20 minutes ago, Biffen said:

So your "general" vibe is that I'm not a nice person.

My point was that feminism achieved a great deal then took itself further into a realm beyond equality - into unequal opportunity.

Rather than bludgeoning western men perhaps they could take the fight to Africa or India.,maybe help sisters there?

Do you not know any men who've suffered unfairly in the divorce courts ?

Feminism is guilty of the same oppression it seeks to redress.

Your dads email has nought to do with it. 

You hate the political climate as I see it .

Every "ism" ,every ideology will someday become so hypocritical that It will be replaced.

So it is with feminism and the spiteful way you sought to defend it proves my point.

The corollary you highlight is not necessarily so. 

Courts are not meant to take sides.They should be about resolution.

Halal food is another hypocrisy that simply overrides 200 years of food handling and animal welfare regulations but we can discuss that elsewhere .

bizmo seems to have taken his bat and left

was he an intellectual, biffo?

52 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

You can shove most of that stuff where the sun don't shine picket but a case of Pepperjack would be a step in the right direction.

PS picket I know you consider yourself something of a film critic so I'd like your opinion.

I just watched a quirky western called " Purgatory" (made in 1999). It was recommended to me by an old slightly dotty priest would you believe.

Anyway I thought it was a real pizzer! Do you know it?

Purgatory was an "Avant Garde" Classic movie made in 99 I think. Eric Roberts was in it a pretty underated actor IMV.Yes you are correct It reminded me of some episodes of Star Trek AKA "For the world is hollow, but I have touched the sky" also shades of Twilight zone and even Sci Fi Classic Westworld! Certainly ofbeat but very cleverly done. Hadn't seen it for ages but a definate Classic! Check out this one "Quatermass and the pit" available all good JB Stores. 

Now back to Business to gain manor entry, what if I chucked in a case of pepperjack, Kate Bush in Babooshka outfit and my Schhhintelating  company??? Going Going......

Edited March 5, 20178 yr by picket fence

some massive picket suckholing going on here. stay strong and true, uncle

39 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

no, you should stand-up for what you believe

as long as you don't put your foot in it

failing that, close your eyes and think of brittania

That's easy for you to say from the vantage point of your white,male,heterosexual ,Australian,advantaged,mansplaining,privileged,gender specific,car driving,meat eating,underpants wearing,wallet carrying,employable high horse.

What about those of us who would like a safe injecting room in our non- binary 3rd toilet ?

You didn't think of us when you made that statement did you?

You just said it as though you have the right to express yourself.

Typical.

30 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

some massive picket suckholing going on here. stay strong and true, uncle

An invite to the manor once carried a certain prestige with it DC.

 

37 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Purgatory was an "Avant Garde" Classic movie made in 99 I think. Eric Roberts was in it a pretty underated actor IMV.Yes you are correct It reminded me of some episodes of Star Trek AKA "For the world is hollow, but I have touched the sky" also shades of Twilight zone and even Sci Fi Classic Westworld! Certainly ofbeat but very cleverly done. Hadn't seen it for ages but a definate Classic! Check out this one "Quatermass and the pit" available all good JB Stores. 

Now back to Business to gain manor entry, what if I chucked in a case of pepperjack, Kate Bush in Babooshka outfit and my Schhhintelating  company??? Going Going......

Tell you what picket, how about you leave Kate and the booze at the gate and then pizz off!

6 minutes ago, Biffen said:

That's easy for you to say from the vantage point of your white,male,heterosexual ,Australian,advantaged,mansplaining,privileged,gender specific,car driving,meat eating,underpants wearing,wallet carrying,employable high horse.

What about those of us who would like a safe injecting room in our non- binary 3rd toilet ?

You didn't think of us when you made that statement did you?

You just said it as though you have the right to express yourself.

Typical.

i am though very concerned for the future of personkind, biffo

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i am though very concerned for the future of personkind, biffo

Personkind is very aggrieved that you would use his / her / its name in a post without reference to personkind's sensitivities, ancestors & forebears, sexual orientation, preferred brand of hair removal product, emotional state, yoga position, mental health status, personal hygiene status, the feelings of his / her / its pet avocado, and the number of months since his / her / its preferred transport vehicle (car is just such a mansplaining word) engine oil became overdue for a change even though vehicle oil change products are not exempt from GST.

35 minutes ago, bjDee said:

Personkind is very aggrieved that you would use his / her / its name in a post without reference to personkind's sensitivities, ancestors & forebears, sexual orientation, preferred brand of hair removal product, emotional state, yoga position, mental health status, personal hygiene status, the feelings of his / her / its pet avocado, and the number of months since his / her / its preferred transport vehicle (car is just such a mansplaining word) engine oil became overdue for a change even though vehicle oil change products are not exempt from GST.

you said it more eloquently than i ever could, thanks bj, that yartz degree was not wasted

19 hours ago, Biffen said:

So your "general" vibe is that I'm not a nice person.

My point was that feminism achieved a great deal then took itself further into a realm beyond equality - into unequal opportunity.

Rather than bludgeoning western men perhaps they could take the fight to Africa or India.,maybe help sisters there?

Do you not know any men who've suffered unfairly in the divorce courts ?

Feminism is guilty of the same oppression it seeks to redress.

Your dads email has nought to do with it. 

You hate the political climate as I see it .

Every "ism" ,every ideology will someday become so hypocritical that It will be replaced.

So it is with feminism and the spiteful way you sought to defend it proves my point.

The corollary you highlight is not necessarily so. 

Courts are not meant to take sides.They should be about resolution.

Halal food is another hypocrisy that simply overrides 200 years of food handling and animal welfare regulations but we can discuss that elsewhere .

I know many women who have suffered unfairly in the divorce courts, and still do. I know many women who still to this day are simply not provided with the same opportunities to succeed as men are. Women don't have the same earning capacity that men do; and by their innate maternalistic nature are generally heaped with more of the child rearing responsibilities than most men who don't or won't care - why wouldn't they get a better rub of the divorce green? If you want to generalise - THAT is an example of an accurate generalised statement. You talk as if feminism won and is now grinding men into submission and subversion - thats simply not the case. The gender gap is still oppressively wide despite attempts at redress. The problem is much more complex than your generalist statements purport it to be.

Courts by their very mandate cannot and do not takes sides in my experience (I have a legal practice - although corporate not family law). Futhermore the adversarial system is still the bastion of male arrogance and superiority whereby female solicitors and barristers are thrown into a pit of 'live' verbal combat with an opponent (typically male given the gender disparity at the bar) - as a general rule, its a gladiatorial battle that they are simply not as equipped as men to succeed in. And those that do try to succeed at the bar often have to overcompensate with aggression or "masculine" traits - I won't repeat the things their male counterparts say about them in the background, but Im sure you can use your imagination. Its real life indirect discrimination. Im sure there are just as many examples in other industries - boardrooms, trades, etc.

In order to redress what you see as 'unequal opportunity', your original rant descended into what could only be described as misogyny - reread it. Women again become the focus - from memory you managed to describe the entire female sex as "dilettantes"..??

Im not even a feminist - but I'm not going to sit here and cop someone suggesting men have it tougher than women these days. Nonsense. 

Ill leave the bludgeoning western men comment for another day - when you stick your nose into fights that don't concern you, you're liable to cop a whack every now and then. 

Go Biff

Ouch!

Edited March 5, 20178 yr by Moonshadow

2 hours ago, Bizmo Funyans said:

I know many women who have suffered unfairly in the divorce courts, and still do. I know many women who still to this day are simply not provided with the same opportunities to succeed as men are. Women don't have the same earning capacity that men do; and by their innate maternalistic nature are generally heaped with more of the child rearing responsibilities than most men who don't or won't care - why wouldn't they get a better rub of the divorce green? If you want to generalise - THAT is an example of an accurate generalised statement. You talk as if feminism won and is now grinding men into submission and subversion - thats simply not the case. The gender gap is still oppressively wide despite attempts at redress. The problem is much more complex than your generalist statements purport it to be.

Courts by their very mandate cannot and do not takes sides in my experience (I have a legal practice - although corporate not family law). Futhermore the adversarial system is still the bastion of male arrogance and superiority whereby female solicitors and barristers are thrown into a pit of 'live' verbal combat with an opponent (typically male given the gender disparity at the bar) - as a general rule, its a gladiatorial battle that they are simply not as equipped as men to succeed in. And those that do try to succeed at the bar often have to overcompensate with aggression or "masculine" traits - I won't repeat the things their male counterparts say about them in the background, but Im sure you can use your imagination. Its real life indirect discrimination. Im sure there are just as many examples in other industries - boardrooms, trades, etc.

In order to redress what you see as 'unequal opportunity', your original rant descended into what could only be described as misogyny - reread it. Women again become the focus - from memory you managed to describe the entire female sex as "dilettantes"..??

Im not even a feminist - but I'm not going to sit here and cop someone suggesting men have it tougher than women these days. Nonsense. 

Ill leave the bludgeoning western men comment for another day - when you stick your nose into fights that don't concern you, you're liable to cop a whack every now and then. 

It's hangover Monday so  I don't intend getting too involved in a social issues debate Biz.

However, while championing the female cause you make the astounding comment that in the court system, " female solicitors and barristers are thrown into a pit of 'live' verbal combat with an opponent (typically male given the gender disparity at the bar) - as a general rule, its a gladiatorial battle that they are simply not as equipped as men to succeed in".

To my, admittedly simple mind,  that is a vast and unsupportable generalisation that disparages women as having some sort of genetic intellectual/emotional/resilience weakness that disadvantages them in a contest with us blokes.

I doubt any of the sheilas I know would agree with that and, in fact, I would consider it a dangerous suggestion to make.

3 hours ago, Bizmo Funyans said:

I know many women who have suffered unfairly in the divorce courts, and still do. I know many women who still to this day are simply not provided with the same opportunities to succeed as men are. Women don't have the same earning capacity that men do; and by their innate maternalistic nature are generally heaped with more of the child rearing responsibilities than most men who don't or won't care - why wouldn't they get a better rub of the divorce green? If you want to generalise - THAT is an example of an accurate generalised statement. You talk as if feminism won and is now grinding men into submission and subversion - thats simply not the case. The gender gap is still oppressively wide despite attempts at redress. The problem is much more complex than your generalist statements purport it to be.

Courts by their very mandate cannot and do not takes sides in my experience (I have a legal practice - although corporate not family law). Futhermore the adversarial system is still the bastion of male arrogance and superiority whereby female solicitors and barristers are thrown into a pit of 'live' verbal combat with an opponent (typically male given the gender disparity at the bar) - as a general rule, its a gladiatorial battle that they are simply not as equipped as men to succeed in. And those that do try to succeed at the bar often have to overcompensate with aggression or "masculine" traits - I won't repeat the things their male counterparts say about them in the background, but Im sure you can use your imagination. Its real life indirect discrimination. Im sure there are just as many examples in other industries - boardrooms, trades, etc.

In order to redress what you see as 'unequal opportunity', your original rant descended into what could only be described as misogyny - reread it. Women again become the focus - from memory you managed to describe the entire female sex as "dilettantes"..??

Im not even a feminist - but I'm not going to sit here and cop someone suggesting men have it tougher than women these days. Nonsense. 

Ill leave the bludgeoning western men comment for another day - when you stick your nose into fights that don't concern you, you're liable to cop a whack every now and then. 

The gender pay gap is a myth.

It simply does not exist.

You cannot "grind someone into subversion "

There is more than equal opportunity for women in the workplace.That's legislation.

Of course you would discriminate against a woman if you were hiring trades.They are not strong enough to do the tasks required by themselves so will cost you more money.Female trades are time wasters.Same goes for fireys and cops .Its an indulgence.

By a woman's  " innate materialistic nature"I assume you mean her body- so why would the courts favour her over a male again?

Your second paragraph is an incoherent ramble again admitting women's deficiencies for a job they still chose to do.Your inability to write properly has not stopped you from entering corporate law.You won't last long love.

Theres nothing gladiatorial about a court room and nothing stopping women from entering the bar.No swords necessary  but a sharp mind.Nor is it necessary to use aggression or male traits as you see it.I can't comment on indirect discrimination either- I can't see or hear it- it is another myth but I will add that men are still free to say what they will to each other about under performing colleagues.I'm aware of what's said about women in barristers chambers. If she's good she gets credit,if not she gets ridiculed - simple.

Also,I've never described ALL females as dilettantes.For a lawyer you are wayward with words.

I've never stated men have it tougher either. Don't invent quotes.Women are certainly doing better in school and University than men.

They are also doing well in the health system.Though I notice some perception of inadequacy exists from male surgeons

They are free to join certain blue collar industries ,work night shift,go to war,become CEOs,Prime Ministers or body builders.

My rant focused on the courts where woman have had more than equal opportunity since the 1970s for legal redress.

Yourself and my friend Moon( who has provided a selfie below) took this to assume I'm a woman hater,a bigot ,kkk etc.

You still have not addressed women in the 3rd world because it is where feminism is hopelessly hypocritical.Feminists never stick their neck out for Muslim women .

Hirsi Ali puts them all to shame.

She has more guts alone than their combined retinue of academic drivellers.

Ozzy 3rd wave feminists would prefer to use our courts to make money for being called toots,honey ,sweeety or darl at work.

If you call your above post a whack may I suggest you obtain a crisper lettuce leaf next time.

Edited March 6, 20178 yr by Biffen

Is the thread that can't be derailed finally being derailed?

23 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Is the thread that can't be derailed finally being derailed?

'tis on the wrong sub-forum, but, uncle bitters.

i blame  "dont make me angry" (and jack watts) for that 

41 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Is the thread that can't be derailed finally being derailed?

It's ok BBO. I am here to save the day:

 

 

On 05/03/2017 at 11:17 AM, Bitter but optimistic said:

Peasants are still revolting.

Peasants are ALWAYS revolting

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

Yourself and my friend Moon( who has provided a selfie below) took this to assume I'm a woman hater,a bigot ,kkk etc.

 

Speaking of putting words into others mouths, that's not what I said Biff. I differ in opinion from you, but those aren't my words.

 

i have a confession to make

this morning i substituted red grapes for my usual banana in my muesli cereal

i have learnt my lesson and i promise (cross my heart) it won't happen again

3 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Is the thread that can't be derailed finally being derailed?

And yet here we are bobbing along the track to nowhere ( though i have heard rumours a singular ironed ferroquinological apparatus called Blaine exists there )

31 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Speaking of putting words into others mouths, that's not what I said Biff. I differ in opinion from you, but those aren't my words.

 

Yes, my apologies.

I was ranting more on the effects of feminism on government institutions,media,the arts and particularly universities and the courts.

I never sought to condone DV either,or deflect any blame away from the aggressor.

Govt grants and health care research are also strongly supporting women too.

Its become trendy to knock the straight Aussie white male but we are perhaps the most progressive ,evolved, socially pro-active men on the planet .

I never stood up for white men before the last few years but we are not such a terrible bunch. This does not mean non- white men are the opposite either.

There is a crisis in masculinity in truth.

9 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Yes, my apologies.

I was ranting more on the effects of feminism on government institutions,media,the arts and particularly universities and the courts.

I never sought to condone DV either,or deflect any blame away from the aggressor.

Govt grants and health care research are also strongly supporting women too.

Its become trendy to knock the straight Aussie white male but we are perhaps the most progressive ,evolved, socially pro-active men on the planet .

I never stood up for white men before the last few years but we are not such a terrible bunch. This does not mean non- white men are the opposite either.

There is a crisis in masculinity in truth.

No masculinity crisis in Romsey Biffen.

Only real men survive in these parts. Men with tinea  that is masked only by a powerful flatulence and hidden under a hairy masculine gut torso.

1 hour ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

No masculinity crisis in Romsey Biffen.

Only real men survive in these parts. Men with tinea  that is masked only by a powerful flatulence and hidden under a hairy masculine gut torso.

I've conquered tinea by not exercising.

Flatulence is actually related more to bread,pasta and rice I've discovered in the last year.

Hairyness is not much of an issue for most fun loving girls.But with your penchant for deviant behaviour I'm sure the ladies of Romsey are tired of explaining away the wiry greys stuck to their cardigans.

 

Go Biff