Two Maulings in One Day - Paxman AND Channel 4

[Lateralthinking1]

Margaret Hodge Chairs a lovely Public Accounts Committee too

Yes, it must surely be time for the splendid Robert to undergo another savaging. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

[amateur51]

I think Chloe Smith needs to watch this clip a few times, a bit like getting back onto the horse that's just thrown you into the midden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgqyepXCW8M

[scottycelt]

That's because you think everything is about MEN, scottycelt. So feminism inevitably only exists in relation to MEN. But that's not the case (which, to be really annoying, is something you'd know if you knew anything about feminism; about feminist literature, feminist art, feminist history, etc.).

John, forgive me, but are you the only member around here who knows anything about anything, even how I think ...?

Indulging in a rant about MEN only illustrates my point regarding the inherently sexist nature of 'feminism'.

You are now beginning to 'sound' very much like Germaine Greer ... actually, come to think of it ...

[Flosshilde]

Handsome, darling, how can I possibly brush up on my knowledge and read an authoritative boook about 'feminism' when nobody is quite sure what 'feminism' actually is ... ?

Scotty, sweetie, if you read a couple of books (or more) you might discover that on the whole people do know what feminism is. Perhaps you should try it (reading a couple of books, that is, not feminism - I wouldn't expect a miracle). If you can't be bothered it might be better if you stopped displaying your ferocious ignorance (& disinclination to learn) here.

[JohnSkelton]

John, forgive me, but are you the only member around here who knows anything about anything, even how I think ...?

Indulging in a rant about MEN only illustrates my point regarding the inherently sexist nature of 'feminism'.

You are now beginning to 'sound' very much like Germaine Greer ... actually, come to think of it ...

I haven't engaged in a rant about men. If I engaged in a rant about anything it was about you . I presume you don't think of yourself as every man?

The fact that the only name you can dredge up is Germaine Greer's speaks volumes for your thumping ignorance of feminist thought. Imagine having a conversation with someone who insisted that all Catholics were exclusively motivated by a desire to see Protestants burn in Hell, and furthermore maintained that Catholics believed their Priests had the power to decide which members of their congregation went straight to Heaven and which had to spend time in Purgatory. With some justification you'd say they were mistaken. Then they'd keep on repeating it in ever more indignant and obtuse ways. You'd get a bit miffed, no?

I don't know what you think, which is why I've attempted to find out by asking you. With some limited success. On the basis of that limited success I'll hazard a guess what you it is you think about feminism: that feminism is the reverse side of male sexism (much of which is in feminist's heads, anyway) and is all about women with a grudge against men wanting to take over from them. Would that be reasonable? Well it isn't correct. In part it's to do with righting age old wrongs and imbalances; in part it's to do with reclaiming women's experiences, history, working lives, family lives, artistic achievements, creative desires, sexuality, from male ways of looking at them and describing them.

I'm now going to hit myself repeatedly over the head with a brick until I forget I was ever born.

[johncorrigan]

I'm now going to hit myself repeatedly over the head with a brick until I forget I was ever born.

....be careful John or you may be getting a visit from an wee man called Clarence in need of a pair of wings.

[jayne lee wilson]

Please put the brick down JS, we need your articulacy and clarity around here...

So what do I, a 55-year old woman, think feminism is?

Simply an attempt to establish economic and political equality with men. As we haven't even approached numerical parity in the Commons or equal pay in many jobs and professions, you might conclude there are still very good reasons for Feminism to be alive and active.

As JS puts it so well, Feminism reaches out into more complex questions about gender attitudes and stereotypes. But the freedom of choice we now have compared to the 1950s, in life, career, behaviour and appearance, has to be counted at least a partial success.

Why did I feel disgusted about those earlier comments on this thread, the ones that were removed? Because they attempted to undermine the professional dignity of a female - objectifying her as a body, not giving her any basic respect as a person. (But Paxman and Guru-Murthy had every right to be ruthless to Chloe Smith, since she was there as a Treasury minister - youth, gender, inexperience didn't matter. She was a representative.)

Lap-dancing clubs, Hooters etc? I don't like them, or how they may affect some men's attitudes to women (or some womens' attitudes to men). The same can be said for online porn. But I recognise them as part of an ancient history of transaction between the genders, however seedy and blatant its present manifestation. I wouldn't shut them down, but would ask hard questions equally of the women who choose to work there (assuming no financial desperation) and the men who pay them and use them.

The fact that some women will find it easier to make money that way brings us back to that initial point - feminism is about economic, political equality - but widens into social and sexual equality too.

[ahinton]

I haven't engaged in a rant about men. If I engaged in a rant about anything it was about you . I presume you don't think of yourself as every man?

The fact that the only name you can dredge up is Germaine Greer's speaks volumes for your thumping ignorance of feminist thought. Imagine having a conversation with someone who insisted that all Catholics were exclusively motivated by a desire to see Protestants burn in Hell, and furthermore maintained that Catholics believed their Priests had the power to decide which members of their congregation went straight to Heaven and which had to spend time in Purgatory. With some justification you'd say they were mistaken. Then they'd keep on repeating it in ever more indignant and obtuse ways. You'd get a bit miffed, no?

I don't know what you think, which is why I've attempted to find out by asking you. With some limited success. On the basis of that limited success I'll hazard a guess what you it is you think about feminism: that feminism is the reverse side of male sexism (much of which is in feminist's heads, anyway) and is all about women with a grudge against men wanting to take over from them. Would that be reasonable? Well it isn't correct. In part it's to do with righting age old wrongs and imbalances; in part it's to do with reclaiming women's experiences, history, working lives, family lives, artistic achievements, creative desires, sexuality, from male ways of looking at them and describing them.

I'm now going to hit myself repeatedly over the head with a brick until I forget I was ever born.

John; don't do that (as Joyce Grenfell almost once said).

What you write here is beyond argument, apart, perhaps, from the notion of "reclaiming" of women's experiences to the extent that, in some cases, it's been more "claiming" than "reclaiming". Ever since my early childhood in my native Scotland, I have found it impossible to grasp why the kinds of attitudes that have, I believe, been the principal progenitors (sorry!) of feminism had ever managed to take hold - much less why they still pertained in the latter part of the 20th century. Why? Because they seemed so irrational and inhuman, that's why. I don't believe that feminism should ever have been necessary (and in this we may disagree fundamentally), but there is no arguing with the fact that it HAS been necessary - vitally so - in order to try to restore human social, professional, etc. balances that should never have gotten out of kilter in the first place and it is the fault largely of men in the past that they ever did get that way. It took longer again for me to come to terms with the experiences that I repeatedly encountered that many of these unbalanced, patronising and downright cruel ways in which some men treated some women were vastly less prevalent in the case of homosexual men; I can only speak from my own experiences, of course, but I have often found that many homosexual men have treated womankind in general with a good deal more respect and kindness than have some heterosexual men.

I'm going to take that brick out of your hand and suggest that you sit back in a comfortable armchiar and have a nice gin and tonic.

[scottycelt]

I haven't engaged in a rant about men. If I engaged in a rant about anything it was about you . I presume you don't think of yourself as every man?

The fact that the only name you can dredge up is Germaine Greer's speaks volumes for your thumping ignorance of feminist thought. Imagine having a conversation with someone who insisted that all Catholics were exclusively motivated by a desire to see Protestants burn in Hell, and furthermore maintained that Catholics believed their Priests had the power to decide which members of their congregation went straight to Heaven and which had to spend time in Purgatory. With some justification you'd say they were mistaken. Then they'd keep on repeating it in ever more indignant and obtuse ways. You'd get a bit miffed, no?

I don't know what you think, which is why I've attempted to find out by asking you. With some limited success. On the basis of that limited success I'll hazard a guess what you it is you think about feminism: that feminism is the reverse side of male sexism (much of which is in feminist's heads, anyway) and is all about women with a grudge against men wanting to take over from them. Would that be reasonable? Well it isn't correct. In part it's to do with righting age old wrongs and imbalances; in part it's to do with reclaiming women's experiences, history, working lives, family lives, artistic achievements, creative desires, sexuality, from male ways of looking at them and describing them.

Well, my views are as previously stated ... nothing more or less, really , despite my 'thumping ignorance'... I'll only add that I'm certainly 'a bit miffed' that you don't see fit to mention that MEN are apparently capable of having noble aspirations and desires as well, and that some women can have similar stereotypical attitudes towards MEN? Maybe you believe that somehow women are superior to MEN?

II'm now going to hit myself repeatedly over the head with a brick until I forget I was ever born.

Please don't ... those you leave behind will always be faced with the simple reality that you actually were ...

[amateur51]

John, forgive me, but are you the only member around here who knows anything about anything, even how I think ...?

Indulging in a rant about MEN only illustrates my point regarding the inherently sexist nature of 'feminism'.

You are now beginning to 'sound' very much like Germaine Greer ... actually, come to think of it ...

Oh scotty pur-leaze - The Female Eunuch was first published in UK in 1970 - have you been habouring this animus against the great Prof Greer, next to whom I once sat & chatted on the London Underground, for nigh on 45 years?!?

You're beginning to sound like ... Sir Patrick Moore

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2007/may/08/sirpatrickmooreistotallyn

[ahinton]

Please put the brick down JS, we need your articulacy and clarity around here...

So what do I, a 55-year old woman, think feminism is?

Simply an attempt to establish economic and political equality with men. As we haven't even approached numerical parity in the Commons or equal pay in many jobs and professions, you might conclude there are still very good reasons for Feminism to be alive and active.

As JS puts it so well, Feminism reaches out into more complex questions about gender attitudes and stereotypes. But the freedom of choice we now have compared to the 1950s, in life, career, behaviour and appearance, has to be counted at least a partial success.

Why did I feel disgusted about those earlier comments on this thread, the ones that were removed? Because they attempted to undermine the professional dignity of a female - objectifying her as a body, not giving her any basic respect as a person. (But Paxman and Guru-Murthy had every right to be ruthless to Chloe Smith, since she was there as a Treasury minister - youth, gender, inexperience didn't matter. She was a representative.)

Lap-dancing clubs, Hooters etc? I don't like them, or how they may affect some men's attitudes to women (or some womens' attitudes to men). The same can be said for online porn. But I recognise them as part of an ancient history of transaction between the genders, however seedy and blatant its present manifestation. I wouldn't shut them down, but would ask hard questions equally of the women who choose to work there (assuming no financial desperation) and the men who pay them and use them.

The fact that some women will find it easier to make money that way brings us back to that initial point - feminism is about economic, political equality - but widens into social and sexual equality too.

Wise words, for which many thanks.

Another thing that I've never understood (and the principal thrust of your post here brings it to mind) is why anyone of any gender would assume that the absence of economic, political, social snd sexual equality is good for anything or anyone, including the nation's economy; the disrespect of and patronising attitudes towards women that most of will have encountered somewhere along the line is not merely a disgrace - it's also utterly illogical and nonsensical and might even be laughable if there was anything remotely funny about it (which there most certainly is not).

Where equality is concerned, I've already admitted elsewhere that I'm not so exercised about individuals' wealth equalities as I am about poverty per se and I think that it's easy for some people to be lulled into a false sense that "equality" is a goal for which to aim in every particlar, because this would iron out individual differences between people; however, when a particular inequality is the result of a passionate and desperate desire for any one group of people to assume wholly unwarranted superiority over another, it can only be damaging to both and needs to be stamped out, otherwise humanity will never progress.

[handsomefortune]

MEN are apparently capable of having noble aspirations and desires as well,

agreed scotty celt!

but under the same oppressive power structure that effects women, genuinely noble males don't get a look in either, are bullied, and betrayed by noisy male 'superiors' and their lackys. as a retaliation, some men choose to loathe women - rather than own up to the threat they feel from other males.

there are so many complex patterns to feminist theory which genuinely help all people....i don't understand why some automatically dismiss it as 'only serving women'.

[scottycelt]

Oh scotty pur-leaze - The Female Eunuch was first published in UK in 1970 - have you been habouring this animus against the great Prof Greer, next to whom I once sat & chatted on the London Underground, for nigh on 45 years?!?

You're beginning to sound like ... Sir Patrick Moore

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tv...ooreistotallyn

Actually I once had the pleasure of meeting Sir Patrick ... lovely chap!

Now I must watch the football, amsey ... hard life for we MEN, eh? ...

[Flosshilde]

Brava & bravo to Jayne, handsomefortune, John, ahinton & Am51 for offering explanations of what feminism means, & attempting to engage Scotty in a rational discussion. I'm afraid that I ran out of the patience required for the latter endeavour some time ago; it is a fruitless task.

[amateur51]

it is a fruitless task.

Not while I'm around