[Closed] That Maxxis "babes calendar" article...

I am not so sure the auto code for related stories has it quite right on STW either.
This is below the Rachel Atherton for SPOTY blog on the front page.
😕
[img] [/img]

DrJ - she did link the calendar to flashing and groping. So the correct response would have been "yes" as opposed to "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Lets stop sexism so we can all be more civilised and get on together I hear you shout. Oh, but if you don't like the way I do it you can **** off back to the stone age you ****. Now that is ironic.

"Massive public events"? There wasn't even a link on their website that I could see.

It was a mailshot to their existing customers. One of which took the hump and posted a massive public overreaction to the internets.

It kind of has to be public to raise any money.

I'm not interested in arguing with anyone who is wilfully misinterpreting my comments but I stand by them. As I said, I'm not claiming to somehow speak for all women, just as I wouldn't expect any of the male posters' comments to represent all men.
The most offence seems to have been taken by those who think I'm suggesting that all men, without exception, will be influenced by the calender to go out and abuse women - clearly that's not the case. It's a wider issue.

Interesting point by DrJ about the Scandinavian countries. Perhaps it shows that as equality increases here, we'll be able to grow up a bit about sexuality and nudity (e.g. our prudery over nudity compared to violence in films). I suspect the two things (equality and tolerance) need to develop in tandem, and my view is that things like this calender set that back a few decades.

Now that is ironic.

y DrJ about the Scandinavian countries. Perhaps it shows that as equality increases here, we'll be able to grow up a bit about sexuality and nudity

Is that when he said the men liked looking at naked ladies and the women thought they were just being silly boys.

But that is what I think about it,

It's you who says looking at women is demeaning and supports sexism.

DrJ - she did link the calendar to flashing and groping. So the correct response would have been "yes" as opposed to "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Thanks for the help! And the bonus dose of condescension!!

Is that when he said the men liked looking at naked ladies and the women thought they were just being silly boys.

But that is what I think about it,

It's you who says looking at women is demeaning and supports sexism

I have never said that - you seem determined to reduce the argument to absurd levels and strip it of any nuance [how ironic].

Looking at women isn't sexist. Looking at men isn't sexist. Using either gender to promote a product or brand simply through the use of a person [i]as an object[/i] is sexism.

Treating people like objects = bad. Is that simple enough yet?

No. Its objectification. Which is different, but that's been done already.

everything has been done over and over again because the really hard of thinking cannot comprehend even the simplest of things.

Oh, but if you don't like the way I do it you can * off back to the stone age you *

So you're upset about having been insulted unfairly?

I would be too - I agree that some posters have unfairly maligned you. Calendar is still sexist though 🙂

Treating people like objects = bad. Is that simple enough yet?

We've hit new levels of simple(ton) on this thread Fiona.

I'd cut your losses, and leave it at that. The ones who understand what you're saying, understood well over 1000 posts ago

Those that don't? And are being wilfully obtuse in repeatedly stating it, ad naeseum? Well.... think what you will of them. I'm sure you've already drawn your own conclusions

I agree that some posters have unfairly maligned you

[quote=cumberlanddan ]chip - the complete inability of some on here to follow simple logic is beyond belief.

We did speculate that your posts were symptomatic of trolling rather than incompetence though

Let's try a couple of questions again:

Why no Maxxis hunks calendar?
Why no grid boys and pit blokes?

WHAT - are you gay ?

Treating people like objects = bad. Is that simple enough yet?

I think everyone agrees with that. What about "treating fictional characters like objects = bad" ?

[quote=Junkyard ]Nope it is still a straw man ....jesus how many pages for you to stop making them?

Can I put in a bid of 1,253? (pages, not posts)

Why no Maxxis hunks calendar?

unlikely to sell

Why no grid boys and pit blokes?

[img] [/img]

I still have no understanding of (or much desire to either) this "straw man" thing.

What I do know is that I just popped out at lunch, and there was one of those calendar stalls. It had nearly all one side "hunks" calendars with various men on it in varying states of undress. If I was playing victim I could say I felt oppressed/threatened/part of some objectification/sexism or whatever. I didn't. I have more important stuff to be thinking about. I equally showed my mrs this thread the other night and asked if she felt oppressed/offended etc by it. She said no and she couldn't see why she would need to be. In fact, her words were "why do these kind of people need to keep looking for something to be offended by?".

Life is hard, and it's not fair - and there's nothing wrong with that. Change the things you can by positive action, and quit complaining about the things you can't. This open letter was not positive action. At best it was venting (which is a wholly worthless emotional outpouring), at worst, a cynical plea for self publicity.

We've hit new levels of simple(ton) on this thread Fiona.

I try not to resort to name calling. And it really bothers me not when people call me names. after all it's just the Internet, I can't help it if people find my views offensive, but I never deliberately try to cause offence for causing offenses sake.
I couple of times I thought I may have been short with mole grips but is unintentional as I do tend to be a bit of a blunt instrument.

But the fact the name calling seems to be coming from the very people who claimed to have evolved and to occupy a higher moral ground I find very amusing.

[quote=poah ]Why no Maxxis hunks calendar?
unlikely to sell

Why's that?

Glad you did not vent your feelings on the issue and i am stunned to discover you and your wife share a similar outlook on life

why do these kind of people need to keep looking for something to be offended by?

Life is hard, and it's not fair - and there's nothing wrong with that

I think it would sell.

BAN THIS SICK FILTH
[img] [/img]

Interesting - not something their marketing department seems to agree with, and not likely to the motorsport fanbase which is apparently the target market for this calendar.

[quote=chip ]But the fact the name calling seems to be coming from the very people

Strawman 😆

I know you dont care about a straw man do you have any interest in ad homs?

No idea what one of those is either I'm afraid.

What I do know is that as Chip has alluded to, and just as in real life in fact, the "social justice" types seem very angry and extremely intolerant of opposing views, which is pretty ironic. "I will fight for the right of free speech provided it isn't saying something I don't like".

We should be able to discuss dispassionately and on the basis of logic and mutual respect, and take the time to listen to other viewpoints without resorting to name calling. Sadly, it's the "anti" crowd who seem compelled to use derogatory remarks like "knuckledragger" and emotional language toward anyone who doesn't share their view. That is quite a sad reflection on those who claim to be more enlightened and tolerant.

the "social justice" types seem very angry and extremely intolerant of opposing views

I think you're rolling up a lot of stereotypes there to give you something to dislike!

I'm all for free speech. I'm trying to explain the negative impact of some things that you might not be aware of. What you choose to do with that knowledge is up to you.

We should be able to discuss dispassionately and on the basis of logic and mutual respect, and take the time to listen to other viewpoints without resorting to name calling

That's what I've been trying to do the whole thread. You're stereotyping me with that whole post, I don't like it any more than you do.

No idea what one of those is either I'm afraid.

Simply put,

Straw man = misrepresenting an opposing point of view in order to attack it (ie, you're trying to win an argument by arguing against something else entirely, such as several pages of anti-banning diatribe when no-one's suggested banning anything).

Ad Hom(inem) = attacking the person rather than the argument (ie, name calling etc).

Why's that?

[img] [/img]

the "social justice" types seem very angry and extremely intolerant of opposing views, which is pretty ironic. "I will fight for the right of free speech provided it isn't saying something I don't like".

We should be able to discuss dispassionately and on the basis of logic and mutual respect, and take the time to listen to other viewpoints without resorting to name calling.

Again what is it about this issue that makes folk do the exact thing they just asked us not to. In your case though well done as you did two in one go

Both sides are being rude only one side is getting upset about [ whilst claiming the other side cannot be rational] and denying they are doing it whilst actually doing it

You are right that liberals hate sexists racists and homophobes and challenge them when they speak out. Am i meant to apologise for exercising my free speech to argue with and disagree with a bigot

I on the other hand don't hate racists and sexists, I hate racism and sexism.

Peace out.

Good work, Cougar.

A racist and a sexist is a person who displays sexism and racism

Straw man = misrepresenting an opposing point of view in order to attack it (ie, you're trying to win an argument by arguing against something else entirely, such as several pages of anti-banning diatribe when no-one's suggested banning anything).

Ad Hom(inem) = attacking the person rather than the argument (ie, name calling etc).

Cool, cheers Cougar - mean that seriously as it's something I have never understood properly.

I'm definitely not on the anti-ban thing because as someone else said, it's not been suggested to ban it (I don't think). That said, I do believe that there's a bit too much sensitivity towards this calendar, and Adele has leveraged it to her own advantage to try and raise her profile, rather than directly trying to influence Maxxis if she feels that is the right course of action.

So when drj had no relevant response to my arguement so then chose as a response to infer I was a wife beater.

Was that a strawman, an ad hom or neither.

Adele has leveraged it to her own advantage to try and raise her profile, rather than directly trying to influence Maxxis

You are making stuff and playing the person still.

BS she wanted them to stop it and she has

You are making stuff and playing the person still.

You're doing it again Junkyard. Use of angry language, this is not the way to engage in reasoned and logical debate. Did you need to open a sentence with "BS"? Could you not say "I disagree"?.

I put forward a suggested way that Adele could have influenced in a far more positive way and not only driven Maxxis' marketing department into a direction she was happier with, but also potentially generated goodwill and resultant ad revenue for her bosses at TWC (so making her look good and helping secure her position). Additionally, it would potentially not have killed this calendar at source and cut off the revenue stream to the charity.

Or, she could do a big old "open letter" and over emotionalise the whole thing.

Was that a strawman, an ad hom or neither

it was a loaded question

You can't say playing the person as the arguement ultimately started as what people thought of her writing this article as well as the subject itself being her view it was sexist and made her stupid.

So people have every right to consider her history and what they may perceive her motives behind writing it. And their view of what they feel to be her clear hypocrisy of not calling out wonderful people who stripped to sell lads mags but did this calender.

[quote=andyrm ]What I do know is that I just popped out at lunch, and there was one of those calendar stalls. It had nearly all one side "hunks" calendars with various men on it in varying states of undress. If I was playing victim I could say I felt oppressed/threatened/part of some objectification/sexism or whatever. I didn't

I'm assuming you've not read much of the thread, we've done this one multiple times. I'll try again for you:

Society isn't equal, in general it is women who are oppressed and threatened, not men. Yes some men get groped, but it is largely something which happens to women. Meanwhile such calendars tend to have men in dominant poses and women in submissive. There is no equivalence between hunks calendars and babes calendars.

Oh, and Maxxis haven't done a Maxxis hunks calendar.

Life is hard, and it's not fair - and there's nothing wrong with that.

Of course there is, when it's being unfair to one group of people and not another.

it was a loaded question

So he did neither this,

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[

Or attack me.

What did he wish to achieve by asking such a question if it was not just a roundabout way of calling me a wife beater.

Could....could we hit 2k before Christmas?

[img] [/img]

I put forward a suggested way that Adele could have influenced in a far more positive way and not only driven Maxxis' marketing department into a direction she was happier with, but also potentially generated goodwill and resultant ad revenue for her bosses at TWC (so making her look good and helping secure her position).

erm, okay... She didn't do this.... How does this make her [i]argument[/i] wrong? It's a completely different point albeit similar to the 'okay maybe they were wrong, but they were wrong for charity' one made in various places above. Again, so what?

[url= https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ ]Know your logical fallacy[/url]

[quote=chip ]What did he wish to achieve by asking such a question if it was not just a roundabout way of calling me a wife beater.He was only pointing out that some questions cannot be answered with only a yes or no - however anyone answers that question implies that they are, or were, a wife-beater. It's been used before in other contexts so was NOT a personal attack on you. (though given some of the attacks in this thread I can see how you might think it was)

What did he wish to achieve by asking such a question if it was not just a roundabout way of calling me a wife beater.

probably just to demonstrate another logical fallacy used in argument. There's loads of 'em:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

What did he wish to achieve by asking such a question if it was not just a roundabout way of calling me a wife beater.

not it was another loaded question to demonstrate that the question [i]you[/i] asked was equally as un-nuanced as asking you whether you beat your wife...

see?

ha, not only am I slow, I missed why that one was wheeled out 🙂

But it wasn't. She did link it.
And do you beat your wife is a yes or no question in my book.

Straight from the horses mouth, immediately after posting that:

[quote=DrJ ]I never taught logic, but I believe it's not. It's the usual illustration that "yes or no" answers are inadequate.

I'm not sure why it's confused chip for so long given how quickly that explanation was posted.

[quote=chip ]
And do you beat your wife is a yes or no question in my book.
But that wasn't the question.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Answer "Yes" and it suggests you were beating you wife at some point.
Answer "No" and it suggests you still are.

That logical fallacy link says it infers guilt and can't be answered without appearing guilty.

erm, okay... She didn't do this.... How does this make her argument wrong? It's a completely different point albeit similar to the 'okay maybe they were wrong, but they were wrong for charity' one made in various places above. Again, so what?

I've not said her argument/belief she holds (after all a belief is a personal thing possessed by the holder) is *wrong*, but perhaps her methodology of trying to influence change could have been better.

That's all!

My question was not loaded. It was straightforward asking if she linked this calender to groping and flashing which she did unfairly in my opinion.
She basically tried to justify one reason why this calender was wrong was because she had been groped and flashed playing the victim card so she must be right.

No could mean I haven't stopped because I never started.

No.

You're doing it again Junkyard. Use of angry language, this is not the way to engage in reasoned and logical debate. Did you need to open a sentence with "BS"? Could you not say "I disagree"?.

FWIW i could say I disagree but that is not what BS means.

It is mostly a slang profanity term meaning "nonsense", especially in a rebuking response to communication or actions viewed as deceiving, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false

As for reasoned and logical debate when you try it I will join in. Till then its "angry language"

OK leaving thread its not actually a debate is it.

[quote=chip ]My question was not loaded. It was straightforward asking if she linked this calender to groping and flashing which she did unfairly in my opinion.

As pointed out before the "beating your wife" bit, mayeb she did indirectly (which isn't at all unfair), no she didn't directly, which is why all this "beating your wife" bit started.

playing the victim card so she must be right.

Wow

molgrips does seem to have come round to a more pleasant manner of discourse so that snice. I think we disagree though.

Junkyard on the other hand sees scarecrows everywhere. There are many devices you can use to try and describe and explain a position. Besides which, your one of the worst offenders.

Try this one out [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum ]Reductio ad absurdum[/url]. Interestingly enough that page even explains for you why its different to a strawman.

As someone who teaches this you really should know this stuff.

Cougar - the logical conclusion of the article is a ban whether that be via self censorship or by legislation. The argument that has been made that any such objectifying images are sexist and should be stopped is also equivalent to a ban.

If you really need a precedent for this, see free speech laws - you can say what you like but if it is actually racist, threatening, abusive or insulting then you [i]can[/i] be prosectuted. Whats that if not a ban?

And just for the record, that isn't a straw man arguement - thats a comparative point of view based on the most frequently used comparison in this thread.

She opened with all the times she had sufferered from sexual abuse (for which there is no excuse) then said that she did not blame the calender for what had happened to her but said it supported a society that thinks it's ok to treat woman like that.

Well I don't think we do live in a society that thinks it's ok to treat woman like that.
And used her experience which I believe are unrelated to this calender to add weight to her opinion that these babe calendars are wrong.

the logical conclusion of the article is a ban whether that be via self censorship or by legislation.

Again; there is an obvious difference between "can't" and "shouldn't". whilst both WILL end with the thing not appearing, they are clearly NOT the same thing.

Do you not call southern Asians "****" because you don't want to, or do you want to, but don't because you know it's unlawful? And can you see how those things are different and how they apply to calenders featuring objectified people?

She opened with all the times she had sufferered from sexual abuse (for which there is no excuse) then said that she did not blame the calender for what had happened to her but said it supported a society that thinks it's ok to treat woman like that.

Well I don't think we do live in a society that thinks it's ok to treat woman like that.
And used her experience which I believe are unrelated to this calender to add weight to her opinion that these babe calendars are wrong.

The good news is that it's my opinion, so you're welcome to disagree. That's why it's called an opinion and not a fact.

As for "playing the victim card", you can f... off. Try talking to some actual women about their day to day experiences and maybe it'll open your eyes a little.

edit: I've tried to remain very polite, calm and reasonable throughout this thread, without resorting to personal insults, but I've had enough, sorry!

Junkyard on the other hand sees scarecrows everywhere. There are many devices you can use to try and describe and explain a position.

Are you now suggesting that using a strawman is an appropriate way to explain your position?

[quote=cumberlanddan ]As someone who teaches this you really should know this stuff.

Here's a hint for you: as somebody who teaches this stuff, what do you think the chances are he knows more about it than you?

Though please keep going, another 1200 odd pages before I win my bet.

As for "playing the victim card", you can f... off. Try talking to some actual women about their day to day experiences and maybe it'll open your eyes a little.

her experences have nothing to do with the a babe calendar so why mention it. The exact same experiences I've had were nothing to do with a sexy hunk calendar but the fact that woman think its acceptable to behave in such a manor (the same as the men in her stories). why doesn't she focus on that issue rather than a totally harmless calendar.

[quote=chip ]Well I don't think we do live in a society that thinks it's ok to treat woman like that.

Well some parts of it clearly do, otherwise it wouldn't happen. Just because you don't move in those circles doesn't mean they don't exist - which I think is part of the reason you're having trouble understanding, because you've not directly experienced either side of this.

I think the reason why the accusation of censorship generated such forthright responses, is because it is a 'trump card' in an argument: if someone is calling for censorship, then we are into the realms of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Censorship was not what was being asked for, but by asserting that it was, that was effectively an attempt to shut down the argument, and avoiding facing the actual issues being raised.

Similarly, to justify the calendar because it was for charity, is avoiding facing the actual issues. If the calendar is sexist etc., doing it for charity does not make it OK.

Flogging to death my attempt to use how our views on racism have changed over the years as an analogy for sexism, imagine the following scenario:

It's the early 1970s and a black man writes to the BBC to request that they stop showing the Black & White Minstrel Show. He complains that it is racist, and presents a caricatured stereotype which is offensive to black people. Would any of us consider that the following were adequate justification for that show still being on TV?

- It would be censorship to take the programme off air
- It's not racist (because of course, the almost exclusively white upper middle class BBC will know what racism is much better than some black man)
- The Black & White Minstrels do a lot of work for charity
- Watching the Black & White Minstrel Show does not incite racism or somehow turn people into racists.

With regard to the last point, of course people did not watch the programme and immediately go out and assault a black person, but that caricature was part of a bigger picture in society of insidious overt and covert racism, which has only changed/is only changing because people challenged it.

At the end of the day, I don't think repeatedly bandying about words like censorship or straw man are helpful. Ultimately it's about empathy: it may not be easy for a man to imagine what it's like for a woman, but if a woman/many women tell you that she has suffered such vile treatment as being groped etc., and if she says to you that casual sexism and sexist imagery help to perpetuate and reinforce attitudes among some men that such behaviour is acceptable, the least we can do is listen to her and ask ourselves if maybe she is right and we should change our opinions.

To be fair poah when I have been groped it did not cause me to be in fear of my own safety nor when I was flashed did I think it could be the prelude to an attempted rape. So I can understand how although similar experiences they can have completely different impacts on a man and a woman.

But still don't find her linking these things to the calendar fair and don't agree that because her argument may be, I don't know a delicate subject for want of a better word I can't put her argument under question.

Theres a few points in there nickc

1 - you agree the end result is the same whether its self censorship or an 'actual' ban
2 - that is not a strawman (which is just an attempt to dismiss an argument without engaging), it is taking the argument to its logical conclusion (theres probably a latin phrase for that somewhere)
3 - Of course there is a difference between shouldn't and can't
4 - I dont call people offensive racial terms because first, the words don't normally enter my head and second it would be quite rude and offensive.

I've spend two ****ing years working with an uneducated cretin who thinks its ok to go to the **** shop and have a similar discourse to this stupid thread. It ****ing disgusts me so don't imply that i secretly want to insult anyone differnt than me. Luckily she's never heard the term strawman so we don't go round that particular joyous circle.

My argument is that there are things which are categorically offensive and there are things which are categorically not. There are a number of grey areas in the middle and this falls well and truly in there. In my opinion, it is so close to the unoffensive group that it is ludicrous to complain in such a public and melodramatic manner.

To be fair poah when I have been groped it did not cause me to be in fear of my own safety nor when I was flashed did I think it could be the prelude to an attempted rape. So I can understand how although similar experiences they can have completely different impacts on a man or a woman

I was in one incident because it was a bloke that did it and I was young. Woman putting their hands up my kilt to try and grope is sexual assult. Can you imagine a man doing that to a woman?

her experences have nothing to do with the a babe calendar so why mention it. The exact same experiences I've had were nothing to do with a sexy hunk calendar but the fact that woman think its acceptable to behave in such a manor (the same as the men in her stories). why doesn't she focus on that issue rather than a totally harmless calendar.

Thing with analogies is that they are never quite exact. Why is the Maxxis calendar similar to the Black and White Minstrels, and not Earth WInd and Fire, or whatever? And is there actually evidence (as opposed to internet opinion) that calendars lead to unpleasant behaviour?

Slowster - theres clearly two parallel discussion about the calendar and about sexism full stop.

You still work from the assetion that the calendar [i]is [/i]sexist in itself. The only reason the charity bit is relevant is because its not part of the 'normal' advertising. Its a special purchase of a calendar. If the imagery was being used in ads in magazines then yes, i would class that as sexism, but it isn't. That [i]could [/i]be the only point where we actually differ.

Of course sexism is a problem. It is an improving picture though and there are real issues which need to be addressed. Focussing on somethign as trivial as a calendar allows proper dyed in the wool sexists to ridicule more significant arguments so might be counter productive. See "yoghurt knitting", "tree hugging", and "sandal wearing" as examples of the type of thing I mean. Which terms, for those of you that dont understand, are all a form of objectification.

I dont call people offensive racial terms because first, the words don't normally enter my head and second it would be quite rude and offensive.

And we have a winner! You are agreeing with the author of the article about Maxxis Calenders, as she also doesn't think that tyres and naked girls should be the first things to go together naturally (words don't enter my head) and she finds it offensive, and rude

[/end of thread]

Ok, so now we're back to strawmen.

Calling someone a racial slur to their face is really very differnt to producing a calendar with some pictures on it.

The equivalent would probably be me now, knowing she doesn't liek the calendar, taking a copy round to her house and somehow forcing her the view each and every picture. But i wont do that, because it wouldn't be very nice.

I really hope you can see that.

And is there actually evidence (as opposed to internet opinion) that calendars lead to unpleasant behaviour?

Oh come on.

No-one's saying that calendars CAUSE unpleasant behaviour.

We are saying (over and over again) that such calendars are a continuation of ingrained bad behaviour from lots of men and even society as a whole over the years.

The calendars, [b]along with all the other behaviours[/b] should stop. Society is not yet at the point where images like this do not carry baggage. Fionap testifies to that.

And we have a winner! You are agreeing with the author of the article about Maxxis Calenders!!
[/end of thread]

Not so quick Nicky boy,
What percentage of ****stanis would take offence at being called a **** in any context
How many Indian people would object to being called it as it is often used as a broad term by the type who would use it.
I even know some Indians who are doubly offend by the term because they say the don't like ****s.but thats another story.

I would say the number would be very high because it is a known term of abuse used in such catchy phrases as ****s out and ****s go home. So the word **** is synonymous with racial hatred.

How many woman would be offended by this calender, how many see this as a woman hating statement of sexism.
this calender is not deliberately trying to be offensive calling brown people ****s is.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]Ok, so now we're back to strawmen.

only in your head

though...

[quote=cumberlanddan ]4 - I dont call people offensive racial terms because first, the words don't normally enter my head and second it would be quite rude and offensive.
I've spend two **** years working with an uneducated cretin who thinks its ok to go to the **** shop

I'm definitely calling troll now

Ok, so now we're back to strawmen.

No, we're not.

Calling someone a racial slur to their face is really very differnt to producing a calendar with some pictures on it.

Yes, one is racist, and the other objectifies and is pretty much (99% of the time) sexist as well, so semantically they're different, but is essence you're still repressing a group because of something they can do nothing about (being South Asian or Female)

Your example doesn't work in the way you want

I can see your argument, it just isn't much good.

[quote=cumberlanddan ]You still work from the assetion that the calendar is sexist in itself. The only reason the charity bit is relevant is because its not part of the 'normal' advertising. Its a special purchase of a calendar. If the imagery was being used in ads in magazines then yes, i would class that as sexism, but it isn't.

So what exactly is the difference? Is the LA defence sufficient to make it non-sexist?

Can we please explore this rather than do stupid arguments, as I think we might be onto something here.