[Closed] #MeToo

And there’s been a swing towards more Hate Crime, I’m suggesting these are recent developments since last June.

And there’s been a swing towards more Hate Crime, I’m suggesting these are recent developments since last June.

That crime stat is just the UK isn't it?

As a bloke, I'm left wondering "what can I do"?

Easy - don't be involved in such behaviour. If all blokes cared as much and took the same action, not much else would need done.

Call it out when you see/hear it
Listen to your employees/co workers/friends
It happens to both sexes
Remember most people are good people

Call it out when you see/hear it

This mainly, I reckon. Assuming you're not doing or likely to do anything out of order yourself (obviously?), don't be a bystander.

lapierrelady - Member
Call it out when you see/hear it
Listen to your employees/co workers/friends
It happens to both sexes
Remember most people are good people

^^ This, totally this.

Also, when some dick who’s never faced the issue calls you a “liberal, lefty handwringer” or “snowflake” for giving a shit and caring about prejudice and harassment, give them a swift knee in the balls.

May I be the first?

Sexist!

lapierrelady - Member
Call it out when you see/hear it

And this.
Nice that things are finally changing.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/16/a-simple-list-of-things-men-can-do-to-change-our-work-and-life-culture

Duane... - Member
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/16/a-simple-list-of-things-men-can-do-to-change-our-work-and-life-culture

Got to say, I agree with all of that list (and the #MeToo thing), apart from this one

"If you are asked to be on a panel/team and see that it’s all men, say something. Maybe even refuse the spot!"

I believe in a meritocracy. If the best people for a team are all male, then that's the best team for that job. Equally, could be all female, or all orangutan. Whatever mix is the best or most appropriate for the job at hand.

"If you are asked to be on a panel/team and see that it’s all men, say something. Maybe even refuse the spot!"

I believe in a meritocracy. If the best people for a team are all male, then that's the best team for that job. Equally, could be all female, or all orangutan. Whatever mix is the best or most appropriate for the job at hand.

You would need to see the rest of the workplace to know though - some simple advice when I was younger was to avoid places where everyone was old - all the talent left or all new/young - nobody stays.

But certainly not being afraid to call out sexism and harrasment is important.

“liberal, lefty handwringer” or “snowflake”

Got to say, I agree with all of that list (and the #MeToo thing), apart from this one

"If you are asked to be on a panel/team and see that it’s all men, say something. Maybe even refuse the spot!"

I believe in a meritocracy. If the best people for a team are all male, then that's the best team for that job. Equally, could be all female, or all orangutan. Whatever mix is the best or most appropriate for the job at hand.

This is interesting. I'm currently pulling together committees for an international conference (don't ask how I ended up chairing it, I'm not quite sure either). Noting that I'm relatively inexperienced to be in the position of chair for such an event, my first draft of invitees for the local organising committee was picked on perceived experience with a nod to geographical location. Result: 9 males, all except me over 50, 1 female in an administrative role. It was only when I put M or F in a column next to those names that it really stood out just how poor the demographic coverage was.

So, a rethink over the weekend, and we're now at 7:5 M:F, with what I'd say is clearly a more dynamic group, whilst still having some long-standing experience to draw on.

There aren't many fields more male dominated than the world of soil science professors, so if it can be done here (with what looks like a net benefit in terms of breadth of experience), then there probably aren't many fields in which it can't be done.

This does open up another question as to whether the presence / absence of boobs / penis is the correct tool for assessing diversity in a work environment. I don't think it is, it's very blunt and misses the diversity of expertise and skills two people of the same gender, sexual orientation or race may have. It does however at least ensure the correct question is being asked.

I believe in a meritocracy

Isnt the point that a meritocracy doesnt exist?

Call it when you see it.
It can be hard, but I'm an exponent since you know when and before of calling it out. You won't be alone but someone has to be brave and do it (for me I confronted a racist in a football crowd many years ago which could have gone wrong but straight away others joined in with 'yeah, tone it down mate' etc) If you don't, then you are to an extent complicit

There aren't many fields more male dominated than the world of soil science

This made me s**** a bit. Truly experts in their field.

Posted this elsewhere and it's a very powerful message about how the little things matter. Can be applied to most things

Agree with most of the above apart from the meritocracy argument. This is flawed by the fact that I have had this conversation with some very able women in male dominated fields. You don't just have to be as good as the men to be equal, you have to be better to get the same opportunities. That is not a meritocracy.

There has been a social media campaign to highlight the prevalence of sexual assault against women doing the rounds in the past few days

It's not just sexual assualt, it also includes harassment which can itself include anything from simply 'chatting a woman up' all the way through to, you know, actual harassment.

You don't just have to be as good as the men to be equal, you have to be better to get the same opportunities.

This trope is widely quoted but you know there's never been any research to give it any validity and the reason there isn't any research is because it's not something that can acutally be measured.

It's not just sexual assualt, it also includes harassment which can itself include anything from simply 'chatting a woman up' all the way through to, you know, actual harassment.

On that "chatting up" thing, one aspect that worries me is that some people still aren't getting that, depending on circumstance, "chatting up" can very much be harassment / abuse.

So, boy meets girl in bar, likes the look of girl, asks girl if she would like a drink - so far, no problem.

BUT

Powerful boy meets powerless girl in an interview / presentation / audition situation where boy has power to decide on something that might make massive, life-changing impact on girl's entire future, then asks girl if she'd like to go for a drink, pop up to his hotel room to discuss the project further etc. - not really appropriate imho.

But I still think a lot of people aren't getting that.

It was only when I put M or F in a column next to those names that it really stood out just how poor the demographic coverage was.

Not having a pop, but diversity is a bit more than gender. I'm wondering if there were any further columns for characteristics such as ethnicity or sexual orientation, and how diverse the pool of soil scientists is in those areas?

Call it out when you see/hear it

This. Make sexual aggression of all forms shameful. Be brave in confronting it.

Not having a pop, but diversity is a bit more than gender. I'm wondering if there were any further columns for characteristics such as ethnicity or sexual orientation, and how diverse the pool of soil scientists is in those areas?

Not reading the last paragraph of my post either, where I already directly addressed that point:

This does open up another question as to whether the presence / absence of boobs / penis is the correct tool for assessing diversity in a work environment. [b]I don't think it is[/b], it's very blunt and misses the diversity of expertise and skills two people of the same gender, sexual orientation or race may have. It does however at least ensure the correct question is being asked.

My friend on fb linked to this mumsnet thread. An eye opener

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3059623-to-ask-for-a-diary-of-sexual-harassment?pg=1&order=

I feel genuinely ashamed to be a man.

@zokes

So... were there columns for other characteristics, and did you manage to get a disabled, pregnant, black lesbian for your panel? 😉

I'm amazed that this has come as news to anyone. Have people been walking around with their eyes (wilfully or otherwise) shut?

Just have a conversation with anyone female. My wife's matter-of-factly told me of numerous occasions when she was working in a more corporate environment where she'd be fending off unwanted sexual advances. It seems that it just goes with the territory. That seems to be the attitude of some men, anyway. You just learn to deal with it.

And when you even think about it, surely everyone must be able to think at least one bloke they've worked with (or probably for) who was such an obvious sleazebag that it made your skin crawl just being in their presence. I know I can.

And when you even think about it, surely everyone must be able to think at least one bloke they've worked with (or probably for) who was such an obvious sleazebag that it made your skin crawl just being in their presence. I know I can.

oh god yes

quite pleased to say I helped get him sacked- my ex boss- not for being a sleazeball but for scientfic misconduct, always knew he was a dick, but after he was booted out a few colleagues came forward to say hed propositioned them on the basis that hed get them a project in his lab.

Too right binners. As I said on a previous thread - the phrase "Casting couch" didn't exist for nothing.
Again, said before, but it's a pity it took one brave woman to come out against Weinstein for all the others to speak up. But it's fantastic that this is changing.

So... were there columns for other characteristics, and did you manage to get a disabled, pregnant, black lesbian for your panel?

No, there weren't. I'd be happy to take suggestions for names that fit that category (especially homosexual ATSI males who will be pregnant in September 2019) who are nationally recognised in Australia for their research into soil organic matter. Well done for turning an overwhelmingly positive outcome into a negative. 🙄

My friend on fb linked to this mumsnet thread. An eye opener

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3059623-to-ask-for-a-diary-of-sexual-harassment?pg=1&order=

I feel genuinely ashamed to be a man.

agreed, some horrible horrible stories there

Yes of course sexual harassment is ubiquitous and people who deny it are typically part of the problem.

As for "meritocracy" and manels, yes it's theoretically possible that in some cases all the best choices are men but in reality there's a huge amount of research demonstrating systematic bias against women.

I was invited onto a manel a couple of years ago, I called the organisers out on it when I found out all the other invited speakers were male (in a field where there are plenty of great female choices, and some of the men they'd chosen were pretty marginal). They came out with feeble excuses about how it was only a preliminary program (which was clearly a lie) but did then manage to balance it a bit better. Most shocking of all, the organising committee had several vocally pro-female women on it!

My wife works in the same area as me. Her life is basically this cartoon

[img] [/img]

Binners +1

Maybe I've been lucky (and Madame too) but we've had little experience of this. I've dealt with a lot of people in a lot of companies and can't get beyond the fingers of one had for macho bullies and none for sexual harrassment. One macho bully terrified the women in his office just by being a loud-mouthed, vulgar, insulting, domineering bore but there was nothing sexual about it; he intimidated many men in the place in the same way too but left me alone - I simply started slowly shaking my head when he went off on one with me in the office and strangely that was enough.

I've been aware of sexual relationships going on between colleagues but it was most definitely consensual, and noisy in one case. I can get into double figures for people I've known who've married/shacked up with a superior or colleague, my sister married her boss.

So in my littel world the biggest problem is sex harrassment. Nothing sexual about, just plain old sex discrimination. Males getting promotion over better female candidates, a reluctance to appoint women to the most senior posts. And women (and one man) being treated like dirt simply because nobody is prepared to do anything about it.

Edit: If an advance is made that is restricted to verbal and body language advances with no physical contact, and not repeated whan the answer is "no" then I don't think you can call it harrassment. I should also add the proviso that the languge is socially acceptable - asking someone out rather than "fancy a ****". If you start including tentative requests for a date then I've been harrassed but it really didn't feel like harrassment, just an awkward sitiuation to deal with tactfully.

Edit: If an advance is made that is restricted to verbal and body language advances with no physical contact, and not repeated whan the answer is "no" then I don't think you can call it harrassment. I should also add the proviso that the languge is socially acceptable - asking someone out rather than "fancy a ****". If you start including tentative requests for a date then I've been harrassed but it really didn't feel like harrassment, just an awkward sitiuation to deal with tactfully.

The trouble is that very frequently it's seen as a patriarchal right to proposition a woman and she must have no hard feelings, no matter how uncomfortable it made her. Now I'm as useless with women as they come, so Christ knows how we're actually supposed to read the situation to find out whether a request for a date would leave the female feeling awkward.

I've just posed this to MrsZ, and she's not sure either, but said that it would have to be someone she was already familiar with either by mutual greetings whilst shopping/walking the dog etc, or a colleague who she had already spent time socially with. Anything else starts to bring it back to male right to ask, and female responsibility for hard feelings.

Edukator, that also depends on the existing relationship between the people. Strangers meeting in a bar, fine. Supervisor propositioning their staff, not so much.

The trouble is that very frequently it's seen as a patriarchal right to proposition a woman

Less a 'patriarchal right' more of a biological/evolutionary bloody necessity.

Fortunately the unwillingness to do this for fear of offending the woman is very low in men.

Men as a whole score very low on 'agreeableness' compared to women (38th percentile vs 61st percentile against the whole population).

Agreeableness is defined as the tendency to avoid conflict, confrontation or cause offence. You can see why, evolutionarily speaking, men NEED to score low on this.

That Mumsnet thread has me raging. How the hell am I supposed to protect the people I care for from these scum? It's the casual normality of it which is so disgusting.

Supervisor propositioning their staff, not so much.

So my brother-in-law should never have asked my sister out. He did, she accepted, three kids... five happy people.

I noticed a Charlie Hebdo cover in town:

https://charliehebdo.fr/

"Faut-t-il coucher pour réussir ?" is the question with Weinburg replying "moi j'ai été obliger de réussir pour coucher".

Many a true word in jeste, but when you look at the couples formed by men in power it's clearly true.

So my brother-in-law should never have asked my sister out. He did, she accepted, three kids... five happy people.

I know two other couples who got together at work; in both instances one was the line manager of the other and in one, the manager was male and the other, female.

I agree it's riskier to pursue this as a means of finding a mate, but given that men and women are now more or less equally represnted in the workplace, it's hard to see where the opportunities for dating are other than at work or through Tinder.

I've been aware for a VERY long time that girls and women get a very raw deal even in this era. I can honestly say I've never met a woman who has never been made to feel scared for their wellbeing in the street due to unwanted advances. The majority of women I know say they've been felt up by strangers, even before puberty and when I worked in London, several of my female colleagues said it was barely worth remarking about when some bloke rubbed himself up against them, they'd just move away rather than blow up as otherwise they'd be yelling one or two times a week.

Yes line manager situations are very dodgy and generally frowned upon. Not allowed by my last UK employer. I know people sometimes make it work but the junior is in a very weak position if it goes pear-shaped.

Dating at work does not have to be with your boss.,,

I've never met a woman who has never been made to feel scared for their wellbeing in the street due to unwanted advances

That's just as likely to be the result of neuroticism (which women score higher on) than actual threat though.

Jesus geetee you really do enjoy acting like a complete knob at times.

That's just as likely to be the result of neuroticism (which women score higher on) than actual threat though.

Christ on a ****ing fixie

That's just as likely to be the result of neuroticism (which women score higher on) than actual threat though.

But lower in bellendery, if you are anything to go by.

Call it out when you see/hear it

Then engage in a 10 page discussion about it, and how no offence was intended and how offence is taken rather than given or how it's acceptable amongst certain groups and so will continue to be used there, or any other of a list of excuses

I know you ask all the people you photograph for permission, GT, but have you considered how the people who refuse feel about the proposition? You have pics of ladies on beaches, down dark alleys, lying on the grass in the park. Personally I wouldn't walk up to them and ask if they minded me taking their picture, I'd leave them in peace in their own bit of space. You know you're not a threat, they don't.

i think someone said "never say anything that you wouldn't want to hear in prison"

^^^^Call it out when you see/hear it ^^^

Hmmm, I read [url= https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/16/a-simple-list-of-things-men-can-do-to-change-our-work-and-life-culture ]that Guardian list[/url] with interest and most of it seems reasonable. Obvious even.

But... and I realise this probably places me firmly under the [i]"Don’t get defensive when you get called out"[/i] rule, but some of it seems to go well beyond treating women as equals and into giving them special privileges, which seems a bit condescending to me:

[b]"Don’t talk over women"[/b] - well that needs a caveat for a start. Talking over anyone is rude, but occasionally it might be necessary. Only doing it to men seems wrong. How about "Don't talk over people [i]because[/i] they are women"?

[b]"Don’t call women “crazy” in a professional setting."[/b] - so again I'm okay to keep calling men crazy, just not women? What about honest meritocracy? If someone does something I think is crazy then why can't I call them crazy regardless of their apparent gender?

[b]"Don’t touch women you don’t know, and honestly, ask yourself why you feel the need to touch women in general."[/b] - huh? That seems a bit overly general and impractical. Should there be a no-go zone around every woman in a crowd? Should I shake men by the hand but not women? If one of those funny European-types is introduced to me and makes to kiss my cheek should I back away if they are female? If I need to get past a woman can I touch her arm near the elbow like I would a man?

[b]"Learn to read a f*****g room."[/b] - not sure how my lack of social skills makes me a misogynist?

[b]"Don’t make assumptions about a woman’s intelligence, capabilities or desires based on how she dresses."[/b] - in an ideal world sure. But again, I do that with men, so why not women? Other women certainly do it!

"Don’t call women “crazy” in a professional setting." - so again I'm okay to keep calling men crazy, just not women? What about honest meritocracy? If someone does something I think is crazy then why can't I call them crazy regardless of their apparent gender?

I take your point, but there are some adjectives that usually seem to be used when describing a woman or a girl. For example, you don't tend to hear men or boys described as "bossy" or "dizzy".

and Little Madam or Dopey Mare have no male equivalent.

"Don’t call women “crazy” in a professional setting." - so again I'm okay to keep calling men crazy, just not women? What about honest meritocracy? If someone does something I think is crazy then why can't I call them crazy regardless of their apparent gender?

it's loaded because it can be a bit of a dog-whistle term. It's used by many to imply that women are erratic, hormonal, emotional types who can't do logic or reason. Which is a popular contention among prats, but if it seeps into popular consciousness it can be one of the many, tiny reasons that women are less likely to get into senior positions etc

and Little Madam or Dopey Mare have no male equivalent

Little sh1t

Dopey Tuesday?

Also from the Guardian list:
[b]If a woman says no to a date, don’t ask her again.[/b]
If I'd followed that one I would not have been married for the last 20 years. List is way too simplistic on the whole.

There is an interesting/scary Instagram account called @dearcatcallers Basically, whenever the young lady is cat called, she takes a selfie with the "gentlemen" in question. She looks mightily pissed off, and the guys seem oblivious.
Who brought these people up? Where did they learn that this was acceptable? I was taught by both my parents, that you don't treat other people like this.

As with most things in life, it can be summed up by Adam Hills usual expression

"Don't be a Dick!"

Pretty simple, yet so many fall at the first hurdle

<see above>

Or, just imagine she's the Rock

[url= https://medium.com/@annevictoriaclark/the-rock-test-a-hack-for-men-who-dont-want-to-be-accused-of-sexual-harassment-73c45e0b49af ]the-rock-test-a-hack-for-men-who-dont-want-to-be-accused-of-sexual-harassment[/url]

The bit that grates with me is the inevitability of the comment "men have to own this problem and deal with it".

No, I don't. In the same way I don't collectively blame women for all being desperate cheapskates every time I get asked "so do you want to buy me a drink?"

That's just as likely to be the result of neuroticism (which women score higher on) than actual threat though.

Just as likely, eh?

Got the stats for that, you colossal bell end?

@dearcatcallers

I bet secretly they love it.... Boosts their self-esteem no end.

But by the same token I used to get wolf whistled by women when working on a roof topless in summer* (admittedly this was a few years ago when I was young and lean). When up London one time this middle aged lady flashed her tits at me with any provocation!

#metoo

* I was topless, not the wolf whistling women.

Just as likely, eh?

Got the stats for that, you colossal bell end?

What that women score higher on neuroticism than men? Yes. Plenty.

The reaction to that comment is unsurprising. It's certainly contentious and It might be true in some instances, that is, it might be that a person scoring high on neuroticism might well interpret someone forced to stand close to them on a crowded tube as 'rubbing up against me' (which was my specific point). That's bound to happen and I'm not remotely saying that someone who was actually assualted should blame anyone other than the perpetrato. But that wasn't really my point.

My point is this.

ITS NOT AN ASYMMETRIC PROBLEM!

Stop making out like it is. Plenty of men, myself included, have been victims of assault and harassment by women, many times. It happens but we all conveniently don't talk about it and we're all blythly letting certain parts of society create a narative that this problem is only something that men do to women and that's a complete falsehood and motivated far less by exposing injustice and far more by power and politics.

Reading through that Guardian list left me a bit drop jawed. Corporate cultures and office politics vary but that's a pretty depressing read if represenative of the journalist's personnal experience. Trust women but assume all men are manipulating, sexist, sex-starved perverts is the sub text. But nearly all the people I meet (men and women) are so close to 'normal, reasonable, polite, diplomatic, sensitive, thoughtful, caring, honest, trustworthy' that if someone is pointed out as a pest then the last thing to do is immediatley take sides.

As mentionned before I dance rock and roll. This involves contact and being careful with what you do with your hands. One of the youngest women, 18 I think, complained of one guy leering and being more touchy than the moves required (he's three times her age and my 19-year-old descibes his lady friend as "bien foutue"). So should I have created a fuss, called him out, or just observed discretely - and engaged my brain. The guy was in a music group with the girl's divorcing wife, the girl didn't seem keen on the guy being around her mother. So if I'd said/done anything would I have been manipulated into giving a good guy a bad reputation or addressed a genuine problem? Nothing said, nothing done, a few years later I'm sure doing nothing was for the best.

Plenty of men, myself included, have been victims of assault and harassment by women, many times.

As you love statistics, go and find out how many men make up "plenty" and how many women make up the quantity of "plenty" that they experience. It's obviously a nuanced situation but, in broad brush strokes, more women than men are victims of this sort of behaviour. Admitting there is a problem with the way women are treated doesn't diminish anything for anyone else. It's just bullshit to suggest that you're somehow lesser because people are rightly pointing out that women get a lot of shit from men.

it's loaded because it can be a bit of a dog-whistle term. It's used by many to imply that women are erratic, hormonal, emotional types who can't do logic or reason

"Can".

But likewise it can just be used to say you think someone's actions are irrational - with no particular reference to their gender.

Trawl through the Trump thread and I'm sure you'll find dozens of instances of him being called crazy. (In a "professional setting" he was recently called a moron. 😆 ).

Perhaps that rule should be more like "Don’t call women “crazy” just [i]because[/i] they are women"?
Or maybe "Don't insult people based on their gender?"

ITS NOT AN ASYMMETRIC PROBLEM!

I think it is actually, I think more women are victims than men.

#metoo

I suspect everyone has had unwanted attention of that kind at some point. Just the power dynamic means men shrug it off more easily, as it's unlikely that it'll go beyond being groped/jumped on in a nightclub without the person trying it on getting thumped in the chops, it's somewhat different if you're a girl and it's a 6ft+ bloke getting a bit too forward.

Why not just carry a shitty stick to beat them off with geetee?

It must grow tiresome, I'm sure...

What that women score higher on neuroticism than men? Yes. Plenty.

The reaction to that comment is unsurprising. It's certainly contentious and It might be true in some instances, that is, it might be that a person scoring high on neuroticism might well interpret someone forced to stand close to them on a crowded tube as 'rubbing up against me' (which was my specific point). That's bound to happen and I'm not remotely saying that someone who was actually assualted should blame anyone other than the perpetrato. But that wasn't really my point.

Either you're dumber than you usually seem or you think we are.

I want the stats that show at least 50% of sexual harrassment against women is actually down to them being neurotic and getting the wrong idea. That's what you claimed in your absurdly offensive post up there.

ITS NOT AN ASYMMETRIC PROBLEM!

It literally ****ing is, get your head out of the sand. I sincerely hope you don't have children.

For geetee
[img] [/img]

imnotverygood - Member

Also from the Guardian list:
[b]If a woman says no to a date, don’t ask her again.[/b]
If I'd followed that one I would not have been married for the last 20 years. List is way too simplistic on the whole.

Last month there was a story on the BBC about a woman who was raped, as she tried to get help the first person she approached for help also raped her. This week there was a story about a young woman who was victim to 3 separate serious sexual assaults, separate incidents by different attackers within a minute time period.

I think I am (maybe we all are) starting to realise the scale of the problem is much much much bigger than I could have comprehended. I don't know what the solution is though, but with the scale of the problem there has got to be a big revision in the way the legal system looks "sexual consent".

I want the stats that show at least 50% of sexual harrassment against women is actually down to them being neurotic and getting the wrong idea.

I don’t need to since the data that suggests the acts themselves were anything other than innocent but misinterpreted is similarly vague and lacking in robustness. But that’s not the point. Everyone here is arguing that because one side of the problem might be bigger than the other, therefore the smaller side is unimportant. This isn’t a dick swinging contest.

As for all the other **** face remarks about my comment of being a victim of abuse (binnners Ethan al) go **** yourselves but thanks for proving my point that when a guy stands up and says he’s been the victim of abuse, all you do is throw shit at him. Well done boys well done.

Perhaps you're just being over-sensitive and simply imagined the unwanted attention from the opposite sex, through your own nuerosis?

Apparently thats more common than you think

I don’t need to since the data that suggests the acts themselves were anything other than innocent but misinterpreted is similarly vague and lacking in robustness. But that’s not the point. Everyone here is arguing that because one side of the problem might be bigger than the other, therefore the smaller side is unimportant. This isn’t a dick swinging contest.

The thing is, if men suffered from sexual harassment to such an extent, why is it only brought up as a counter to women raising awareness about their situation.

Fine, if you believe that sexual harassment of men is a serious issue then bring it up, but in its own time, not when women are making the point.

Perhaps you're just being over sensitive and just imagined the unwanted attention, through your own nuerosis?

Well that quite common among victims of abuse. So that explains me Binners. What’s your excuse for making shitty comments?

Could you just clear something up and define this 'abuse' you're constantly subjected to by the female population for me please?

What level are we talking here? And by whom?

Everyone here is arguing that because one side of the problem might be bigger than the other, therefore the smaller side is unimportant.

You are literally imagining this, I think you must be neurotic.

You are literally imagining this, I think you must be neurotic.

That's not fair. All we can say is that it is "just as likely" he is imagining it.

Bit double standards innit to start demanding that a self proclaimed victim of sexual abuse should describe their level of abuse so that you can judge whether to take them seriously or not! Wth!? You can’t discount a person’s abuse claims just cos they said something you don’t like up the thread a bit. Or this is some classic “made you think trolling”, bravo

You can’t discount a person’s abuse claims just cos they said something you don’t like up the thread a bit.

Even if the thing they said up the thread a bit was that we [i]should[/i] discount 50% of abuse claims by women because they are neurotic and imagine it?

Hmmmmmmmm....... double standards eh?

You've read his posts about all these women who are just neurotic, and the abuse is inagined, right?

Though when asked what level this 'abuse' that he's constantly subjected too, he's suddenly gone all coy

I'm calling BS in an attempt to mitigate the dismissive misogynistic and made-up claptrap he's been spouting

EDIT: Tell you what.... let's forget about his own abuse then,and the obvious hypocrisy involved in bringing it up, and let's just get him to supply any evidence to justify the total nonsense he's claiming about equal levels of abuse against men as women. Or that women's 'abuse' is imagined due to their neurosis (tsk..... women, eh?). Something he's repeatedly failed to do when asked.

Is that better?

Your questions are getting close to abuse, Binners. I'm not about to defend GT's comments but equally I don't want to know the details of what's behind them. You're doing exactly what #MeToo denounces and whether your target is a man or a woman you're going to far. The parody you did was as far as you needed to go to make your point, going further is abuse.

This forum isn't exactly women friendly but it isn't hostile either. On BikeMagic new female contributors were assumed to be trolls and abused. Two women got throught the initial abuse and became regulars - one then recieved abusive communications of a sexual nature off line.

GT is socially aware, asks questions of himself and us. I read his contributions with interest, deabte with him on his photography threads, sometimes agree, sometimes disagree. If he says he's abused by women that's good enough for me on this thread, no-one is going to suffer from me making a bad call so I'm not going to call him a liar, and don't believe he is - go back to that Guardian list. He's being frank, a risky strategy.