Re: Feminists are irritating
need to agree on this as a "nest of" is normally used with vipers, and the assoiation is that men are the same as vipers, just a choice of emotice language
Two people have been charged with allegedly sending "menacing" tweets to a feminist campaigner. John Nimmo, 25, of Moreland Road, South Shields and Isabella Sorley, 23, of Akinside House, Akinside Hill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne will both appear at Westminster Magistrates Court on 7 January, Scotland Yard said. The two were charged …
if you really believe the world is male dominated then you have a problem, different areas are dominated by different genders, try being a bloke in HR, or on th eother hand a girl in the stock market.
i have a real dificulty in the idea that equal means the same. men and woman are different but should be valued as people the same. th elaw seems to thing that we are all the same.
<rant off>
"Where does it say anywhere that Caroline Criado-Perez or Stella Creasy are feminists?
And what, exactly, have they done, on the evidence of this article, to irritate you?
Or
.....
stupid generalizations. Perhaps you should try avoiding similar stupid generalizations"
Well said! Neither woman can be accused of being a feminist in the mould of Germain Greer, for example, at her most strident
All they were trying to do is get some representitive of 51% of the population on a bank note after a succession of of bearded Victorians (excluding Britannia of course)
If you were part of the shit storm of tweets against the many idiots who started these uncalled for tweets, you would have know there were a lot of offensive tweets and indeed most came from men - unless women use Andrew or other in their monika.
"And what, exactly, have they done, on the evidence of this article, to irritate you?"
The number one thing they did was stir up a hornet's nest over alleged sexism, thereby side-stepping the issue that the best female role-model they could come up with was an irrelevant, long-dead populist author, completely missing women who made a positive contribution to society, such as Ada Lovelace, Florence Nightingale or even Emiline Pankhurst...
"The number one thing they did was stir up a hornet's nest over alleged sexism, thereby side-stepping the issue that the best female role-model they could come up with was an irrelevant, long-dead populist author, completely missing women who made a positive contribution to society, such as Ada Lovelace, Florence Nightingale or even Emiline Pankhurst..."
Well, I dont know, Dave...
I might suggest that they selected a purposefully non-controversial choice (Jane A is certainly popular, but I'd hardly say she was 'populist') because she'd be a widely accepted candidate for banknote immortality. Now that's not stirring up a hornets nest. The hornets nest was stirred up by the brain-dead tweeters who thought that rape threats were an appropriate response.
It's hardly barking mad Andrea Dworkin stuff now, is it?
Dont feel that the following comment is addressed to you personally, but some of the responses on this thread stagger me. It seems to me that for some people (ok, so make that 'some men') the tiniest suggestion that approximately 50% of the human population might be represented in the most trivial fashion is evidence that the feminists are all out to get them .
What a bunch of Cry Babies.
They wanted Jane Austen on a £10 note - not elect her as President of the United Nations for goodness sake.
Well, now I know. In future I should not ignore menacing comments from radical militant man-hating feminists, and will instead forward them to the police for action. Who wants to bet that "it would not be in the public interest to prosecute" any threatening/menacing feminists?
In fact, I think the judge already said feminist "opinions", no matter how libellous, dishonest or threatening, are protected by "freedom of speech". Double standard again <sigh>.
You "think the judge already said" that, based on what exactly?
Feminists don't have any legal immunity. If a feminist libels or threatens you, you have exactly the same recourse as if anyone else does it. On the other hand, if a feminist just calls you a kneejerk troglodyte misogynist wanker, your only recourse is to call her a pug-ugly PC media whore. All of which is "fair comment" and the law has nothing to say about it, because no threats of violence or libellous statements are involved on either part.
The key here is the actual, real *menace* in the tweets from Nimmo and Sorley to Criado-Perez. The actual threats to rape and kill. Is that so hard for everyone to grasp? I'm disheartened by the mysogynist crap on this thread generally, but mostly by the false equivalence being drawn between the really frightening, actual illegal threats of graphic sexual violence and murder directed at Ms Criado-Perez which caused her to fear for her safety, and general feminist rhetoric and opinion, which can be simply ignored.
Members of my fellow gender, you're being dicks. Recognise that Nimmo and Sorley actually caused genuine fear and there was a proper role for the police and courts in this case, but when a feminist writes a polemic suggesting "all men are bastards"* there really is not.
*Also most feminists don't actually believe this, they just want equality, in my experience, is that so unreasonable?
The fact is that these people made several serious threats. They made them on very public medium and now people are surprised that this has resulted in prosecution. This has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with you cant just say what you want without consequences. Just because its twitter doesn't mean you can threaten people. Theres a difference between disagreeing with someones position on a topic and threatening to rape them . I'm going to rape you seems to be the new Godwins law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law.