Author Topic: Standing for women


Standing for women
« on: February 05, 2023 »

I'm not making any effort to tidy things up. And using my own name. So lazy.

. . .

. . .
As the service’s own equality impact assessment of the policy, dated 2014, shows, officials did not consult with groups representing women’s interests, nor consider relevant documentary evidence on women. It concluded that women would not be affected by the new policy.


"Both sides"
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2023 »

This is about as mean as it usally gets from our side:



you say you want a revolution
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2023 »

The bit about gender fluidity is weak, but otherwise it's a fine showcase for the dishonesty of the new Red Guard (next one down). See also this response to one of Matt's more unhelpful videos.

Calm, cool & collected takedown of the SNP's deputy leader. No, he doesn't spend all his time up in the tree. There's something for bikespotters.

Here's the intro to that.


The Guardian
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2023 »
The Guardian: "Women in the UK: share your experience of being subjected to online misogyny"

Twitter: "By your writers or more generally?"

Guardian Asking For Experiences of Internet Misogyny
Quote from: RoyalCorgi
There's something about the phrase "actual misogyny", isn't there? 'Cos those of us who are wimmin are too dim to tell the difference between "actual misogyny" and fake misogyny.

Putting rapists in women's jails isn't misogyny, forcing lesbians to consider male people as sexual partners isn't misogyny, throwing victims of domestic abuse out of support groups because they don't want to share a space with men isn't misogyny.

What is "actual misogyny", though? I expect all us daftie women will have to wait for OJ to explain to us. Those he hasn't blocked, anyway.
It is fascinating to me how someone like OJ, supposedly intelligent, supposedly progressive, cannot grasp the other side of the argument at all. Cannot see that women who have a lifetime of Labour and trade union activism, stuffing envelopes, knocking on doors, organising jumble sales, haven't suddenly become bigots - that they have genuine concerns that they are articulating.


Women speaking
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2023 »
Edit of the video of the full event in the OP:

Maya Forstater on gender-critical disputes:

Let's try that again, as Medium took exception to it:

from the Mumsnet discussion about Maya's piece:
Quote from: ShireWifeofNigelFarage
Quote from: Baldieheid
I'm curious- what's a farage feminist? Same as a kjk feminist ie says she's not one?

Dunno really - get the feeling it’s been bandied about in certain small-group comms to denigrate those of us who don’t give two hoots about academia, just want to not see a penis in the ladies change at the swimming baths.

This attitude is ‘populist’ apparently.

Quote from: AlisonDonut
Quote from: Baldieheid
I take it the dislike of Posie is for the same reasons? Because she's prepared to speak to those people that the academic snobs deem unclean, if she and they happen to have this issue in common?

They seem to have been triggered into...producing a 60 page quarterly all about [hating] her.

And made it free so that the plebs can all read it. #bekind.

Quote from: ShireWifeofNigelFarage
I would imagine there is at least a tinge of jealousy at Posie’s popularity and ever growing media reach.

Of course the real reason Posie is popular is because she doesn’t speak over us, she literally hands us the mic and steps back, whereas they are too scared to centre us gittersnipes in case we say something a bit too whitevan(wo)man.

Here's a gem from academia that popped up in my browsing today:

. . .
Quote from: guinnessguzzler
That's not my tw, she's too rapey. That's not my tw, she's too child abductory. That's my tw, she is fully law abiding and has great hair.