#MeToo - is it just different for men and women?
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,019
- Location
- La France
This is old news. The Sturge had been FM for over a year before the allegations against Salmond were made.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,136
Salmond attempts to rape and sexually abuse almost a dozen women and stockhausen describes it as convenient, your toxicity and persistent lunacy is nauseating
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
Calling someone “it” is just dehumanising them.
I thought you were a leftie yet recently you’ve taken to quoting Goebbles and now you’re dehumanising a mentally ill woman.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
And would you as a "humanising" right-winger refer to Elan-Cane as "he" or "she" then?
Expression of concern by a Tory about dehumanising - there's an oxymoron
ps - as you may just possibly be self-aware enough to understand, I compared compulsive Tory liars to Goebbels.
See now you’re just throwing in ad homems to cover up your own bigotry.
If you were being polite to the woman in person you’d refer to her as they/them.
If you’re just talking about her now... we’ll note I’m using the term “her” and referring to her as a woman.
That’s doesn’t involve having to agree with her nor does it involve dehumanising her as you just did. For someone who often tends to make a big song and dance out of perceived bigotry you, rather ironically, seem to have a blind spot here.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
No message.
Last edited:
You referred to her as “it” so you’re in no position to talk about politeness.
If you heard the report, sounds like the BBC has a rubbish team of lawyers .... was it cheaper to loose the case and pay compensation than prove that the value of
Samiras work was less than Vine's ?
From reporting they tried to justify Vine by 'he has a glint in his eye' versus her, which was rejected, could they not present audience viewing figures, or survey results that confirmed that viewers wanted to watch Vine but not her,
is her English equally intelligble too, many presenters have poor elocution.
... so just rolling over again like Carrie Gracy ..... maybe the BBC think the public will like them more as an appropriate national figurehead ??
eg https://tvforum.uk/thenewsroom/does-newswatch-points-view-44964/
Samiras work was less than Vine's ?
From reporting they tried to justify Vine by 'he has a glint in his eye' versus her, which was rejected, could they not present audience viewing figures, or survey results that confirmed that viewers wanted to watch Vine but not her,
is her English equally intelligble too, many presenters have poor elocution.
... so just rolling over again like Carrie Gracy ..... maybe the BBC think the public will like them more as an appropriate national figurehead ??
eg https://tvforum.uk/thenewsroom/does-newswatch-points-view-44964/
So will the men who fronted Newswatch in the past get paid the difference between their pay and the pay of the person who fronted Points of View at the same time?
Of course not. They're only men, so they don't matter. Consistency and equality are not what's desired. Power and fashionable irrational prejudice and discrimination are what's desired.
Of course not. They're only men, so they don't matter. Consistency and equality are not what's desired. Power and fashionable irrational prejudice and discrimination are what's desired.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 8,605
That story annoyed me, how could they not prove that Vine is more desirable to watch?!
Well to be fair if such cases exist then the presenters in question would have to lawyer up and take the BBC to court. I'd be very interested to see what the outcome would be if it did happen.
As was mentioned in the other thread, this could in theory open an absolutely huge can of worms but I suspect it will now be swept under the carpet until the next time someone spots a good opportunity to squeeze some extra cash under the guise of equality.
They can't, not if they're men. A man can't bring a "sex discrimination" pay case on the basis of another man's pay. Although I suppose theoretically some of them might be able to do so if the presenter of Points of View happened to be a woman at the time. But how likely do you think a man is to win a "I want the same pay as a woman doing a different job who's also more famous and brings in more viewers" case?
No, they can't bring a sex discrimination case but they can argue that the two jobs are comparable, which is the point that the case was won on. If the case is unsuccessful based on the argument that it only matters when there is a discrepancy in sex then that would obviously be an admission that sexism is acceptable against men by law (I know you're probably going to make the point that it is already, but I'm not sure there's a precedent quite as blatant as that would be), and that's why I said I would be very interested to see the outcome.