Meeting People (3 Viewers)

[hermie]

What's the Kurtly Beale thing by the way?

Kurtley Beale row: content of text messages with Di Patston revealed | Sport | theguardian.com

 

[Unicron]

Do soccer campaigns not reach the same people over and over?

I think his point is that a guardian piece of this type is a case of preaching to the converted (this is making the huge assumption that no creepy men read the guardian) whereas soccer campaigns are targetted at a group of people many of whom act (jesus christ) problematically.

On an anecdotal basis whenever London pride comes up the issue of the "gay gooners" marching together and the fact that the club offically endorses them as an organised group always pokes a hornet's nest, even the fact that they have a banner hanging from the stand at every home game annoys some assholes.

 

[nooleen]

so this is your point then

You're missing the point again it doesn't matter how football or whatever decided to try to stamp out racism it matters that they did and that the message will reach a wide demographic of people whereas the fucking Guardian doesn't it just reaches the same people over and over and over until even those people couldn't give a fuck anymore.

that if the guardian keeps discussing sexism, racism and homophobia guardian readers will stop caring about those issues?

 

[nooleen]

I think his point is that a guardian piece of this type is a case of preaching to the converted (this is making the huge assumption that no creepy men read the guardian)

a quick peruse of the comments shows that an awful lot of erm, 'non-feminist types' are reading those articles

 

[therealjohnny]

I'm not sure soccer's anti-racism campaigns are the ones we should be holding up as the guiding light. It's only because the racism in soccer was so virulent that it was unignorable.

One time I was in a pub in town there were two English guys at the table beside us getting well oiled , having a laugh. I discovered they were over as part of a Fight Racism in Football campaign

As they were leaving one of them jovially asked me if I'd like one one their campaign badges. Then he caught himself, looked suddenly serious, withdrew his hand saying " you're not racists are you?" . We said we're not . We passed the test and everything was all a-ok again and I got my badge. It made me laugh, the pure pantomime of the way he asked and all

maybe you had to be there

 

[Lili Marlene]

What the fuck are you on about ?

How exactly are governments going to change how a man chat's up a woman on public transport ?

I'm going to be fucking fascinated to hear this.

Sorry, I assumed you were just trolling. For a more detailed response from earlier in the thread read this from earlier.

You're missing the point again it doesn't matter how football or whatever decided to try to stamp out racism it matters that they did and that the message will reach a wide demographic of people

Are you serious? Are you actually saying it doesn't matter how it happened? People couldn't learn anything from it when dealing with other issues?

"How did you cure your cancer?"

"Oh fuck it, all that matters is that it's gone."

"But maybe I could cure mine using the same method?"

"meh, all that matters is that I no longer have cancer."

whereas the fucking Guardian doesn't it just reaches the same people over and over and over until even those people couldn't give a fuck anymore.

I fail to see why people who read the guardian do not exist in any capacity in your mind except as people who read the guardian. They literally sit around reading the guardian and that's it. They don't do ANY other things, are not involved in ANY other areas, DEFINITELY NOT FOOTBALL, and they interact with NO other people. Their entire interaction with the world is reading the guardian.

a whole load of nonsense about promoting charities

I think your point here was that people get sick of hearing things. That is true. People were awfully sick of hearing about women wanting the vote throughout the 19th century, and yet somehow they kept at it until they got the vote. People must have been much more charitable back in the days of the British empire.

"Have you read that article in the guardian about how what you are doing is sexist"

"Nope"

"Right so"

"Why do you read articles about sexism when you're clearly not a sexist?"

"..eh"

"Just be like me and not give a shite either way.......Hey you with the tits .... Do ya do the gee?"

at this point man#1 picks up the paper and reads about statistics on rape while man#2 picks up the sun and looks at tits.

What a lovely story about a thing that never happened and a conversation that is representative of nothing and no-one.

I'm not saying that the articles shouldn't exist but I am saying that at some point there should be some sort of discussion about who they actually reach.

and

Yes, Of course, but the point I'm making is that the idea doesn't get transmitted if the person who understands and even believes in the original idea ceases to care about the idea in the first place.

So you find a way to make them care? Like say.... I dunno... writing a massively popular book about why feminism matters, told in a straightforward way that reached way beyond the same old academics and suddenly bringing the debate everywhere after years and years of it being practically ignored?

Like that? Something like that? Something that was aware of the complex discussions going on, and couldn't have existed without them, but nonetheless was still accessible and successful?

 

[washingcattle]

so this is your point then

that if the guardian keeps discussing sexism, racism and homophobia guardian readers will stop caring about those issues?

No,

If the guardian continually posts articles entitled

Attention, men: don’t be a creepy dude who pesters women in coffee shops and on the subway



Then the unfortunate by product of that may be that over time men who read such articles may become desesitised to such articles and cease to really care quite as much when something for want of a better term "more serious" appears. It's a real phoenomnon I'm not being fascesious.

Essentially the article were talking about belongs in FHM, it's not an article aimed at "guardian readers" It's missing it's audience in a sense and that is what I've been saying all along. Not it shouldn't exist. not it makes no valid points nothing of the sort just that the men who may need to read pieces like this won't because A. it's in the fucking guardian and B. it's a criticism of them.


That's my point. That's what i meant by preaching to the choir way back two pages ago.

 

[hermie]

a quick peruse of the comments shows that an awful lot of erm, 'non-feminist types' are reading those articles

Mostly trolls looking for something to get enraged about. I think cattle makes a great point. The frequency and increasing righteousness of these sorts of articles, in the Guardian in particular, has a numbing affect eventually.

I've read the article several times now and I still am not swayed from my original impression that the writer is appalled that these old creeps are talking to the women in question in the first place. Save it for something more serious.

 

[nooleen]

the guardian is a major paper, it has a large readership, and the readership isn't static. also most articles get seen through sharing on the internet now anyway. i've never bought a copy of the guardian in my life. anyone could see this article shared or trending on facebook.

the point about who this kind of thing reaches has already been covered a few times: continued discussions push the issue forward into public consciousness and through social transmission of ideas attitudes gradually change.

i don't see where the confusion is.

i don't think there's any numbing effect on anyone who's actually open to engaging with it. those that can't grasp the point will eventually come round to it when it's no longer socially acceptable to be such a dick about it.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

One time I was in a pub in town there were two English guys at the table beside us getting well oiled , having a laugh. I discovered they were over as part of a Fight Racism in Football campaign

As they were leaving one of them jovially asked me if I'd like one one their campaign badges. Then he caught himself, looked suddenly serious, withdrew his hand saying " you're not racists are you?" . We said we're not . We passed the test and everything was all a-ok again and I got my badge. It made me laugh, the pure pantomime of the way he asked and all

maybe you had to be there

It works.

It's the haircut, Johnny

 

[hermie]

the guardian is a major paper, it has a large readership, and the readership isn't static. also most articles get seen through sharing on the internet now anyway. i've never bought a copy of the guardian in my life. anyone could see this article shared or trending on facebook.

the point about who this kind of thing reaches has already been covered a few times: continued discussions push the issue forward into public consciousness and through social transmission of ideas attitudes gradually change.

i don't see where the confusion is.

i don't think there's any numbing effect on anyone who's actually open to engaging with it. those that can't grasp the point will eventually come round to it when it's no longer socially acceptable to be such a dick about it.

I'm not arguing the first three points, I get all that. On the last final one it's absolute bullshit to suggest that I'm not willing to engage with the subject, I wouldn't have read the piece several times and be having this discussion otherwise. And it's totally condescending to suggest that I don't grasp it just because I don't agree. You've done nothing to try and persuade or elucidate besides refer back to the original article (and the baiting headline in particular) that I disagreed with in the first place.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

I'm not arguing the first three points, I get all that. On the last final one it's absolute bullshit to suggest that I'm not willing to engage with the subject, I wouldn't have read the piece several times and be having this discussion otherwise. And it's totally condescending to suggest that I don't grasp it just because I don't agree. You've done nothing to try and persuade or elucidate besides refer back to the original article (and the baiting headline in particular) that I disagreed with in the first place.

I can't speak for Nooly, but I'm going to anyway.

I don't think she was particularly referring to you there.

 

[hermie]

I can't speak for Nooly, but I'm going to anyway.

I don't think she was particularly referring to you there.

Ah, when she referred to any "numbing effect" I took it that she was. Maybe I am just defensive today and will see it in a whole different light tomorrow!

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Ah, when she referred to any "numbing effect" I took it that she was. Maybe I am just defensive today and will see it in a whole different light tomorrow!

All in a day's internetting.

 

[nooleen]

it's absolute bullshit to suggest that I'm not willing to engage with the subject, I wouldn't have read the piece several times and be having this discussion otherwise. And it's totally condescending to suggest that I don't grasp it just because I don't agree.

Her interpretation of an interaction between two strangers was that it was creepy. If it genuinely was, that's fine but judging by the tone of the article I would not take it for granted that she isn't projecting in this instance.

you're refusing to even believe the author's account because you don't like her 'tone'. i don't see how you can engage from that basis.

 

[hermie]

you're refusing to even believe the author's account because you don't like her 'tone'. i don't see how you can engage from that basis.

That's right, I feel she might have an agenda. You're doing the exact same thing. You're assuming two guys you've never met are out and out creeps just because she says so, without providing very much evidence of such at all. I'm sure their side of it would be very different. They could be just weird, like most of the people who bend the ear off you in public. Or perhaps the women weren't as put out as she makes out. I'm not saying it was definitely appropriate behaviour just that demonising somebody for simply chatting to someone else in a public place sets a really bad precedent.

 

[nooleen]

1) she didn't say out-and-out creeps. you have interpreted it that way because you feel personally attacked by a criticism of a type of male behaviour.

2) you seem to be taking the account as an isolated incident of 'weird' behaviour. if you had any familiarity with the issue of unwanted male attention directed at women in public spaces you would be aware that it's a widespread problem. this article was written against a backdrop of ongoing discussion that you're obviously unaware of.

3) you're claiming first that 'maybe they're just weird' and next that they're 'simply chatting'. for some reason you need to believe that either those men were anomalies or that this 'whinnying bint' is overreacting to 'simple chatting'. did it occur to you at any point to imagine her account might be valid?

4) you didn't even read the linked article which formed half the basis of her argument.

 

[hermie]

1) she didn't say out-and-out creeps. you have interpreted it that way because you feel personally attacked by a criticism of a type of male behaviour.

2) you seem to be taking the account as an isolated incident of 'weird' behaviour. if you had any familiarity with the issue of unwanted male attention directed at women in public spaces you would be aware that it's a widespread problem. this article was written against a backdrop of ongoing discussion that you're obviously unaware of.

3) you're claiming first that 'maybe they're just weird' and next that they're 'simply chatting'. for some reason you need to believe that either those men were anomalies or that this 'whinnying bint' is overreacting to 'simple chatting'. did it occur to you at any point to imagine her account might be valid?

4) you didn't even read the linked article which formed half the basis of her argument.

1) The choice of language in the piece more than implies as much, I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

2) I'm not taking any account as gospel, that's what you're doing. And it's not that I'm unaware about such issues it's that I feel it's extremely troubling to be so indiscriminate about how one views all manner of male attention.

3) I don't have to believe anything, I couldn't give a shit. I'm just not convinced about her standpoint. Take out a few choice adjectives and all of a sudden there's very little in the article at all. I would say somebody who opens a conversation with a stranger and talks for half an hour on a specific genre of music without any prompting at all is very likely touched in some way. But if you take her account at face value, yes those men are either dickheads or extremely lacking in self-awareness. But even then writing a piece on the creepiness of one stranger talking to another is still, in my view, a cynical exercise. It perpetuates notions of fear, of the predatory male all of which are unhelpful to the discussion and are retrogressive. The sense I got was that the men already crossed the line by opening a discussion, not by what follows, that's how she paints it.

4) Yes I followed the link to the article and was unaware of the context, it's only mentioned towards the end of the piece. Either way it's superficial. Her article should be able to stand up on it's own merits and to keep harping back to other more menacing stuff is essentially a straw man.

 

[nooleen]

sigh

i'm tagging out for the night

 

[Cormcolash]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies