Username: Password:

Author Topic: The daily mails definition of feminism?  (Read 5096 times)

Afghan Dave

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 3315
Re: The daily mails definition of feminism?
« Reply #30 on: August 06, 2009, 06:17:15 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUphbx-Tu0

That is HARSH...  :o

 (but bloody funny in a totally distressing way)  :? :lol:
"There's more knowledge on these boards than there are necks under PhillyQ's bed"

38thBeatle

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 6098
    • http://www.myspace.com/alteregoukband
Re: The daily mails definition of feminism?
« Reply #31 on: August 06, 2009, 07:02:56 PM »
Newspapers? I refuse to read any of them. I have a friend who rants about the "fascist" Mail and then goes back to his ever so balanced Guardian.

AS for the subject matter-Ms Harman is not one of my favourites I must admit and her recent outpourings do not endear her to me. Surely the message should be that hitting anyone is wrong regardless of gender.
Send three and fourpence we're going to a dance
BKP's: Apache, Country Boy, Slowhands.

Philly Q

  • Light Heavyweight
  • ******
  • Posts: 18109
Re: The daily mails definition of feminism?
« Reply #32 on: August 06, 2009, 07:17:43 PM »
Surely the message should be that hitting anyone is wrong regardless of gender.

Indeed.  Regardless of gender of both hitter and hit.
BKPs I've Got:  RR, BKP-91, ITs, VHII, CS set, Emeralds
BKPs I Had:  RY+Abraxas, Crawlers, BD+SM

Sifu Ben

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1328
    • http://www.swindonkungfu.co.uk
Re: The daily mails definition of feminism?
« Reply #33 on: August 06, 2009, 07:54:11 PM »
schools already teach basic sex education at this age

they teaching anything about STDs yet?

I'm 25 now and all they ever taught me how sex works in primary and then sex and a bit about protection in high school, didn't tell us anything about STDs which ones are out there, which ones they can cure, etc

had 1 lesson about being a parent it was so good half the girls from my school are single mums now

I remember more from the PSE lessons on world population...
I'm 31 and they taught me more than I really wanted to know about STDs. Mind you clearly that wasn't everything, as I learned at work last week that you can catch hepatitis A from rimming !  :euuuh:
However, one thing I've always felt was that sex education at school never placed any emphasis on relationships. All these groups who go on about it being "the role of the family" really annoy me, as they're filled with exactly the kind of people who appear to be incapable of having a mature, sensible discussion with their kids about sex, relationships, drugs etc.
Cold Sweat, Nailbomb 7b, Cold Sweat 7n

Afghan Dave

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 3315
Re: The daily mails definition of feminism?
« Reply #34 on: August 06, 2009, 08:01:00 PM »
I learned at work last week that you can catch hepatitis A from rimming !  :euuuh:

Good lord, what decent people have to do to make a living in this recession brings tears to my eyes...  :( :lol:
"There's more knowledge on these boards than there are necks under PhillyQ's bed"

Sifu Ben

  • Welterweight
  • ****
  • Posts: 1328
    • http://www.swindonkungfu.co.uk
Re: The daily mails definition of feminism?
« Reply #35 on: August 06, 2009, 08:04:16 PM »
ROFLMAO  :lol:
 I was stood outside the early pregnancy unit while my colleague was handing over a patient, and I was reading some of their advice booklets.
Cold Sweat, Nailbomb 7b, Cold Sweat 7n

dave_mc

  • Middleweight
  • *****
  • Posts: 9796
Re: The daily mails definition of feminism?
« Reply #36 on: August 06, 2009, 09:40:09 PM »
Harman's crazed rants do absolutely nothing for feminism.  her notion seems to be that women should get certain jobs whether they're qualified or not just because they're women.  that in itself is discrimination! 

we recently interviewed for a new engineer, most of the applicants were men, there were two women.  as it happens, one of the women got the job.  not because she's female, because she was the best one for the job.  any legislation saying you HAD to employ a one or the other sex to fulfill a quota would be ridiculous and wrong.

of course, i agree. the big problem is that an awful lot of firms, if said legislation doesn't exist, will use that as an excuse to employ a man instead of a (better, or equally qualified) woman.

LOL at philly's post about the psychologist, too.