Vuk

John

2) To upgrade the nonsense level, why not include politics and religion in this thread ?

Bernard

There is a very easy and cost effective way to stop these bloody protestors from smashing things up under the pretext of freedom etc and that is to conscript them. This way they lose all civil rights.

Two years of having the stuffing kicked out of them in the glass house..(which is hell on earth)..will soon persuade that bunch of yobs to toe the line. I believe I am correct in stating that no person who went through that procedure came back for a second dose. They were scared stiff.

There are times when discipline must be exercised and this is one of them. We cannot tolerate mindless and premeditated vandalism of that magnitude.

Rant No 2 over

Regards

Mick...once an appointee Magistrate.

quote:

---

There is a very easy and cost effective way to stop these bloody protestors from smashing things up under the pretext of freedom etc and that is to conscript them. This way they lose all civil rights.

---

Well. Sieg Heil !

I notice that you are from across the pond so you may not be aware of just how thuggish some of theses louts behaved.

Shop assistants in a Tesco supermarket had to lock themselves in the shop because they were theatened with being burned/beaten up if they did not vacate it. The shop was bombarded with everything from dustbins to bricks. Fortunately the windows were made of shatterproof glass which kept the "protestors" out. This lasted for over 20 minutes.

Most of the assistants were young females who where absoloutly terrifed and some became hysterical with fear. They are more than likely still shook up and no one should be put through that.

In my book, they deserve sympathy and protection and the louts who perpretrate such actions deserve no sympathy and no civil protection. These people are the ultimate low life.

Regards

Mick

However, whenever I see such general language such as "these bloody protestors" I worry about just how one defines such people. The actual protestors who engaged in violence? All protestors? All people who share the same opinion? If the answer is the first, then maybe your option is sensible. If not, it is evil. And I most certainly disagree that such people deserve no civil protection, if by that you are referring to civil political rights. Even criminals have rights, lest the State be allowed to trample all rights.

Of course, keep in mind that I am indeed from across the pond where the Death Penalty is still meted out and the total prison population exceeds that of a number of states in the union. You can see my concern.

Well, this is certainly a dark subject. I think it's time to lighten up again . . .

But they should have to tolerate pictures of women whose very purpose is to please men and idealize a world in which the role of women is to please men--in their workplace?

Doesn't seem consistent to me. If one is going to be a "gentleman" then I think both situations should be covered.

--Eric

Eric just checked your profile, William Parker,Matthew Shipp!!! Please post in the music forum there's a thread there on these two.

Todd you might like William Parker too.

Humanists unite!!

John

[This message was edited by John C on FRIDAY 04 May 2001 at 01:07.]

Now come on, you are twisting things here.

Everyone, male or female, deserves the protection of the law. I suspect the thugs went to the supermarket which was staffed by women because they thought it would be easier to loot.

As regards to the disply of pin up pictures on screen, no person could criticise you if an image just came up unexpectedly. In practice, you would probably delete it fairly quickly. If however, you decided to pass time gawping at these pictures, then on your own head be it.

Also Nigel Cavendish made a very good point....how can you criticise your employer for preventing you from using your PC in the companies time on non work issues.

Regards

Mick

Tony.

To my mind Vuk is not and has never been an idiot for submitting the odd bit of very soft porn, which is availble anywhere.

His advice has always been excellent and generally backed up by facts and examples.

We could do with a few more Vuks.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Sorry I meant Mick

---

You could do with a lot more Micks?

The world would indeed be a finer place.

Tony.

--Eric

Eric
Few women post on this Forum because the fastidiousness of the hi-fi habit (not because Members issue postings which could be deemed offensive to women) makes it exclusively a male domain. Women are not excluded, they just wouldn't be seen dead here. This is a man's world.
Feminism has taken three phases:
1)Emancipation - women fought for the right to belong and participate fully in a "man's" world.
2)Identity - where true equality is achieved. A woman's world is equally valid and powerful as a man's. Women no longer bow down to the supposed superiority of men by trying to be like them - hence their absence from this forum, by their own choosing.
3)Radical Feminism - where it all begins to get silly and the PC movement is born, along with its witch hunts. The "vanguard of gender equity" is simply the sanctioning of anyone who can be remotely construed as sexist given their choice of words, in or out of context, never mind what they say or intend to say.
As for the acceptability of "sexual objectification" in the workplace, the "workplace" is a place like any other. We do not abandon our basic rights in this place. Sexual objectification by males of females, vice-versa, or any other combination you may think of is quite natural, if inappropriate in certain professional or social situations.

quote:

---

La deuxieme sexe [sic]
Women should be protected against the protesters as the weaker sex?
But they have to tolerate pictures of women whose purpose is to please men...

---

Rico - all your base are belong to us.

quote:

---

BTW, the noun "sexe" is always masculine even if "le sexe en question" is female!

---

The use of gender in French

Bernard

Vuk is God

Think of me as demigod.

Regards

Mick

As to your history of feminism I think you are wrong, and I also don't think your second stage has been achieved, because a)men still wield the majority of power in the world and get to set the terms of what's ok, and b)prima facia women are portrayed as being subservient to men and men's fantasies in about 95% of all media, including (in fact especially) mainstream women's media. There has been no separate but equal achieved.

In terms of your third stage, I think things are much more complicated than you admit. It seems to me the use of the term radical is certainly politicized--it means "More than I'm willing to give up". Certainly the end goal of anyone seeking and healthy mix of equity and liberty in society is not necessarily clear. And each person has there own notion of how they want to be and how they want to be treated.

I do agree on one point--social relations in the workplace mirror those in society, and they do so because it is much easier (cheaper) for an institution (in this case a firm) to adapt its structure to preexisting social roles which its employees find easy to fit into than to create a new culture and set of roles. Why are nurses and secretaries mostly women, and bosses mostly men? If we lived in a truly free and equitable society, I don't think we would see such a division of roles in the workplace. Admittedly, it seems to be getting better (largely due to legal challenges), but there is a long way to go.

--Eri

My French does suck compared to what it should be, but...

The phrase "deuxieme sexe" is the title of the seminal 1949 work of feminism by Simone de Beauvoir. Of couse her point is to put gender assumptions in question via her title (which doesn't come across, obviously, in the English version, The Second Sex). This use of sexe has been taken up by other French feminists.

--Eric