SSM Plebiscite

[PaulP]

Then is it a relevant example you have offered?

People do get in trouble for opening a door, and heterosexual women do harass gay males, just as heterosexual males harass lesbians, they are real world events!

I don't know the answer here Paul, but I do know it's not in that article, and it makes me personally question the worth of Kate Jenkins in the role! It feels to me like a lead-in to positive discrimination, and I never see a forced solution as a viable solution at all!

It is very easy to say "no thank you, I'm ok" when a child offers you their seat. Anything beyond that reflects poorly on the aggressive party and does not in any way invalidate the principle. You can bet that the example you quote of adverse reaction to opening a door would be very rare and isolated. I'm sure most people (male and female) can understand the social norms and would be ok with it. But clearly some women won't like it, and if they have any sense, they can convey their opinion without aggression or negativity, or just let it slide. Seriously, how often would the average woman in an office or other environment have a door held open for her ? And what about women opening the door for other women ? Is that ok ?

Like I said, much ado about nothing.

[LP]

Like I said, much ado about nothing.

Yet the door example is used in mainstream media coverage.

I realize it's probably a media example of absurdity, but it's used in ways beyond that as well.

Maybe I expect too much, but I expect officials to be unambiguous in their commentary, and they should not color statements or editorials with opinion or politics.

[PaulP]

Kate Jenkins is simply recounting the stories and experiences that she herself has been told. And you do realise that the article you quoted only contains one sentence about gay women being converted, in a piece that is around 1000 words long and covers many other related issues ? And the headline was not chosen by Jenkins.

[LP]

Kate Jenkins is simply recounting the stories and experiences that she herself has been told. And you do realise that the article you quoted only contains one sentence about gay women being converted, in a piece that is around 1000 words long and covers many other related issues ? And the headline was not chosen by Jenkins.

No doubt that is reality PaulP.

But Jenkins carries the banner, she is the torch bearer, and that line is a door left wide open in a pre-prepared article! It's akin to leaving lollies on the bench and telling a room full of children don't touch as you walk out the door!

If she claims the editor was political or malicious, isn't that like blaming the cat for stealing the steak if you leave it unattended on the bench?

Is it simple naivety, or naivety by choice?

I must admit, I do hold people who are in positions of authority and public profile to a higher standard!

[PaulP]

No doubt that is reality PaulP.

But Jenkins carries the banner, she is the torch bearer, and that line is a door left wide open in a pre-prepared article!

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with that article. Nothing.

[Baggers]

People like Kate Jenkins are absolutely in a position to have more knowledge on these things than the average Joe.

You can take virtually any crime, be it white collar, blue collar, virtually any type of negative, anti social behaviour, and men will outnumber women as perpetrators, most of the time by significant margins. The article below is simply the tip of the information iceberg.

My personal view is that the big problem is that current model(s) of masculinity are extremely toxic and serve both men and women very poorly. But that's another topic.

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

Well said. The 'masculinity models' have been in dire need of overhaul for many centuries. Organised religion has much to answer for... but, as you might say, that's another topic for another day (along with the knuckle dragging machismo cultural influences).

Sorry Spotted One, but I have to disagree with you on, "...and heterosexual women do harass gay males, just as heterosexual males harass lesbians, they are real world events!" Nuh, you'll find far too many hetero males deriding gay women (out of abject ignorance) but seldom will you find hetero women being anything but engaging with gay males. It is one of those cliches that is, in the main, quite true. In fact I believe you'll find that women in general are far more accepting of and engaging with gay men and women (unless they've been indoctrinated by some fundamentalist religious claptrap).

[LP]

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with that article. Nothing.

Fair enough PaulP I'll wear that.

I'm really just highlighting a wedge by mirroring the behavior of extremists, the people spoiling for a fight. That is why I posed the question, because the wedge has been provided by someone who job it actually is to smooth the water.

It can be read as inconsequential, as most people not politically motivated will read it that way, but those who are otherwise motivated can choose the opposite. A great example of that is the very choice of headline!

btw., Surveys in print media have suggested up to 85% of readers only read the headline or the first paragraph, the media know this and it forms part of the decision making process.

Am I being unfair?

[PaulP]

Well said. The 'masculinity models' have been in dire need of overhaul for many centuries. Organised religion has much to answer for... but, as you might say, that's another topic for another day (along with the knuckle dragging machismo cultural influences).

Sorry Spotted One, but I have to disagree with you on, "...and heterosexual women do harass gay males, just as heterosexual males harass lesbians, they are real world events!" Nuh, you'll find far too many hetero males deriding gay women (out of abject ignorance) but seldom will you find hetero women being anything but engaging with gay males. It is one of those cliches that is, in the main, quite true. In fact I believe you'll find that women in general are far more accepting of and engaging with gay men and women (unless they've been indoctrinated by some fundamentalist religious claptrap).

Organised religion has evolved based on anthropocentrism, dualism and patriarchy.  The spirituality that underlies the various religions is actually pretty good IMO.

[Thryleon]

People like Kate Jenkins are absolutely in a position to have more knowledge on these things than the average Joe.

You can take virtually any crime, be it white collar, blue collar, virtually any type of negative, anti social behaviour, and men will outnumber women as perpetrators, most of the time by significant margins. The article below is simply the tip of the information iceberg.

My personal view is that the big problem is that current model(s) of masculinity are extremely toxic and serve both men and women very poorly. But that's another topic.

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

Produce your statistics on how men try to convert lesbians more than females try to convert males.

[PaulP]

Produce your statistics on how men try to convert lesbians more than females try to convert males.

If I can, I will.