News1 min ago
Whose next to march?
89 Answers
http://www.independen...exuality-2296475.html
Oh dear, oh dear, perhaps there should be a march for 'DRUNKS' say?
They could carry boards saying 'DRUNK', 'ALCOHOLIC' etc.
They should feel free to drink as much as they like, without some attacking them in the street or calling for a ban on alcohol.
After all is it anybody's business how much they drink?
Oh dear, oh dear, perhaps there should be a march for 'DRUNKS' say?
They could carry boards saying 'DRUNK', 'ALCOHOLIC' etc.
They should feel free to drink as much as they like, without some attacking them in the street or calling for a ban on alcohol.
After all is it anybody's business how much they drink?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Andy-Hughes
/// i am amazed that a woman - much less an intelligent professional one paid considerable for her opinions, would write such utter tosh.///
That is of course in your opinion, because it doesn't fit in with your agenda.
She has every right to state no woman deserves to be raped, I think most people except for rapists would agree with her.
But she also has every right to voice her opinion on how they should dress (being a woman herself) in certain situations.
And how many times have your eyes not been turned towards a woman in sexy clothes? after all they do say that men think about sex every 7 seconds.
Just because some women dress to attract men doesn't mean that the men that look are 'leering boorish dullards' as you so strangely described them.
And then you end /// because that is in line with the editorial policy and gerneral mindset of her readership ///
Which helps to destroy all your argument since it then becomes obvious that to you it's just another load of tosh printed in your hatred Daily Mail, which proves no matter what she said you would always think the same, that is called having a blinked view.
You further go on to say
/// It is very simple - a woman can walk out in a short skirt and a low top because she enjoys looking good, and attracting some attention.///
That is of course attention of a sexual type is it Andy? If so you are now beginning to contradict yourself.
/// i am amazed that a woman - much less an intelligent professional one paid considerable for her opinions, would write such utter tosh.///
That is of course in your opinion, because it doesn't fit in with your agenda.
She has every right to state no woman deserves to be raped, I think most people except for rapists would agree with her.
But she also has every right to voice her opinion on how they should dress (being a woman herself) in certain situations.
And how many times have your eyes not been turned towards a woman in sexy clothes? after all they do say that men think about sex every 7 seconds.
Just because some women dress to attract men doesn't mean that the men that look are 'leering boorish dullards' as you so strangely described them.
And then you end /// because that is in line with the editorial policy and gerneral mindset of her readership ///
Which helps to destroy all your argument since it then becomes obvious that to you it's just another load of tosh printed in your hatred Daily Mail, which proves no matter what she said you would always think the same, that is called having a blinked view.
You further go on to say
/// It is very simple - a woman can walk out in a short skirt and a low top because she enjoys looking good, and attracting some attention.///
That is of course attention of a sexual type is it Andy? If so you are now beginning to contradict yourself.
AOG - thanks for your prompt response -
I do not have an 'agenda' so Ms Philips' writing cannot be going against it.
'And how many times have your eyes not been turned towards a woman in sexy clothes? after all they do say that men think about sex every 7 seconds.'
Constantly - but I only look, which is probably the desired outcome.
'Just because some women dress to attract men doesn't mean that the men that look are 'leering boorish dullards' as you so strangely described them.'
Of course not - that was Ms Philips inference rather than mine - perhaps i dis not make myself clear there.
'Which helps to destroy all your argument since it then becomes obvious that to you it's just another load of tosh printed in your hatred Daily Mail, which proves no matter what she said you would always think the same, that is called having a blinked view.'
I don't hate the Mail - I have been a daily reader for the ;last thirty-five-plus years. Although I don;t always agree with the stances of their columnists, or their editor, I still find it a challenging and provocative read.
/// It is very simple - a woman can walk out in a short skirt and a low top because she enjoys looking good, and attracting some attention.///
I don't think that is really a contradiction. There is a world of difference between a woman dressing in a way that shows off her body and her receiving attention, yes obviously sexual attention - and being raped which as I am sure you know, has nothing at all to do with sex, or attraction.
I do not have an 'agenda' so Ms Philips' writing cannot be going against it.
'And how many times have your eyes not been turned towards a woman in sexy clothes? after all they do say that men think about sex every 7 seconds.'
Constantly - but I only look, which is probably the desired outcome.
'Just because some women dress to attract men doesn't mean that the men that look are 'leering boorish dullards' as you so strangely described them.'
Of course not - that was Ms Philips inference rather than mine - perhaps i dis not make myself clear there.
'Which helps to destroy all your argument since it then becomes obvious that to you it's just another load of tosh printed in your hatred Daily Mail, which proves no matter what she said you would always think the same, that is called having a blinked view.'
I don't hate the Mail - I have been a daily reader for the ;last thirty-five-plus years. Although I don;t always agree with the stances of their columnists, or their editor, I still find it a challenging and provocative read.
/// It is very simple - a woman can walk out in a short skirt and a low top because she enjoys looking good, and attracting some attention.///
I don't think that is really a contradiction. There is a world of difference between a woman dressing in a way that shows off her body and her receiving attention, yes obviously sexual attention - and being raped which as I am sure you know, has nothing at all to do with sex, or attraction.
having read that woman's post, I think she lost it when she claimed that objections to the mounty's statement were over the top. I think the march is aimed to change the perception of people like her. Of course men are going to look at good looking women in short skirts and 'think rudey thoughts' men would probably think the same thing if she was wearing tight jeans and top.
Her point is that people will think the women are slutty just because they dress like that, that women who don't want to be considered sex objects shouldn't dress 'like one' whereas these marchers are asking for women to be considered as indivuduals and not just assume someone's easy because they're sexy and confident and like to dress however they like.
Her point is that people will think the women are slutty just because they dress like that, that women who don't want to be considered sex objects shouldn't dress 'like one' whereas these marchers are asking for women to be considered as indivuduals and not just assume someone's easy because they're sexy and confident and like to dress however they like.
Andy-Hughes
Thank you for your interesting and reasonable reply.
But please do not defend what you say by inferring that another person 'inferred that', one cannot state what a person has not said, but on the other hand another person can address what you did actually say.
Bit confusing I know but you get my drift.
You may not hate the Mail per se but you do appear to criticise constantly it's reports, their reporters/columnists and readers.
As regards the rape point, this has been discussed over and over again, and depending on some's view point, it has been misunderstood over and over again.
What is perfectly clear a woman may dress as she pleases, no one is arguing that, what is being argued is the fact that it would it be unwise to wear certain clothes in certain areas and at a time of day when they are at a very high risk, from some pervert or other.
That should make perfect sense, just as any person no matter of what sex or wearing whatever style of dress, would be mighty unwise to walk alone in some areas of a city.
In a perfect world these dangers would not exist, but I am afraid we do not live in a perfect world, in fact it gets less perfect every day.
Thank you for your interesting and reasonable reply.
But please do not defend what you say by inferring that another person 'inferred that', one cannot state what a person has not said, but on the other hand another person can address what you did actually say.
Bit confusing I know but you get my drift.
You may not hate the Mail per se but you do appear to criticise constantly it's reports, their reporters/columnists and readers.
As regards the rape point, this has been discussed over and over again, and depending on some's view point, it has been misunderstood over and over again.
What is perfectly clear a woman may dress as she pleases, no one is arguing that, what is being argued is the fact that it would it be unwise to wear certain clothes in certain areas and at a time of day when they are at a very high risk, from some pervert or other.
That should make perfect sense, just as any person no matter of what sex or wearing whatever style of dress, would be mighty unwise to walk alone in some areas of a city.
In a perfect world these dangers would not exist, but I am afraid we do not live in a perfect world, in fact it gets less perfect every day.
"What is perfectly clear a woman may dress as she pleases, no one is arguing that, what is being argued is the fact that it would it be unwise to wear certain clothes in certain areas and at a time of day when they are at a very high risk, from some pervert or other."
What you say is - regrettably - true AOG, and that is surely the crux of the entire argument.
It is a fact that women are unsafe in certain areas, and that is to society's shame - and we must all surely do our bit to educate people that a woman wearing a short skirt is no more an invitation to unwarrented attention than a man with a cropped hairstyle (as I have!) is looking for a fight.
What you say is - regrettably - true AOG, and that is surely the crux of the entire argument.
It is a fact that women are unsafe in certain areas, and that is to society's shame - and we must all surely do our bit to educate people that a woman wearing a short skirt is no more an invitation to unwarrented attention than a man with a cropped hairstyle (as I have!) is looking for a fight.
<<But please do not defend what you say by inferring that another person 'inferred that', one cannot state what a person has not said, but on the other hand another person can address what you did actually say. >>
The meaning of Infer is precisely about reading into what another has said or implied:
Definition of INFER
transitive verb
: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire
: guess, surmise <your letter … allows me to infer that you are as well as ever
.
The meaning of Infer is precisely about reading into what another has said or implied:
Definition of INFER
transitive verb
: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire
: guess, surmise <your letter … allows me to infer that you are as well as ever
.
Please don't assume that because Melanie Phillips and I share some physical attributes I am in any way 'pleased' that she speaks for me.
As I predicted, rather than address your own argument with any additional sensible input, you choose to come out of your corner swinging and punching to defend the honour of the Daily Mail, rather than protect your own argument.
The bottom-line is that I, as a woman, have an unassailable right to dress howsoever I wish (within the bounds of any laws) and walk anywhere at anytime and in doing so, remain unmolested.
That there are men who fail to assimilate this, is not actually MY fault and you could do worse than impress upon on all of the males you may have influence over to keep their grubby mitts to themselves unless invited to do otherwise !!
As I predicted, rather than address your own argument with any additional sensible input, you choose to come out of your corner swinging and punching to defend the honour of the Daily Mail, rather than protect your own argument.
The bottom-line is that I, as a woman, have an unassailable right to dress howsoever I wish (within the bounds of any laws) and walk anywhere at anytime and in doing so, remain unmolested.
That there are men who fail to assimilate this, is not actually MY fault and you could do worse than impress upon on all of the males you may have influence over to keep their grubby mitts to themselves unless invited to do otherwise !!
