he wasn't a cunt by just accepting that he'd made an error and acknowledging it. But he didn't, he just kept on explaining how there was nothing offensive or unreasonable in what he said, whilst ignoring the hugely offensive way he said it. So I kept calling him a cunt.

Childish, I know. But it's interesting how the way the point was made is now being used as an excuse to avoid addressing the point. Curious how often that happens on these threads.

Believing yourself to be non-sexist, non-racist, non-homophobic does not make it true. It is impossible to grow up in a bigoted society and not absorb elements of that bigotry. When someone tells you you have offended them, going off at the deep end on the grounds that you're not a bigot is missing the point by a country mile.

 

[past caring]

I like Blagsta. I think he generally has a good heart and he comes from the right place in his approach. I don't think he meant any harm whatsoever in his comment.

I have to admit, though, that I think ymu's and stella's basic point is right, even though I reserve the right to tut disapprovingly at their method of delivery of that point. It is nonsense to talk about internalisation of being the oppressed with recognising that the flip side of that is an internalisation of being the oppressor. And it is a fact that one manifestation of this oppression is the closing off of a point being made by a woman with a very particular type of door-slam.

It's unintentional, yes. But that's what internalisation means -- something unintentional.

I earnestly wish this hadn't become such a bunfight though, because it has sorely divided some of the posters whose contributions I admire the most.

It's more difficult/complicated than that, though, I think. Sometimes there's a subtext here that really does go unoticed (though one that was hinted at by revol, above) which is that sometimes people can be blunt (which is what I think Blagsta was being) precisely because you respect the poster. From stuff I've observed, I think Edie is one of the genuinely warmest, most generous, decent human beings on here - but she also posts some fucking awful crap at times in the politics threads. And I think she does get genuinely upset (not just the prostitution stuff) with some of the disagreements - how to deal with that when it's just words on a message board and there aren't the other ways that the meaning of what is said gets modulated with face-to-face communication...

 

[ymu]

No, no one has actually fucking quoted me the comment in question, nor given me any background to it.

And are you going to address or apologise for your own snidey behaviour, quite clearly meant to slam the door shut on my views on the grounds that I have a penis?

I reposted it since you joined. Perhaps you would do better if you read the threads you were posting on?

 

[past caring]

I think the way you have hounded Edie across threads is beyond disgusting, and it's time you knew it. That's all.

That's a fucking outrageous slur, in all honesty, though hardly untypical of some of your hyperbole.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Is maths a particularly fast moving discipline, in which you're left at a huge disadvantage should you take a couple of years out for childcare? I thought that most of it had already been invented.

 

[revol68]

It wasn't the best choice of approach, no. But in those 'cunt' posts I was also pointing out why his latest attempt at self-justfication wasn't good enough and inviting him to try again. He was free to prove he wasn't a cunt by just accepting that he'd made an error and acknowledging it. But he didn't, he just kept on explaining how there was nothing offensive or unreasonable in what he said, whilst ignoring the hugely offensive way he said it. So I kept calling him a cunt.

Childish, I know. But it's interesting how the way the point was made is now being used as an excuse to avoid addressing the point. Curious how often that happens on these threads.

Believing yourself to be non-sexist, non-racist, non-homophobic does not make it true. It is impossible to grow up in a bigoted society and not absorb elements of that bigotry. When someone tells you you have offended them, going off at the deep end on the grounds that you're not a bigot is missing the point by a country mile.

Right so if someone says you offended them then yeah of course you did and more to the point were being offensive?

Just because someone takes offense or feels uncomfortable doesn't mean either person is in the wrong, which I think is what both Edie and Blagsta settled on, so I don't see why it needed you coming in and stirring shit in your underhand way.

So are you going to hold your hands up for being a snidey dick to me, insinuating that I only take blokes seriously?

 

[ymu]

Right so if someone says you offended them then yeah of course you did?

So are you going to hold your hands up for being a snidey dick to me, insinuating that I only take blokes seriously?

Just because someone takes offense or feels uncomfortable doesn't mean either person is in the wrong, which I think is what both Edie and Blagsta settled on, so I don't see why it needed you coming in and stirring shit in your underhand way.

If you had read the thread from the beginning, you'll notice a number of posts sarcatically congratulating men for reaching a conclusion that women had already posted several times but been ignored on.

It wasn't a personal dig at you, you over-sensitive little kitten.

Still, kind of me to make a point that you could take exaggerated offence at instead of engaging with the main issue. I'm nice like that.