I'm curious

Merto, like the open source software movement says, free speech is not like free beer.

There is no such thing as free speech in law or in fact. You can be held accountable at law for slander or libel. You can be prosecuted for seditious speech.

Yes, free speech is a right that we hold dear in the free world - but every right we have is accompanied by a duty. The two concepts are paired but seldom discussed together.

The problem is drawing conclusions about women in general from the observed behaviour of a few. I believe it's called stereotyping.

I don't like cheese.
Well, which ones have you tried?
I've tried Cheddar, Brie, Stilton, Cream cheeses, Mousetrap, Port Salut, Bavarian Smoked...
Ah..but have you tried Shropshire Blue?
No.
Well then, you can't possibly say you don't like cheese - you're just generalising!!

It’s a sorry state that our children can no longer go on school trips because no teacher in their right mind would make themselves so vulnerable in this litigious society. It’s a shame that vulnerable minorities do not get support because some people are afraid of not having examined every aspect of all arguments before committing to a cause. It’s a shame that it could become common to not voice any opinion in order to avoid conflict or offence. One day we will have high court judges who are afraid to judge. We will have police that are afraid to act in case they accidentally touch someone without written permission. We will have discussion forums where people are afraid to discuss. We will have a world where rulers are afraid to rule.
Well….Not me!
Discuss. If you dare. This is, after all, a discussion forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
I believe it's called stereotyping.

Stereotyping isn't the sin some people make it out to be. It is a means of characterising the general features of a group.

Let's face it, women are temperamental, hard to understand and can't park. Look good in the shower though...

EW

Let’s recap:
From an opening remark and observation, a view is expressed that relates to a current phenomena regarding behaviour of a proportion of a generation of population.
The contributor (me) is accused of having views that are inappropriate, generalising and taboo, and is nicely labelled and dismissed as sexist. At no point is the argument put forward discussed or examined for its validity or flaws. The original discussion therefore halts and, due to the reaction, the subject becomes even more of a taboo subject.
The fact that the original subject is no longer being discussed suggests that those who are self-appointed protectors of the group of population in question believe that either the group need their protection (patronising), or that these views should be censored (hypocritical). The contributor however may be pigeonholed and labelled without further examination or qualification, or without even knowing anything about the person in question; gender, sexual persuasion, race, religion. (At least that is fair as it should be irrelevant).
So who are those that defend those who do not ask for defence? Assuming the role of judge, with the only purpose being of judging those that offer an opinion, is a shaky role and riddled with hypocrisies.
I believe discussions should be made about the subject in hand in order to examine whether the views put forward are valid or not. Either the argument stands scrutiny or it does not. Accusations of individuals for their opinions and suppression of freedom of speech is not the way of a democratic society.
Ironically, there is a case to be argued that Political Correctness is the ultimate device of the Far Right.

I'm going to do some work now....

Okay, I thought it was about time a lady put some comments on this thread.

Although I believe the comments here are somewhat generalised, basically I think you're right.

However, both sexes have contributed to where our society currently is. It was men in the first instance that oppressed woman, causing the feminist uprising. Woman have now taken it too far......

I work in a very male dominated industry, Oil & Gas. When i used to go offshore, I just went there to get on with my job not to make a point or further any feminist cause. It always took at least the first week for the guys to get to know me and understand this, before I was treated as just another workmate. We all do, whether we like to think it or not, stereotype people.

What annoys me is the fact that woman have now managed to devalue their own role as a mother. I was lucky enough to have a mother that stayed at home to raise me and my brother and sister. Now I do know that not everyone can afford not to work, so I'm just generalising here but woman seem to want everything, family / money / career etc etc and we simply can't do it all.

On the other hand I do feel that men have lost their identities now, having no real place being the breadwinner any more.

As usual we have all lost out.

A

Just to go back to the original topic.....

I can't explain why woman are like this but it has always been the fact that men and woman handle arguments with one another in different ways.

I suppose it could be said that because woman usually create closer more emotional bonds with friends when a dissagreement occurs it does become harder to not just scrap and then shake hands.

I don't really know. I've always got on better with blokes myself maybe that's why!!

A

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
I believe it's called stereotyping.

Stereotyping isn't the sin some people make it out to be. It is a means of characterising the general features of a group.

Let's face it, women are temperamental, hard to understand and can't park. Look good in the shower though...

EW

I know some who don't...

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
I don't like cheese.
Well, which ones have you tried?
I've tried Cheddar, Brie, Stilton, Cream cheeses, Mousetrap, Port Salut, Bavarian Smoked...
Ah..but have you tried Shropshire Blue?
No.
Well then, you can't possibly say you don't like cheese - you're just generalising!!

All Scots are mean, all Irish are thick, all black men etc.....

......sigh.........

Blimey I wish I'd never started this

quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin Maynard-Portly:
I remain saddened by the headlong rush to be seen to be politically correcter than the next man. Or woman. Person.

Going to play merry hell with crime and detection. "Well, officer, I saw a person..."

EW

OK.
I've taken this sidetrack to a new thread whereby Fisbey can have his thread back.
Sorry Fisbey. I didn't mean to hijack this.

quote:

Originally posted by TheRedHerring:
I suppose it could be said that because woman usually create closer more emotional bonds with friends when a dissagreement occurs it does become harder to not just scrap and then shake hands.

I don't really know. I've always got on better with blokes myself maybe that's why!!

A

I'm not sure that is true. Do you really think women create closer relationships with each other? I know women discuss more personal matters readily with each other, but I feel that creates a waryness, vulnerability and distrust as much as a close bond. Maybe that is the basis of the behaviour. Men on the other hand can know each other for decades, and never really know each other at all, which is hugely sad.
I, like you, get on best with the opposite sex.

No worries Rasher - interesting to see other peoples viewpoints.