If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Workplace sexism: TUC appoints a woman as General Secretary
No. Perhaps you would care to enlighted me - and others - as to the effect that you intend. I do not "call myself" a Scotsman to the extent that, being one, I don't have to.
You've hit it (however inadvertently) right on target, ahinton ... it's all about your 'me' ...
Any chance of getting back to the topic please, scotty and ahinton?
If you can face reading at least some of the posts that I have already contributed to this thread and if you don't find them all unreadable (which, if you did and they were, would suggest there being little point in my getting back to said topic in any case), you should hopefully figure out that I have not only attempted to give serious consideration to the subject at hand but also tried to bring the thread back on topic on more than one occasion but, that said, I'm not sure at the moment that I have anything more to say on it (which may or may not be a matter of relief to you)!
It is English ... maybe the inverted commas have baffled you once again? ... should I switch to italics to assist your goodself and 'A. N. Other'?
Your inverted commas do not themselves baffle me even if your decision to use them might do so on certain occasions but, in answer to your question, I have no idea whether or not you should do that or any such thing, so I leave the choice entirely to you.
Right. Topic. Whatever anyone might or might not think about sexism per se (with or without inverted commas) in the workplace or indeed anywhere else, is there really any incontrovertible evidence that the apopointment under discussion here is in any demonstrable sense indicative of a sexist decision of some kind and, if so, why and as a result of what specific motivation on the part of whom?
Having asked that, I digress momentarily for the purpose of declaring that I have something of a phobia about "isms", one of the few acceptable ones (to me) being bard Kingdom Brunel...
Right. Topic. Whatever anyone might or might not think about sexism per se (with or without inverted commas) in the workplace or indeed anywhere else, is there really any incontrovertible evidence that the apopointment under discussion here is in any demonstrable sense indicative of a sexist decision of some kind and, if so, why and as a result of what specific motivation on the part of whom?
Well, if your own awareness (or rather declared absence thereof) is typical of the form membership as a whole (which may or may not be the case, of course), that would appear to wrap up the topic once and for all, would it not? Or have I missed something (like a stray inverted comma that's lost its companion, par exemple?)...
Your inverted commas do not baffle me even if your decision to use them might do so on certain occasions but, in answer to your question, I have no idea whether or not you should do that or any such thing, so I leave the choice entirely to you.
Right. Topic. Whatever anyone might or might not think about sexism per se (with or without inverted commas) in the workplace or indeed anywhere else, is there really any incontrovertible evidence that the apopointment under discussion here is in any demonstrable sense indicative of a sexist decision of some kind and, if so, why and as a result of what specific motivation on the part of whom?
Having asked that, I digress momentarily for the purpose of declaring that I have something of a phobia about "isms", one of the few acceptable ones (to me) being bard Kingdom Brunel...
wrap up
or perhaps try re-reading the thread title?
Who? Moi? I read it pretty much at the outset, otherwise it would have been rather difficult for me to contribute to the thread as I have done but, since its instigator began by asking
"Would members care to speculate about what this tells us about either/both organisation(s)?"
and, later, in response to my
"Whatever anyone might or might not think about sexism per se (with or without inverted commas) in the workplace or indeed anywhere else, is there really any incontrovertible evidence that the apopointment under discussion here is in any demonstrable sense indicative of a sexist decision of some kind and, if so, why and as a result of what specific motivation on the part of whom?"
he replied
"Not that I'm aware of",
it follows that, unless any other members might still wish to speculate on the matter but have yet to do so feel like telling us what they think (and there appears to be scant evidence of that right now), it might reasonably be argued that the thread has indeed reached the wrapping up stage, at least for said instigator...
If you were referring to someone else, however, please ignore the above.
In the meantime, I must pop into the garden while there's a rare sunny interval, as I see that, after all the rain that has fallen around these parts of late, there's a few rather sad looking commas that need inverting...
I've been following this thread with interest. This story is perhaps apposite....
My watch stopped earlier this week, and this afternoon I went into town to get it seen to. It's almost certainly the battery. I went into the well-known national chain of jewellers where I bought the watch, and sought the help of one of the three assistants. "Take a seat over there, and I'll change the battery for you", said the lady.
Ten minutes later...... "Three of us have tried, and we can't get the back off." I pointed out that they had put the back on when the battery last required attention. It was a lady then, as I recall.
"Could you come back with the watch tomorrow, when there will be a man here?" This I undertook to do, and we will see what tomorrow brings.
Comment