>>15041
I wondered how one is reliably supposed to sort men in drag from trans birds and of course they've thought of this and found a solution that makes complete sense.

>It went on to stress that attendees can wear "what they want" and "express their gender how they please", but that "self-described drag acts" would not be allowed to perform.

This is very odd. I know a few people who are in to drag acts and from them I can tell it's a very inclusive sort of thing. As I understand it, it's a very specific form of expression for gay men and it seems daft to think it's in any way antagonistic or mocking of gender identity. There's a very big difference between drag acts and blokes wearing dresses for their stag do, and the difference primarily is tolerance.

Drag queens are just as much a part of LGBT culture as anyone else. It also seems illogical that a trans person would see a gay man dressing and acting as (a theatrical version of) a woman would be anything other than empowering or reassuring? If this bloke can do it then so can I, sort of thing?

People these days will argue their own communities apart with po faced righteousness. So much for solidarity.

>>15044
I have heard of petitions to ban certain drag acts from Canal Street in Manchester on the basis that their act is transphobic when in reality it's nothing of the sort.

We're living in strange times:

>A sexuality expert has said parents should ask babies for their permission before changing their nappies in order to set up a culture of consent from birth.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/im-going-change-your-nappy-12511101

>>15042

It's that snowflake thing...

"You can have any opinion you want, as long as it's my opinion or one that I deem suitable."

>>15046
So what are you supposed to do when affirmed consent is not forthcoming? Leave them to wallow in their own shit? Or teach them instead that the powerful can override consent?

>>15046

My hope is that within a generation or two LGBTetc will be normalised in a broad enough way that this bizarre "who is more hard done by" culture can stop. I suspect it won't as it's a great way to control people, but here we are.

A friend of mine made a great point that these sorts of social justice people annoy the piss out of him, as he's gay, and they treat him with an odd sort of reverence and sensitivity that they wouldn't a straight bloke - thus still treating him unequally. He can never be sure if he's really friends with these marple haired women or if he's merely part of a social proof of their righteousness. By being hyper aware of his sexuality at all times, they make him feel even less normalised - like their relentless crusade makes him feel like a freak who should be swaddled in bubblewrap, rather than just a bloke who happens to like blokes.

This is only one chap's opinion but I reckon he's not alone in feeling that way. I certainly would if I were gay.

>>15049

>Leave them to wallow in their own shit?

Exactly this, I would guess.

In its own strange way, that would then revive a parenting concept that has been falling out of fashion for fear of hurting your precious little snowflakes, and that is to learn from your own mistakes.

For example, I once fell into a knee deep ditch with water and mud, belly first and with my face then covered in dirt all over, while I was out in the woods with my parents on a Sunday afternoon walk. I started crying and screaming, but my dad just said "You're going to have to be more careful next time, if you want to keep this from happening". That was it. I knew from that point on that roadside ditches were treacherous, and it never happened to me again. Compare that to today's parents, who are even afraid to let their kids out of their walled up back gardens without all manner of protective devices.

We are raising a generation of eternal five-year-olds, with no appropriate sense of danger and no ability to look after themselves, and who will all be needing therapy by age 30.

But there is hope that not all countries are like that. Not every culture raises its children to remain children for life.
I travelled to Turkey a few years ago, and one night on the beach, I saw two weelads who couldn't have been older than about ten, and they were going out spear fishing at dusk, just wearing swimming trunks and children's diving goggles. And with daylight fading fast, they were hunting squid in the gloom of the coastal waters, as they later told me (and showed me their catch). Two completely unsupervised 10-year-olds, spear fishing for squid in the dark and without lights while the wind was picking up and the seas were getting slightly rough. I don't know any parents here in Britain who wouldn't be having kittens at the thought of letting their 10-year-olds do anything like that. But in Turkey, apparently this isn't out of the ordinary.

>>15052


You're not wrong. My mum told me she had to have words with my grandma, as when she looked after me she was deathly afraid of anything that might even come close to hurting me - she managed to make me afraid of bees for a few years because she'd freak the fuck out whenever one came in the garden and usher me inside as if we were in the middle of an air raid.

I don't doubt that she meant well, but I daresay if I'd been raised by her, I'd be a massive fucking fanny. Now that I'm thinking about it - my dad is a giant man baby who can't function without a woman to look after him. Hmm.

>>15050
As a bi-lad I'd say it's a mixed bag.

Most of this nonsense passes me by as I tend to view myself as a person first and foremost who just happens to be attracted to men and women rather than letting my sexuality define me.

I know some people who fully get wrapped up a bubble where they're obsessed with finding things 'problematic' or perceiving 'micro-aggressions' everywhere they go. They'll read blogs within their little echo chambers and convince themselves that something which has passed most people by, or if they're aware of it they just shrug and move on, is a really big fucking deal.

What I'm saying is that you find twats in all walks of life, regardless of sexuality.

>>15050

Some people just want something to be offended about, some cause that makes them a righteous warrior for good and everyone else an evil oppressor.

The QUILTBAG lot are absolutely tedious. They spend endless amounts of time bickering about labels and microaggressions, but they say and do nothing about the real issues facing gay and trans* people and MSMs. I've had numerous conversations with studenty social justice types who claim to be QUILTBAG "advocates" but have never heard of chemsex, Scruff, Birchplace or PrEP.

>>15063

>Some people just want something to be offended about, some cause that makes them a righteous warrior for good and everyone else an evil oppressor.

The SJW movement in a nutshell.

Christ this site has become like fucking YouTube comments.

>>15068
It's all been down hill since we acquiesced to the demands of the suffragette daft militant wog group.

>>15063
I'm gay and have never heard of Scruff or Birchplace. Am I not gay enough for you, gay police?

>>15074

Birchplace is a web site where you can meet GLBT people and reply to profile ads.

I'm straight and I know Birchplace.

>>15076
>I'm straight and I know Birchplace.
So? Again, does that make you more gay than me, or more pro-gay, or some other ridiculous contention? Why do you need to be aware of some dating site in order to support LGBT people? It's just nonsense.

>>15077
M8 you just lost in a gay-off to a straight lad.

>>15074

>Am I not gay enough for you, gay police?

I wouldn't expect any gay or trans* person to have a broad knowledge of the scene as a whole. Most people are just getting on with their lives, which is absolutely fine. I would expect a self-described activist or advocate to know that stuff. My grievance is with people who seem to spend most of their free time banging on about what society should and shouldn't be doing with respect to LGBT issues, despite being very ignorant about many of the people they purport to represent.

Birchplace is important because it's the main hub for trans* dating and sex work. If you don't know that it exists, you're highly unlikely to be aware of the extent to which many young trans* people engage in sex work in order to survive, or the huge number of foreign trans* sex workers who are living and working in the UK without legal residency status. These people are incredibly vulnerable, but they're not getting the support they need from the health service and the third sector.

Scruff is a masc-only version of Grindr. It represents a hugely significant issue in the gay scene, namely the stigmatisation of femme behaviour. It's also the venue for a lot of the highest-risk behaviour on the hookup and party scene. I should also mention Jack'd, an app predominantly used by BME gay men, because it highlights the remarkable amount of overt racism in some corners of the scene and the unique difficulties faced by many BME LGBT people.

>>15080

He did it to himself basically, when he misinterpreted that statement as an attack on his gayness.

I always thought they teach you in gay school very early on that gayer-than-thou cunt offs lead nowhere.

>>15081
>the remarkable amount of overt racism

This is a rather problematic statement to make.

Firstly, there's the rather patronising assumption that being gay automatically means you're more tolerant than other people. Some of the most intolerant people I know are gay. There's a good reason black and Asian people tend to be viewed with suspicion and that's simply because these groups tend to be more homophobic in general. Far more homophobic. The last few occasions I've experienced homophobia have all been by Asian men. Many gays are concerned about the demographic changes happening within this country as it is seeing an increase of people with more backwards views coming here; it's been noted in Germany that there has been a marked rise in anti-semitism since Merkel invited over millions of Arabs.

Secondly, not being attracted to other ethnicities doesn't make you racist. I'm generally more attracted to white people than black people. That's not racism.

>>15084
Thanks for proving his point.

>>15084

>Secondly, not being attracted to other ethnicities doesn't make you racist. I'm generally more attracted to white people than black people.

I had this conversation with a Persian friend of mine once, who accused me of being slightly racist because I said I am attracted mainly to white British girls, and that blonde girls tickle my fancy the most. He wouldn't let it stand that this isn't racism, but simply a sexual preference.

But it makes no more sense to me than saying you're homophobic as a lad because you find yourself only sexually attracted to women.

>>15087

You're completely within your rights to sleep with whoever you fancy, but we can't ignore the political and cultural aspects of desire. We're socialised from a very early age to conform and aspire to a particular ideal.

The obvious example is fat women - there are loads of blokes who would happily sleep with a fat woman, but wouldn't want their mates to catch them. In gay culture, I think there's a clear undercurrent of internalised homophobia; most of the guys you see in porn are hyper-masculine stereotypes and often presented as "straight". There's a clear stigma against twinks and effeminate or camp men; being obviously gay is a huge turn-off for a lot of gay guys. Before his death, Dale Winton often spoke about being a persona non grata on the gay scene, because he was "too gay" - he represented a kind of out-and-proud mincing poofter stereotype that many gay men are deeply ashamed to be associated with.

>>15087
It's a bit of both, I think. There's certainly no inherent reason for you to find white women more attractive than people of other races - in fact from an genetic diversity perspective shouldn't you be finding exotic women more attractive? - so it boils down to the traits that society push as being desirable. To a certain extent you have been conditioned, as we all have, to desire whiteness.

People will also couple off because of strong cultural reasons within their own racial groupings, which affects people of all ethnicities. E.g. people are more likely to socialise, or feel safer, with their own ethnicity.

>>15088 is a bastard for posting while I was halfway through writing this.

In the end though you shouldn't really be blamed for your own sexual preferences, but you should question and acknowledge where those preferences may arise from, and assist in dismantling the systems that favour white people, even when it comes to personal relationships.

>>15087
Alternatively, it is racist or homophobic, and okay with the fact that there's nothing wrong with that.

>>15088

> I think there's a clear undercurrent of internalised homophobia; most of the guys you see in porn are hyper-masculine stereotypes and often presented as "straight". There's a clear stigma against twinks and effeminate or camp men; being obviously gay is a huge turn-off for a lot of gay guys.


My guess, as a straight guy, would be that gay men prefer blokey blokes just the same way as straight women do. It's masculinity that is attractive, and I could imagine that an effeminate, camp outward appearance and demeanor take away from that. In that sense, gays will probably much rather have a shag with Ricky Martin than with Julian Clary.

>>15089

>There's certainly no inherent reason for you to find white women more attractive than people of other races - in fact from an genetic diversity perspective shouldn't you be finding exotic women more attractive?

All I can say is, I've felt drawn the most to blonde white girls for as long as I can remember, certainly since early youth when I developed an actual sexual interest in them. What I can say is that in my family on both sides, we're all the dark haired light skinned Norman types, so my predilection for blonde white women could actually be a desire for somebody who is genetically different from me, if just barely.

>In the end though you shouldn't really be blamed for your own sexual preferences, but you should question and acknowledge where those preferences may arise from, and assist in dismantling the systems that favour white people, even when it comes to personal relationships.

I don't know, that sounds a bit too borrowed from 1970s feminism for me, where the personal was declared political.

Hello lads. There's no such thing as black and gay. You're either one or the other because straight and white are defaults. Btw you're the real racist if you ever challenge this. Also blacks are a low percentage of the population and so are gays, that means they're both minorities and therefore in competition with each other for straight, white approval. How could they be working together unless they were LYING?

>>15100

>>15100
Is this what that intersectionality thing is, again?

>>15100

>You're either one or the other because straight and white are defaults.

Mirth.

I vaguely remember seeing an old sketch on TV a few years ago where one of the two people was a black woman in a wheelchair. She was applying for government benefits of some kind and when she was asked about her marital status, she said she was also a lesbian. And the person behind the desk gave her a John Cleese/Monty Python kind of look and said, "You just had to tick all the boxes while you were at it, didn't you".

Poor racial stereotype jokes aside, I had a few friends in the black Afro-Caribbean community while I was still living in London, and my perception was that homophobia was indeed very pronounced among them. When I was hanging out in the clubs together with them, they would react quite strongly when we came across a gay couple here and there, in a way that you wouldn't normally expect nowadays from white British people.

>>15103
>Poor racial stereotype jokes aside, I had a few friends in the black Afro-Caribbean community while I was still living in London, and my perception was that homophobia was indeed very pronounced among them. When I was hanging out in the clubs together with them, they would react quite strongly when we came across a gay couple here and there, in a way that you wouldn't normally expect nowadays from white British people.

I'd say it's their macho culture, which is why they're all shooting/stabbing/throwing acid at each other because they've been dissing rival gangs on YouTube to show that they're Billy Big Bollocks, but the women are just as bad for it, if not worse.

>>15104

> which is why they're all shooting/stabbing/throwing acid at each other

Let's stick with one assortment of racial sterotypes for now, before we open another can of worms.

If you lived in North London, you knew to be more afraid of mean looking white lads than blacks. In my part of North London, luckily things were a bit more quiet than elsewhere, but when there was talk of a knife fight locally and all that sort of thing, very often the perpetrators were white teenlad dolescum. That isn't to say most black younglads there were model citizens, just that there was a very noticeable share of petty and small-scale violent crime committed by white (unemployed) younglads.

>>15105

RACE THAT MAKES UP 90% OF THE POPULATION RESPONSIBLE FOR 50%+ OF THE CRIME SHOCKER.

>>15105
It's definitely not exclusively a race thing, Glasgow used to have similar problems with knife crime, but the issue specifically in London seems to be perpetuated by certain cultures. To state otherwise is to ignore the rather large pachyderm in the room.

>>15107

Again, I wasn't saying there was no crime committed by blacks. All I meant was, it was striking that there were many white (juvenile) delinquents in the area of North London where I lived.

>>15108
#notallmen.

It's official: a bisexual singer isn't allowed to write a song about her own sexuality because her own personal experiences of being bisexual are harmful to the LGBT community.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2018/may/15/rita-ora-girls-got-bisexual-women-all-wrong

>>15185
You could have given me a trigger warning that the linked article unironically contains the phrase "male gaze", you inconsiderate prick.

>>15185
>>15186

I think we're at a point now where the whole gender malarkey has just been so muddled up that not even the proponents of LGBT rights know anymore which way is up.

But what really irks me these days is that you can't say anything without somebody blaring over the whole Internet how much the thing you had the audacity to say offends them.

People say things you will not agree with it. All the time. Some of those things you will find just daft, other things will feel genuinely upsetting. Deal with it, and don't fall into your conditioned knee jerk response at every turn of taking to your usual online echo chambers and moaning about it.

That's what's really wrong with Millennials. Their sense of entitlement, and that it does not compute to them that somebody else should get to say things that will upset or offend their own world view. No matter how greatly.

>>15187

>That's what's really wrong with Millennials

I was with you up til this point and now I'm not sure if you're taking the piss or not.

These millennials are quite in vogue as the new acceptable target for discrimination these days, but it's about as vague as you can get. A millennial could be anybody, they just happen to fit into this age bracket.

At least black people all have a tendency towards violent crime in common when you make sweeping generalisations about their entire race, but the millennial thing is like discriminating against air breathers.

>>15185
>>15187
Only someone who has an inherent bias against a group could look at reasonable discussions taking place within it and declare them to be evidence that their entire standpoints are bankrupt.

If someone came to .gs and read some of our regular cunt-offs and then said 'This is yet more proof that white men are hysterical and irrational creatures that are unable to agree on anything', you'd think they were mental.

So for the love of Christ why can't you let the bisexual community decide what's best for the bisexual community?

>>15209

>So for the love of Christ why can't you let the bisexual community decide what's best for the bisexual community?

Because they're not a council, and telling someone who is bisexual that they 'got bisexuals wrong' is like me telling you that you're a rubbish white man (if you are). It means nothing. There's no metric to being white aside from that you have that colour skin. To dictate who or what is a valid bisexual or bisexual statement is mind-numbingly stupid, particularly if your platform is that bisexuals should be able to express themselves freely.

To say that it's wrong of a bisexual to talk about the sexual side of who they are instead of the romantic one is unfair. It's also short sighted considering we're talking about a pop song.

>>15210
Again, I think it's up to LGBTIQ people how they want their community to be represented. If you have a hundred people of that background telling you that you're being harmful to them, then you're probably being harmful to them.

You're being disingenuous with your idea that the song is merely talking "about the sexual side of who they are instead of the romantic one". The very real issues involved are of bisexual erasure and illegitimacy and how the song perpetuates these old tropes.

If you insist on bringing it back to the race analogy, it's like a black guy writing a novel about a black society founded on violent crime. Do you really think the black community would give that a pass because it's by a black author and therefore there is no "wrong" way to express blackness? And if they didn't, would you tell them it's "unfair" of them not to celebrate this novel?

>>15211

>would you tell them it's "unfair" of them not to celebrate this novel?

I wouldn't say they have to celebrate it, but I'd still disagree if they called it problematic. It's a novel, not a manifesto.

I don't get annoyed when people write novels about evil white men. Or is that somehow different?

>>15211

I can find a much larger community of Christians who will say gay marriage is harmful to them then gay people who want to get married. The fact that millions of people believe something doesn't make them any more correct, no matter how passionate they are about it.

>>15209
>Only someone who has an inherent bias against a group could look at reasonable discussions taking place within it and declare them to be evidence that their entire standpoints are bankrupt.

I'm bisexual. People do not need to have their personal identity and experiences vetted by the Ministry of Truth to ensure that they are thinking in the correct manner.

>>15211
> Do you really think the black community would give that a pass
Where would such a pass be obtained? Does the black community have regular meetings where all black people can get together and discuss the latest developments in blackness, and discuss new releases from black literature.

Does the white community have a similar meet-up? I'm a bit unsociable and perhaps never got invited.

>>15211

>Do you really think the black community would give that a pass

Why do you insist on speaking about minorities as if they're a collective? By allowing one, or several bisexuals to speak as the authority on bisexuals, you rob them of their individuality, and suddenly their sexuality is their defining factor. You actually promote segregation by implying that all bisexuals must think and act alike, or even consider 'bisexual' to be a separate community.

How about they're just people, who all have different opinions and thoughts on Rita Ora's new fucking song? Some may be offended, some may support her, but to suggest in any way that someone should be allowed to tell her she's doing bisexuality wrong is abhorrent, and promotes the very prejudices you're supposed to want to see conquered.

There are two types of people who try to put minority races and sexualities into segregated bubbles, who put a great amount of effort into reminding everyone that they're different and don't fit in. Those two groups are bigots, and social justice bemoaners.

Maybe if the discussion stopped being "gay people are not the same as you and you need to be aware of that at all times in case you upset them" and started being "gay people are just normal fucking people" everyone would be better off?

>>15212
Yes it is different. White people haven't been subject to centuries-old prejudice that can be perpetuated in cultural artifacts. White people are considered default.

>>15213
Nice fallacy lad. If you think Christians have a right to a voice on same-sex marriage then I can see why you might also think everyone else can tell the bisexual community what to do.

>>15214
No-one is suggesting a Ministry of Truth. Collective reactions by a community of people are easily observed. You can be an outlier on this song issue if you like but if hundreds of others consider it harmful then they need to be listened to. You don't get to be David Brent saying it's OK to tell racist jokes because one black guy in the office didn't mind them.

>>15215
Yes they do, you just don't hear about the secret meeting times and places because they are communicated through energy waves of black power. Also Meetup.com, e.g.: https://www.meetup.com/afrocaribbeanbookclub/

>>15216
>Why do you insist on speaking about minorities as if they're a collective?
Because no minority in history has ever gained rights through the actions of a single individual.

>How about they're just people, who all have different opinions and thoughts on Rita Ora's new fucking song?
That's correct.

>that someone should be allowed to tell her she's doing bisexuality wrong is abhorrent, and promotes the very prejudices you're supposed to want to see conquered.
Could you explain this statement? What prejudices are promoted by the song being considered harmful to bisexuality?

>>15224
>What prejudices are promoted by the song being considered harmful to bisexuality?
The perception of the minority being insular and isolated rather than an integral part of wider society.

>>15226
That's just concern trolling. On the contrary, if these issues are taken seriously rather than dismissed on the grounds of 'free speech it's just a joke' etc., which is essentially what this is, the minority's place in wider society is made more secure.

To be more specific, the issue being taken with the song is that it portrays bisexuality as being a straight woman who does sexual things with women for a bit of a laugh. Bisexual people have long had to struggle against this perception that are just 'faking' their sexuality. If this isn't addressed, then to use your terms they become isolated rather than an accepted part of society.

>>15227

>That's just concern trolling

Not if I'm bisexual.

>>15227
>That's just concern trolling.
Yeah, no. Fuck off, mate.

>To be more specific, the issue being taken with the song is that it portrays bisexuality as being a straight woman who does sexual things with women for a bit of a laugh.
It's her identity. How she establishes and expresses her own identity is a matter for her and her alone. It's not for the Professionally Offended Brigade to decide for her what expressions of her identity are acceptable or not by bringing pressure to bear like this. The whiners have effectively forced her to apologise for who she is, and if you support that you're no better than the homophobes in the Free Presbyterian who consider the whole thing sinful.

>>15230
>the Professionally Offended Brigade
I think you need to have a good fuqué offo yourself, lad.

Gosh is it her identity I didn't realise. But unfortunately in the real world how you express yourself has certain ramifications by virtue of impacting on how other people are treated. That's the way it is chum, and she seems to understand that better than you do: "I would never intentionally cause harm to other LBGTQ+ people or anyone".

>>15232
Precisely what part of "it's none of your fucking business" are you struggling with here?

A Get The L Out spokeswoman said: "We protested to protect our rights and on behalf of all the lesbians intimidated, threatened and silenced by the GBT community everywhere.

"The GBT community today, by supporting the rights of males who "identify as lesbians" (also called "transwomen") over the rights of lesbians to choose their sexual partners (on the basis of their sex, not how they "identify") is in fact enforcing heterosexuality on lesbians.

"This is a misogynistic and anti-lesbian manifestation of the rape culture we live in."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44757403

Sometimes it feels like people are trying to string along sentences using as many buzzwords as possible.

>>15612
TERFs gonna TERF. Nothing to see here, except why the fuck London Pride thought it was OK to let openly anti-trans people lead a march to support trans people.

I wish trannies didn't exist.

>>15613
They didn't. It was supposed to be NHS LGBT+ Staff Network leading the march. Get The L Out (all eight of them) forced their way to the front.

>>15614
Just use your phone m7.

>>15613
They look like such reasonable people, too.

>>15617

Can someone explain what they're even on about? What do they actually want?

>>15618 If your entire life revolves about fighting for rights for those-born-female-of-which-you-happen-to-be-one, and transgender folk rock up saying 'look, I'm a woman now, gimme
those rights', there's a tension. Doubly so if it's a self identifying bloke in a frock. Triply so if it's a hypothetical perv bloke who says 'am girl, am coming into your changing room / battered womens' hostel / whatever'.
Rights clashing against rights. Not going to be any winners here, just a lot of acrimony.

>>15619

>a hypothetical perv bloke who says 'am girl, am coming into your changing room / battered womens' hostel / whatever'.

The thing is, that's an almost entirely hypothetical scenario. If pervs were claiming to be trans women to do pervy things, it'd be all over the front page of the Daily Mail. TERFs are equally annoyed about trans men, who they see as lesbians who have been bamboozled by the patriarchy.

IMO, there's a generation of radical lesbian activists who have found themselves marginalised in the LGBT movement. The likes of Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas were once these scary revolutionaries who threatened the fabric of patriarchal society, but these days they're just a punchline to a very old joke.

Back in the late 70s and early 80s, it was quite common to encounter radical feminists who thought that women should completely separate from the patriarchy and build lesbian-only communities. A lot of radical feminists really did believe that all (heterosexual) sex is rape and all men are rapists. Those people didn't go away, but subsequent generations of feminists and lesbians see their views as so absurd that they scarcely believe that they were ever sincere.

TERFs aren't all that bothered about trans people, they've just chosen that issue as the hill to die on. It's the ideological shibboleth that separates the old radical ideology from the a younger generation of LGBT people who just want to get on with their lives. Bizarre as it might seem, they see the acceptance of LGBT people and the family-friendly vibe of modern Pride marches as a failure; they don't want to be accepted and don't want to integrate. They want to go back to war, which requires an enemy.

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

Oh good grief, this rabbit hole is deep.
https://www.autostraddle.com/how-to-have-trans-woman-lesbian-sex-with-a-penis-414839/

>>15620

>Valerie Solanas were once these scary revolutionaries who threatened the fabric of patriarchal society

That's a very polite way of saying she was a nutter who tried to murder Andy Warhol.

>>15622
He was terribly hack and deserved a winging, in my opinion.

>>15620

>Those people didn't go away, but subsequent generations of feminists and lesbians see their views as so absurd that they scarcely believe that they were ever sincere.

In truth, feminism at its core really hasn't come a long way since those days though. I dare you to spend one evening with a die hard feminist who eats, sleeps, breathes and shits feminism. You will be right to point out that every movement has its crackpots, but it is scary what some feminist women still think of men today. It's not about a fairer, more equal world for everybody. No, to them, masculinity is still the enemy. And you are a patriarchist arsehole if you don't agree with them.

You will never find me denying that women and men should have equal rights and opportunity, as well as equal responsibilities. Everybody deserves to get somewhere in life in accordance with how hard they try. But that is where it ends with me. Men aren't by default arseholes, nor do we by default support patriarchy or keep women down. Also, not everything that doesn't work out in your life as a woman, feminist or not, is the fault of men or patriarchy. Women, same as men, can simply fail. And if you don't accept that, then I cannot take you seriously as a feminist.

>>15624
Something I've seen in Hollywood is the idea of Feminism coming full circle and women saying "let us play characters who are flawed, these bland Mary Sues are shit!"

3rd wave extremist don't acknowledge that as a problem though, they are still dying on the hill of women being exploited and addressing issues about women hating the Characters they are forced to play is problematic for a number of reasons, at least to the people who write the scripts.

It makes no fucking sense to me. Harping on about women getting better roles and then those same women writing shit characters for women, who then complain and get called problematic for not supporting women in the Writers Guild or something. Then, men calling these women toxic like they have a fucking oar in the race.

Julie Bindel was the last loon to get a platform in printed media and she used it to call Transgender people dangerous to the Lesbian community, when most of them are attracted to men asfaik. Rationality is checked at the end of the aisle of the feminist literature section of the library and not regained until they become pensioners, if Germaine Greer is anything to go by. She is even considered problematic these days, for her views about Men's role in society.

>>15625

You can't win with these types.

If you portray successful career women who somehow juggle being a mum of two and a darling wife with a 60 hours a week career at the top of their field, then you will get flak for putting pressure to perform on women because it's "unrealistic". But when you write a part of a stay at home mum who raises the kids while her husband is at work and makes him dinner every night, then that's a depiction of no longer desired antiquated gender roles. And thirdly, if you show women who are just about doing alright, you will be accused of attempting to deter women from striving for more.

The real problem, I've said it many times, is that women are just too impressionable. They are far too susceptible to believing verbatim the things they see on TV and read in the gossip rags about celebrities, career women, and other perfect pictures of uber successful other women that are simply not attainable for the average person and should serve as no standard to measure your own success as a human being in life.

I think men are much more prepared to go their own way in life and not pay attention to all of that. Men have always been expected to fend for themselves out there and make the best of what they are dealt. You are allowed to have your role models, but you won't see men all absorbed in a made-for-TV drama envying the main character because he is a CEO, drives a Porsche and has a five-bedroom house in Chelsea. Men are much more prepared to see it for what it is and to realise that that's fiction, that it's a fantasy world that they have little chance of turning into reality for themselves. And men are by and large fine with it.

Also, it isn't all just men who are hindrances to women being successful. Not all of it is the fault of the old boys clubs and what have you. Women tend to do a lot of it to each other, with the way they scheme, gossip, and exclude other women they don't like. With the same fierceness with which they compete for the most desirable men, they will also compete for everything else in life, and they will use unfair means against members of their own gender and they will put each other down left, right, and centre.

But what's really disturbing is that feminists blame even that on men not giving women enough opportunity. All I can say from decades of experience being with women is that a lot of women simply have that in them. It doesn't matter if there really are only few opportunities for them at their job or if they even have special workplace programmes for women. Women, if they reach a critical mass in a workplace, will turn almost every office into a reenactment of Dynasty.

>>15626
Britfa just wouldn't be Britfa without the casual chauvinism.

>>15627
Women can be as shit as men can, pooflad.

>>15628
Of course they can. However, if a gender is being bashed on here then there's a 99.99% chance it's female.

>>15630
Oh how terrible.

>>15628
Gay men are notorious chauvinist cunts.

>>15630

SLA.GS BEFORE FA.GS!

>>15630

> However, if a gender is being bashed on here then there's a 99.99% chance it's female

And you are basing that finding on what exactly? Solid empirical testing?

But for argument's sake, it comes with the territory of image boards. I would say a good 90 percent on .gs and probably even more than that on 4chan are men. And not just any old (or young) men, but men who tend to not have the best chances with women, an experience which often leaves them frustrated, so they vent.

You don't need to wander far to experience quite nearly the exact opposite. If you look around some web forums of women's magazines, you will read endless litanies by women moaning and complaining about either the shit male partner they are with, or that men in general are shit. That's where women go to vent, and it often ain't pretty.

Everybody, men same as women, has had their share of frustration with the other gender. To accuse .gs, which is, again, almost all male, of women bashing kind of turns the issue on its head.

And if that creates a "hostile environment of gender based verbal violence", as some gender scientists would have you believe, so what. As a bloke, nobody greets you with open arms on women's forums either.

>>15638
>To accuse .gs, which is, again, almost all male, of women bashing kind of turns the issue on its head.

Well it would be nice if women could get discussed once in a while without them being either belittled or objectified. Some times this board is quiet as fuck and then the opportunity for woman-bashing arises and you're like dogs with a bone, creeping out of the woodwork to chip in.

>>15639

>like dogs with a bone, creeping out of the woodwork

I'm enjoying that mixed metaphor.

>>15641
Like a tramp on chips.

>>15639

>Some times this board is quiet as fuck and then the opportunity for woman-bashing arises and you're like dogs with a bone

I don't really see that being the case on here.

I've been coming here since 2013, and usually when threads get quiet, it's because somebody was either being a cunt in the last post or because some aspie shat up a thread with some entirely unrelatable drivel.

And not all complaints about women are woman bashing. If somebody has a legitimate complaint about a particular woman and wants to vent on here, then I see no reason to tell them not to. Particularly not because some delicate little snowflake flower of a woman might take offence reading it.

If you can't tolerate other people criticising members of your gender, then the Internet just isn't for you. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, go home and suck on your thumb until you are mature enough to come back.

>>15643

>usually when threads get quiet, it's because somebody was either being a cunt in the last post or because some aspie shat up a thread with some entirely unrelatable drivel. 


Ah, the irony.

>>15641
Yeah, how small exactly are these dogs? Tiny dogs? Microscopic dogs? I'm intrigued

>>15646
Oh, alternatively: absolutely fuckoff massive worms

I think I like this interpretation better

They will call me Muad'Dib

>>15642
I like that more than I should.

>>15639

I remember only once a thread about "being a man" here and it was quickly shat on by the "what about women?" Question, and treating any discussion of men's virtues like it was some sort of weird indirect attack on women.

>>15649

>and treating any discussion of men's virtues like it was some sort of weird indirect attack on women.


Worse even, the notion that men can very well be strong and bold is dismissed by some third wave feminists as antiquated gender stereotypes that do no favours to sensitive, emotional men who are not like that. It is seen as part of the (pseudo) phaenomenon of "toxic masculinity".

In reality, it's a dismantling of classic male virtues. You are not allowed to be bold and strong as a bloke, because it puts pressure on manlets who never will be either of those.

The irony is that in real life, women still want bold and strong men as partners, both romantic and sexual. Classic masculinity always wins, and women don't favour wimps. Because it is hardwired in them, the same way that men are hardwired, by and large, to seek out particularly feminine women, no matter if they have a chance with them or not.

>>15650
Yeah alright Sargon. Enough of the pseudointellectual anti-feminism, we aren't going to buy your testosterone cream.

>>15661
He's not wrong, his post reminded me of a Guardian (of course) article that explicitly said women are as physically strong as men before proceeding to talk about why our definition of 'strong' is wrong.

Nutters the lot of them.

>>15663

Obviously it's rather daft to say women on average are better at deadlifts than men or anything like that, but there's plenty of merit to pointing out that women live longer, suffer pain and illness less harshly and can do childbirth and that. I'd say that's all 'physical strength'.

We could just go back to saying humans are strong in general, like. We did manage to fight everything else on the planet.

>>15663
Gaurdian news article or Gaurdian opinion bin? The distinction is paramount.

>>15664

This isn't to detract from any biological qualities women do have, but I suspect that the greater longevity in lifespan statistics of women versus men owes at least in part to the smaller chance, on average, of death or injury at work, less chance of violent assault or suicide, and less risky behaviour generally.

It irks me a bit when people take stats at face value. Even my favourite economists come out with phrases like "the hardier constitution of women". Fair enough, it may be true, but you can't just take lifespan alone.

I would be interested to read about the illness and pain comparisons you mention, though.

>>15666

A 65 year old woman would expect to live about three years longer than a 65 year old man, so the difference in life expectancy isn't just young men doing daft things. The gap has been narrowing, partly due to a reduction in workplace deaths, partly because of the decline in smoking and partly due to the increase in female obesity.

Weird as it may seem, loneliness may be one of the biggest factors explaining the gap - it has a drastic effect on your life expectancy and older men are far more likely to be lonely than older women.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223190/life_expectancy.pdf

>>15667
>A 65 year old woman would expect to live about three years longer than a 65 year old man, so the difference in life expectancy isn't just young men doing daft things.

Good point on loneliness, but this does presume that none of the daft stuff men do in their youth have physical or mental effects going into their sixties.

>>15666

I think the biggest impact on longevity is your lifestyle. Men tend to not look after themselves as well as women, by and large. In general, women go to the NHS-recommended regular health check ups more than men, and they also go to see a doctor sooner when something seems to actually be wrong.

Also, men are more drawn to savoury foods and saturated fats in their diets than women, who generally prefer lighter and vegetarian dishes. Men also drink loads more beer and alcohol than women and also smoke more.

What also has an effect is that it is usually men who work physically demanding jobs such as builders or technicians. That kind of work puts loads of stress on your body as well over the decades.

You can see that in men who reach very old age, i.e. 80 or 90 or even beyond. Most of them looked after themselves well their whole lives, and they were generally educated knowledge workers in the widest sense with quiet desk jobs during their professional lives.

So even if you were born male, there is a lot you can do to influence your individual life expectancy.

On the other hand, genes also play a role in your resilience. There are people who smoked their entire lives - in moderation - and drank a pint or two every night and still lived to be 90. It is thought that they simply carry more robust genes than most people and are thus able to withstand environmental stress better.

What you shouldn't do is assume that you will be one of those people, and smoke and drink your whole life hoping that it's not going to have an effect on you.

>>15674

I'm convinced in the world of medical marvel we live in, that the main difference between someone who lives to 80 or 90 Vs someone who dies earlier is mostly luck. Obviously being healthy will help, but if the NHS can keep someone like my grandad going, a career fireman who smoked 40 a day until he was 65, then I'm convinced a couple of cheeseburgers isn't going to be what stops me from hitting that age.

Physical jobs definitely knack you up though. Most head chefs look about twenty years older than they are. Ramsey's barely 50 ffs.

>>15675

> Most head chefs

Ah, cheflad. Good to see you again.


Gordon Ramsay looks as old as he does because he's a fucking choleric who will jump in your face if your eggs are 30 seconds underboiled. That's a kind of disposition that ages you pretty fast.

At one of my old jobs, my boss was a bit like that. He was an uber demanding A-person who expected you to give 120 percent all the time, and yelled at you as a matter of principle if someting you did wasn't to his satisfaction. He was the main reason I quit. Because I didn't like getting shouted at for every minor slip up that I didn't manage to hide from him. The last I heard from that company was that he apparently had a near fatal heart attack on the job last year, at age 47.

At the other end of the spectrum, one of my good friends has a granddad who is 82 and worked his whole life as a higher-level public service employee. He is just one of the most relaxed, laid back and balanced people you will ever meet, and according to my friend, he has always been that way. And he is in very good health for his age, and until recently still rode his bicycle everywhere.

>>15676
What a load of shite - Gordon Ramsay is fit a fiddle. You can tell just by looking at him. He's a black belt in karate and an MMA cage fighter. Just cos he's got some lines on his face doesn't mean he has heart disease.

>>15680

His face tells the entire story. He looks at least 60. The only reason he's still sprightly is because he got out from actual cheffing about fifteen years ago, and has the money and time to do the training.

You'll never get a look at how destructive it is from the celebrities, because they're rich and not chefs any more. The rest of us are all buckled over, twisted gargoyles by about 35.

>>15674

There's not a huge gender difference in lifestyles. Men and women have similar obesity rates. Men are very slightly more likely to smoke (19% vs 17%) but it's not hugely significant. Men drink more, but they can tolerate it better - there's a legitimate justification in the gender difference for recommended units.

>>15675

Luck plays a role, but the effects of lifestyle are massive on a population level. The difference in healthy life expectancy between the poorest 10% and the richest 10% is nearly seventeen years. In some parts of the country, life expectancy changes by ten years in the space of half a mile. You might get hit by a bus or die of ball cancer in your thirties, but you're stacking the odds in your favour by looking after yourself.

>>15681

I was chatting to a lad at the weekend in a pub as I waited for my mtb wheels to be mended. He told me he was a runner, I said I prefer bikes as he gave me concern regarding his 10k fitness. I asked him how old he was, he told me 25 so I said he's still got many miles left in him, once you get to my age things start to slow down. He asked 'how old are you, 30?'. My reply of 45 in a couple of months was met with a 'fuucking nooo way, really?'. I do get a lot of people doing a double take when they realise my age.

>>15681

>You'll never get a look at how destructive it is from the celebrities, because they're rich and not chefs any more.

True. Just look at Jamie Oliver, who is well into his early 40s by now but still has that boyish air about him. He turned his back on all the hard kitchen graft about fifteen years ago, and his royalties from books, TV shows and everything else pretty much mean he can spend most of his time being a posh overweening annoying cunt, who expects average joe viewers to make 30 minute meals from salmon, truffles and lemongrass (which me may or may not use all in one recipe).


>>15683

I'm nearly your age, and I also still look improbably young. I started colouring my hair a few years ago because I am a vain enough git that my grey hair started bothering me. But other than that, I was lucky enough that I didn't have to spend the last 20 years working some tough as nails 12 hours a day office job, like some of my friends from uni. Things just went at a more leisurely pace in my life. And it shows. When I think back to one of my first bosses out of uni, he was 42, had his own business, and he just looked old. His hair was all white, his face wrinkled, and he just had an air about him like a spent middle aged human being. I kind of swore to myself I would never end up that way, and by and large, I think I have kept that promise to myself.

>>15686

>True. Just look at Jamie Oliver, who is well into his early 40s by now but still has that boyish air about him. He turned his back on all the hard kitchen graft about fifteen years ago

From what I've heard on the Industry Insider Gossip Grapevine, he was a lazy, bad Sous chef at the River Cafe and it was a relief when he was discovered by the Beeb. That could just be jealous mumblings, mind. I can't particularly imagine a michelin place keeping dead weight around. But I'd like to believe it as he's so loathsome I'd like to believe I'm better than him.

_{where the fuck is my TV show}

>>15687

>From what I've heard on the Industry Insider Gossip Grapevine, he was a lazy, bad Sous chef

Those qualities aren't particularly relevant when you hang up the cooking spoon and become a TV chef though. What counts on TV is screen appeal. I still think he is being an overweening posh cunt most of the time, but I guess a critical mass of people have liked him enough over the years to have enjoyed watching him.

It's also typically not the most capable people who get promoted and/or discovered. I used to work in politics, and that included breathing the same air as a handful of well-known figures of national politics. People whose names you really actually hear on the news almost every night. I could tell you about two or three of them who were really useless as fuck as (typically local) politicians before they got promoted to do greater things. Politics in particular is an area where the only thing that really counts is to forge alliances to the people who hold positions of power, who will then take you under their wing and help you up through thre ranks. And I think that also goes for many things, including becoming a TV personality. If you know the right people, and if they see something in you, even if it's just the fact that you know how to suck up to them, then there is a good chance you will have it made. However shit you really actually may have been at the job you were doing up to that point.

>>15688

It's true that being a good chef has little to do with being a TV chef, and I can't deny his popularity, my mum loves him.

I fully understand why the big hitters like Ramsey, MPW and Tom Kerridge move off into TV land, but I'd much rather them still be helming a three star restaurant somewhere, it's the equivalent of Picasso giving up painting to go do Art Attack.

I suppose it's truly a young man's game though. I'm not even thirty and I don't think I could do full time on the line anymore.The problem is most people in the industry certainly aren't lucky enough to get TV or book deals, or even just move up into ops/development/management like myself. They're stuck in that sweaty horrible life until they retire, but to be honest I've NEVER seen a 60 year old chef, let alone 75. I don't know what happens to these lads, but they just can't keep up at a certain point, especially when they've been crippled by 40 years of kitchen work already.

>>15688

This makes me feel quite stupid for leaving a job in which I had an unofficial mentor who unilaterally hired me and promised me training, future career, etc..

Still, have to forge your own path I suppose.

>>15688
>What counts on TV is screen appeal

>>15690

>a job in which I had an unofficial mentor who unilaterally hired me and promised me training, future career, etc..

That may have been just a carrot that was dangled in front of your face. Loads of employers promise you great things if you put your back into your job and what-have-you. Quite often, very little of it comes true. And then when you ask, where is my promotion or my raise now that I have put in all the extra effort, you are told that business is slow at the moment and they can't afford to give you any of that right now. And so the charade continues. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.


>>15689

>The problem is most people in the industry certainly aren't lucky enough to get TV or book deals, or even just move up into ops/development/management like myself. They're stuck in that sweaty horrible life until they retire

Also, if what a friend who is also a trained chef told me is true, incomes vary widely in the restaurant industry. He said if you are lucky enough to be hired by a reputable five-star restaurant or hotel, you will earn a decent amount of money. But if you work in an unremarkable country inn, you will make barely enough to support yourself.

>>15689

>I fully understand why the big hitters like Ramsey, MPW and Tom Kerridge move off into TV land

I'm no chef and will probably never cook food for a living, but to be honest, I think working under somebody like Ramsay doesn't seem such a scary thought. He's straightforward and outspoken, with him, you always know what is expected of you. He runs a tight ship, but he's not just a choleric cunt, but somebody with a warm side as well. He cares. The only thing you probably have to do under him is to keep giving 110 percent all the time. But these days, if you can't do that, in your respective field, then the job world may not be for you as a whole.

>>15693

Dunno mate. I work in the public sector, people ask me if I'm feeling alright if I so much as make it in on time.

>>15694

So... that's your 110 percent then? Showing up for work every morning on time?

>>15695

Once or twice a week if I'm feeling extra motivated.

>>15696

Definition of socialism there, lad

>>15699

No. Reality in about 70 percent of all workplaces in the UK.

>>15703

>>15692

>Also, if what a friend who is also a trained chef told me is true, incomes vary widely in the restaurant industry.

True enough. There's a lot of variation. 8 quid an hour is fairly typical for a CDP (line cook) of an unexceptional restaurant, but usually you'll also get a share of tips, and in a busy restaurant that can work out to be two or three pounds extra per hour. Also consider that many chefs are doing 60 hour weeks, and it adds up, though it's still hugely unfair considering the amount of work they're doing.

The industry is shooting itself in the foot, as underpaying your general staff leads very quickly to staff shortages, which means you need to hire an agency chef, and they get paid 12-15 quid an hour at the very least, plus agency fees. So, all the disgruntled chefs at Carluccios or Zizzi or wherever tell them to shove their zero hour minimum wage contract up their arse and go work for the agencies. When I was agency I was sold as a head chef, and I was making 25-35 an hour depending on how desperate they were for someone competent.

Probably the smartest thing any competent British chef can do is fuck off to Dubai. I have friends there pulling silly money, 100k+ running their hotels, and the teams are so huge you get to spend a lot of your time on the fun stuff.

>>15693

I've certainly worked with much cuntier people than him. Like you say, he's an incredibly chef and most of the team who have worked under him in his heyday are industry leaders in their own right, most with at least their own restaurant under their belt. So a bit of screaming is absolutely worth it for working with one of the most talented and knowledgeable men in the industry.

It's impossible to be a good chef without being passionate, and in a hot, cramped, stressful, noisy environment, this passion is most easily manifested as aggression. There's not really time during service in a place like that to gently prod someone or talk them through their mistakes, you just have to shout at them to fix it, and if they're not capable of fixing it, then they have to fuck off. The risks are too great at that level - lose a michelin star and you lose a couple of million in revenue that year.

Many chefs insist it's impossible to run a kitchen at any level without this aggressive demeanour, but that's really not true, I don't even think it's the easiest way - but you chuck 8 blokes in a 35C metal box for 14 hours and the natural response is a bit of shouting, so that Ramsay style is found all over. I happen to think it's much easier and less fatiguing to run a kitchen calmly. You can still apply pressure without calling someone a donkey, you can still bark orders without sounding like you want to kill someone. I find it makes for a more efficient team, and you're much less likely to have anyone walk out mid shift on you - a frequent occurrence in the industry.

Rene Redzepi doesn't allow shouting or swearing at all at Noma, yet that managed to be literally the best restaurant in the world, so it's definitely not necessary.

>>15705

I should probably also say that a lot of chefs truly love what they do and that's worth a lot when it comes to thinking about your salary. I earn an embarrassing amount doing consulting and ops work now, but honestly I was a lot happier in the tiny seafood gastropub that paid me 22 grand and let me experiment with my menu and put out proper quality food.

>>15705

The British version of Kitchen Nightmares makes it clear that Ramsay isn't a cunt, he just has standards. Whenever he encountered a chef who really wanted to do a good job, he was supportive and encouraging; he reserved his ire for people who clearly didn't give a shit.

>>15709

He can be a cunt with standards.

>>15710
He wasn't a cunt to the lad who couldn't move past not having a star anymore, he really helped him sort his priorities out and showed him resting on his laurels had resulted in his partner moving past him as he had forgot how to prepare fish.

>>15711

500 pounds to think about a fucking cheeseboard you fat bastard

>>15712

(I'm not trying to call him a cunt here, to be honest. He's pretty much on the money throughout)

>>15709
>>15711

I think it's pretty easy to get on Gordon Ramsay's good side. Even if your restaurant is in deep shit, the thing he expects from you is to take responsibility for it and give it your all to try to turn it around.

I think that's really what aggravates him. People not taking responsibility for their own failures and making excuses, blaming others and not wanting to admit they've screwed up. He's always ready to meet you halfway, and if you accept his help and are ready to change your ways, you're golden with him.

Also, he has a particular disgust for minging storage freezers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9xQWYsOnDc

The latter with good reason. One of my parents' friends worked 20 years for the council as a restaurant food safety inspector. She had discretion to shut down restaurants and forbid them from serving any more food until their food hygiene issues were sorted out. Gordon Ramsay isn't taking the piss on Kitchen Nightmares when he tells them he's shutting them down for the evening. Poorly stored food ingredients really can develop pathogens that can make you spend a few days puking and shitting your guts out, and much worse.

>>15724

I'll never understand how people let kitchens get in these sorts of states. I've seen them myself and it's the only time I've not felt an ounce of guilt for firing them.

Three people died last year from restaurant hygiene or cross contamination related issues, and a lot of people involved got prison time for it - rightly so.

>>15725

The sad thing is, most people would never allow their fridges at home to deteriorate into a state like that.

I'm a bachelor and my fridge looks a little gross now and then, so I adopted a habit a few years ago of clearing it out completely every two to three months, scrubbing all its removable shelves in the kitchen sink with chlorine bleach, and then proceeding to the inside of the fridge and spraying and wiping it, too, with bleach. Well and then wiping it down throughly with warm tap water in a bucket afterwards, so the chlorine smell won't seep into the food that much.

I sometimes discover things in the back of my fridge like a mummified courgette or a lemon covered in blue mold. That isn't ideal, but I don't think it's really a health hazard as such. From what you see on Kitchen Nightmares, on the other hand, some restaurant kitchen staff apparently don't give their storage freezers a good clean for two or three years, or even longer.

But maybe it's because I am the only person who has access to my fridge at home. If I don't clean it, nobody on this wide Earth will. I guess if you've got eight or nine people working in a restaurant kitchen, it's difficult to instill a sense of responsibility into each and every one of them that a storage freezer simply must not be allowed to get that way.

But in the end, that's a universal problem in many workplaces. Nobody feels responsible, so things go to shit.

>>15727

Cleaning all the ram packed freezers, fridges and walk ins is a daunting task once you've let it get on top of you, so I understand how it happens in understaffed kitchens, but cleanliness should be priority #1 and it's distressing to me that professionals don't understand that. I've never questioned any head chef under me who went over his labour if the reason was cleaning.

>But in the end, that's a universal problem in many workplaces. Nobody feels responsible, so things go to shit

This is basically it, though you'd hope the head and sous would feel responsible enough to make sure it's sorted, but plenty of them are simply not good managers.

What I've always done is assign one fridge or freezer as the responsibility of one person - every week he pulls everything out, sorts and cleans it, and keeps an eye on it throughout the week. There's usually six or seven fridges and freezers in a kitchen so it's easy to do, and usually it's enough to instil that responsibility in them, and very quickly you get them bollocking others for messing up THEIR freezer, which is great to see and ends up pushing everyone's standards up.

>>15728

>What I've always done is assign one fridge or freezer as the responsibility of one person - every week he pulls everything out, sorts and cleans it, and keeps an eye on it throughout the week.

That's a bit like you see in some restrooms at service stations. Some have a chart at the restroom entrance with a list of the last times the bathroom was cleaned, with the time and date and the signature of the person who cleaned it. That way, not only will management (and also customers) see that the toilets are cleaned regularly, but there will be no mucking about because you stand for the cleaning job you did on those toilets with your name.

A lack of a feeling of responsibility comes from being able to blame others. If you know that nobody can blame you for your laziness, then most people will assume they will always get away with it. But as soon as something can be traced back to you and you only, most people will know that their reputation, maybe even their job as a whole hangs in the balance.

Another example are luxury carmakers like Rolls-Royce and others. The name of the mechanic who oversaw the assembly and mounting of a particular engine is put on a small little brass plaque on the engine itself. Not only does it instill a sense of pride in those mechanics, because what mechanic wouldn't want their name on a Rolls-Roye engine, but it also means they know that their reputation as an employee is at stake if they don't deliver top quality.

A blue plaque celebrating a woman described as “the first modern lesbian” is to be changed after complaints it “erased” her sexuality. The tribute to 19th-century diarist Anne Lister described her as “gender-nonconforming” but did not explicitly say she was a lesbian.

The plaque was unveiled on 24 July at Holy Trinity church in York, marking the location where Lister received communion with her girlfriend after exchanging rings at home almost 200 years ago. A draft of the new wording will be proposed and opened for public comment in the coming weeks.

The original plaque read: “Gender-nonconforming entrepreneur. Celebrated marital commitment, without legal recognition, to Ann Walker in this church. Easter, 1834.”

An online petition calling on York Civic Trust to change the wording attracted more than 2,500 signatures. The petition said: “Anne Lister was, most definitely, gender non-conforming all her life. She was also however, a lesbian. Don’t let them erase this iconic woman from our history.”

Julie Furlong, who started the petition, told the BBC she was pleased the wording was to change: “I am very happy that they have realised that lesbian erasure is not acceptable, but I will wait to hear on the final wording before expressing opinion as to that.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/03/plaque-for-first-modern-lesbian-to-be-reworded-after-complaints

I'd have thought the fact the plaque had a rainbow outline and mentioned marital commitment to another woman would have been a massive hint about her but apparently it's lesbian erasure.

>>15856

>Julie Furlong

I wonder if she's a TERF.

https://radlesfemsurvivor.wordpress.com/2018/07/12/open-letter-to-stonewall-2/

Yep, she's a TERF.

>>15856

I have the strongest feeling that if they'd used the word lesbian instead, there'd still have been someone asking why they didn't mention her gender nonconformity.

>>15857
Does being sane require its own acronym now?

>>15860

Julie, I just want to say, I loved Sugar Rush, but you're really annoying.

>>15860
We could call ourselves Non-Radicalised Moderate Adult Laiety. NORMALs for short.

>“I’ve had people saying to me, ‘You just want to fuck about!’” says 29-year-old Calum James, who identifies as a heteroflexible pansexual solo polyamorous relationship anarchist.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/sep/25/truth-about-polyamory-monogamy-open-relationships

>>15918

When I read about non-monogamy from people like those in the article it sounds like a profound bore of endless conversations about how people feel, how they feel about what you do, and what they want and avoiding doing the things they don't want. It would suck out any of the interest I had in the fucking, I couldn't imagine a worse way to spend my existence.

From that article - "Ninety per cent of polyamory is talking. Sometimes I think, I want to watch a movie! I don’t want to talk about our relationship again. But it’s important to be able to express your fears, rather than waiting for the worst thing to happen."

That really doesn't sound attractive, no matter how many nutters I can line up for a good talking to.

Fair play though, if it floats their collective boats.

>>15918

>heteroflexible pansexual solo polyamorous relationship anarchist

You see, I'm from a generation where you were either straight or a 'moe. Bisexual maybe, but rarely.

All of that just blows my mind and kind of doesn't compute with me.

I'm not saying don't do whatever floats your boat, but it's just an alien way of thinking to many people who grew up when I did.

>>15920

I personally have more invested interest being non-monogamous myself so I don't quite accept the 'what ever floats your boat angle'. This model of thinking is suckling all of the joy out of it. I don't want to have to have endless conversations about feelings and have to swear allegiance to intersectionality, but that seems to be what most of the culture thinks they need to do.

>>15921

A lot of the string of definitions is really people with too much time on their hands, it's kind of the difference between saying you like rock music and saying you like a very specific subgenre that most people haven't heard of, you are at some level doing it for attention.

Is it just that the people who talk endlessly about it are the ones who end up in articles in the Graun, and the ones where it's a simple n-way group getting on with things how they like, fly under the radar?
I imagine shouty gaym8 will be along to say that it's important that people stand up and be counted and proud. And he's probably right. But dammit, heteroflex pan solo(tm), soon to appear in a desneyfied movie near you, sounds like a fuckwad.

>>15924

>Is it just that the people who talk endlessly about it are the ones who end up in articles in the Graun, and the ones where it's a simple n-way group getting on with things how they like, fly under the radar?

Exactly. A majority of young people identify as "not entirely heterosexual", but most of them don't feel the need to concoct an extremely specific set of labels for what gets them off. A tiny minority of sexual trainspotters have turned the whole thing into a nerdy subculture, which The Guardian is only too happy to publicise because it gets loads of rageclicks.

This shouty gaym8 does think that it's important for people to stand up and be counted and proud, but you don't need a massive string of sub-sub-sub-categories to do that. If anything, that hyperspecific sexual categorisation is much more stigmatising than a simple taxonomy of "gay", "straight", "bi", "heteroflexible" and "not too picky after four pints".

>>15921
It's the sort of person who lets a label define them rather than defining themselves as a person first and foremost who also happens to be x.

Twats, in other words.

>>15923

I agree.

Or if you like chicken, you probably won't blurt out to everybody when they ask you if you do, whether they care or not, that it needs to be organic, farm raised, free range, organic grain fed chicken, and that you need your chicken breast to be done five minutes on either side and with a very specific marinade and side dishes of mashed potato and green beans.

And if you do, you're probably just a pompous toff who thinks his taste in chicken is far superior to everybody else's. Which I assume to be true also for people who overspecify their sexual preferences. You don't become a superior bell end nosher just because you can throw around half a dozen sub catergories of gay sexual preferences.

Just to be clear - this is not a post against gays. Really not. It's simply about people who think that they're better than everybody else in this respect.

>>15918
>heteroflexible pansexual solo polyamorous relationship anarchist
I don't think there's been a more appropriate trigger for "you're just saying words now".

>>15928

>you're just saying words now

People like that very often don't do much else, frankly.

Graham Linehan, the co-writer of the sitcom Father Ted, has been given a verbal harassment warning by police after a complaint by a transgender activist.

Linehan was told by West Yorkshire police not to contact the activist Stephanie Hayden, after a row on Twitter. Hayden reported him for transphobia after he referred to her as “he” and for “deadnaming” her by referring to her by names used before she transitioned.

Hayden has previously accused Sussex University of being a “temple of transgender hate” and supported the campaign to oust female academics if they challenged transgender orthodoxy. She was also among the activists who pressurised a billboard company to remove a poster in Liverpool, which said the dictionary definition of “woman” was an “adult human female” because it was offensive.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/oct/07/graham-linehan-police-warning-complaint-by-stephanie-hayden-transgender-activist-twitter

>>16010
I was observing Lineham's decent into TERFdom and his subsequent Twitter freak out, although in fairness he's been in a perpetual state of Twitter freak out for years now, just the other day. There's no excuse for deadnaming or calling a transwoman "he", even if I do think getting the coppers involved is a bit much. This is just another example of how grossly unproductive most "debate" on Twitter is, whether it's Mary Beard making herself cry by way of an apology or my poor, naive, mum watching a music video because some band told her to, the whole thing has gone to hell in a handbasket.

And while that poster's supposed to sound innoculous, it's a bit like if a bunch of white nationalists put up posters saying "aren't little white babies beautiful?", which yeah, they are, sort of, but there's obviously a further implication that non-white kiddies aren't. Not that I'm saying TERFs are as bad as white nationalists, I'm just making a point about the posters' true meaning. It's essentially a troll poster, likely conceived, where else? On Twitter.

>>16011
>There's no excuse for deadnaming or calling a transwoman "he", even if I do think getting the coppers involved is a bit much

It doesn't seem that unreasonable in this instance. However, I've definitely had to mentally separate Graham Lineham the Father Ted creator from Graham Lineham the Twitter drama queen; don't meet your idols and all that.

>>16011

A large part of me believes that the shenanigans of gender identity politics are one insurmountable reason why the human species does not deserve to survive in the future.

>>16012
It doesn't look understandable at all to me, he's clearly just trying to get under her skin by being a cunt, unnecessarily so. But yeah, whatever happened to him when he found Twitter has long rendered Linehan* a confirmed div.

*Honestly thought he was "Lineham" all this time until I saw his cropped tweet there, which means I was on his Twitter, reading his tweets and still didn't notice, just days ago.

>>16014
Two points, firstly stop being so melodramic, you great, bloody, baby. Second, the "shenanigans of gender identity politics" is a phrase that makes very little sense. You've smushed "gender identity" and "identity politics" into one and thought it still carried meaning, which it doesn't really rather doesn't. The first bit is about how people express themselves with regards to the present definitions of gender we have, and the second is a right wing slur for when black Americans don't want to bathe in lead polluted water or women are all "hey, quit raping me". I suppose you could say that "gender identity politics" is the advocacy and awareness side of talking about transsexual people, but it's a very cynical way to frame it, especially when trans men and women are all "hey, quit beating me up and raping me" about it. Oh, and don't misgender them just because it makes your six-hundred-and-seventy-two-thousand Twitter followers feel like they got one over on Stephanie Hayden and her twelve-hundred followers.

>>16012
>It doesn't seem that unreasonable in this instance.

I don't know why you'd say that. The screenshot you've posted is Linehan lying that trans women have multiple identities. Stephanie Hayden wishes to be known as a woman named Stephanie Hayden; not respecting that is transphobic. And Linehan says he only respects the names and pronouns of trans women who agree with him, which is hilarious.

>>16015

And next thing I'll know, you are probably going to tell me that gender science is an actual science.

>>16017
I don't think I've ever heard the term "gender science" before now, but well done finding fault with something entirely unknown to me and not anything I actually said, it shows impressive intellectually cowardice on your part.

>>16018

Fine, so the broadly accepted term is gender studies. Which I assume you are indeed familiar with.

The problem though is that gender studies, despite claims to the contrary by its proponents, does not employ methods that conform with what the scientific academic community would accept as indeed scientific. It is largely a pseudoscience which attempts to justify sometimes quite bold and daring claims by attempting to corroborate those claims with skewed methods of data gathering or by outright ignoring well-established and peer reviewed scientific fact if it goes against the ideas that gender science holds to be true.

In that sense, gender studies has more in common with organised religion than with social or even natural science as such. This is especially true when you look at the sometimes quite extreme and fanatic reactions of its followers when you doubt the overall scientific legitimacy of gender studies.

>>16014
Not all the war, genocide, man-made famine, extinctions of fellow species and climate change. No, a non-issue fed to me by some YouTube stars is the reason our species no longer deserves to exist.

This post was brought to you by LOGIC and REASON.

>>16020

You present no reason why you should be spared from the coming extinction of our species.

>>16021
I'm pretty sure no one can escape the extinction of their species.

Besides, >>16020 doesn't exactly read as a "Application to Defy the Laws of Nature".

>>16021
I'm from Buenos Aires, and I say kill 'em all!

>>16023

>>16019

Except medically diagnosible transexualism is just that, medically diagnosible. Doctors and nurses in the health service aren't spreading the post-modernist view of gender, they're treating people with gender dysphoria. Gender studies is the study of the philosophical and social aspects of gender, not the medical treatment of transgender people. Given that and the amount of TERFs who would fall under the perview of those studying gender, your assumption that it's a field entirely pro-trans and has anything to do with the medical aspects of being transgender leaves me thinking you're terribly confused.

I mean, you wouldn't ask Decartes to show you his sums after he told you "I think therefore I am"; it's just not how philosphy works. Again, I think you've confused being trangender with "why do girls like pink and boys like blue?"

>>16011
I think his argument is predatory men will pretend to identify as female, to sexually assault women in toilets. There is a little evidence for this. This can be solved with gender neutral toilets.

As to my own interaction with the tranny community, I saw some back guy in a dress with a beard, which made me want to retch, on TV (a la Conchita Wurst). I tweeted about it fairly innocuously and received a tirade of abuse from said tranny and the para-tranny militants. Broken and about to rebut the insults, I decided to report the abuse and twitter locked xe's account. The system works.

>>16026
>There is a little evidence for this

It was in the news recently that a sex offender, I think he'd raped a few women and diddled a child, claimed to be trans despite not having reassignment surgery so they could get placed in a female prison. He sexually assaulted four women whilst he was there. His ex-girlfriend said he wasn't really trans but was trying it on.

>>16026

>I saw some back guy in a dress with a beard, which made me want to retch

>I tweeted about it fairly innocuously

I find the innocuous part hard to believe, frankly.

>>16027
Yeah that was what I remember. Though I don't have figures for the number of transgender people using toilets and the number of assaults to make any meaningful conclusions.

>>16028
It was "Why is there a black tranny on [TV programme]?"

>>16025

Are you deliberately being daft?

The issue isn't if somebody will be diagnosed as transsexual. Nor is the issue if transsexuality as such exists. Modern psychology, from empirical scientific studies, says it does very much exist. The problem is that gender studies says gender is all a construct that is ultimately entirely arbitrary. But when you look at the world around you, that is hardly the case. People aren't forced into "stereotypical" gender roles, but the majority assume them freely, which means that most girls will indeed enjoy playing with dolls or wearing pink skirts, whereas boys will largely prefer cars and mechanical toys and they will want to assert their masculinity as they grow into juveniles and young adults. Nobody twists their arm, they tend to fall into those modes all on their own. And now gender studies tries to tell us that boys should discover their fondness for dolls or assume what is typically considered more feminine behaviour, and masculinity as such is branded as "toxic".

And that is why I will never take gender studies seriously. In essence, it is another covert attempt by feminism to "overcome patriarchy" by deconstructing and destroying masculinity.

The bitter truth though is that the vast majority of women will always prefer a "lad's lad" who exudes all the markings of traditional masculinity. Women by and large don't give a fuck about soft, understanding, in touch with their feminine side types. They want manly men, even if they tell themselves they don't, and no matter how fervently gender studies advocates try to deconstruct masculinity.

>>16031
Daft bollocks like this is why I choose the blue pill every time. Now I always win the pissing contest.

>>16031
I'm being consistantly smarter than you.

Almost all that first paragraph of your's does is reiterate the point about gender studies having little to do with people actually being transgender or not, only the philosophic thought around it. You seem to think I'm taking a stance on the "blue v pink" thing, but I very much haven't no matter how hard you try to spark a cunt off about it. As for your wilful conflation of what feminists mean when they say "toxic masculinity", the very prefix of "toxic" is there to distinguish it from regular, non-harmful, masculine behaviour. IE, the difference between wanting to physically exert ones self by climbing a tree to rescue a cat (good, okay, keep it up, lads) and wanting to physically exert yourself by getting pissed and starting a fight because you can't talk to your dad (bad, stop it, cut it out, mate).

Mainstream feminism is making no effort to stop you from going to the gym, becoming a tree surgeon or shagging loads of birds, and doing so by showing off your lovely, big muscles. I think what mainstream feminism is more concerned with is all the sexual violence and entitlement, wage inequality and empowering women. Whatever your take on those select issues, none of them can reasonably be seen as an attack on masculinity, unless you're so far gone as to think rape, gender based pay gaps and disenfranchising young girls are positive things for men.

One thing I woud just add, and I think it's highly pertenant, is what the name of fuck does any of that have to do with transgender people? You know, that thing I was talking about before you made up this other thing called "gender science".

>>16033

Learn to spell, for fucks sake.

>>16031
>The bitter truth though is that the vast majority of women will always prefer a "lad's lad" who exudes all the markings of traditional masculinity. Women by and large don't give a fuck about soft, understanding, in touch with their feminine side types. They want manly men, even if they tell themselves they don't, and no matter how fervently gender studies advocates try to deconstruct masculinity.

This isn't true. In my anecdotal experience the kind of birds who are worth bothering with want someone who is both. Kind of like how (stereotypically at least) a lot of men want a virginal, homely wife who is still a filthy slag in the bedroom for him and only for him.

Also why should we be factoring sex-appeal in later life into how we socialise and educate our children? How do you even know a lad will want girls to fancy him when he's older?

>>16031
>>16033

>People aren't forced into "stereotypical" gender roles, but the majority assume them freely, which means that most girls will indeed enjoy playing with dolls or wearing pink skirts

Unless I'm wrong, pink was very much for boys (and blue for girls) until 100 years ago. I don't really think there's a particular reason for girls = pink (possibly boys = cars) aside from everyone insisting that that is the case.

>The bitter truth though is that the vast majority of women will always prefer a "lad's lad" who exudes all the markings of traditional masculinity. Women by and large don't give a fuck about soft, understanding, in touch with their feminine side types. They want manly men, even if they tell themselves they don't, and no matter how fervently gender studies advocates try to deconstruct masculinity.

I really feel like you're trying to write a homoerotic novel here.

The problem here is that you're polarising the argument into two opposing types of men and then asserting that people want A but pretend to want B. The issue is a lot more complicated than that, but if I may- yeah, women do like a lot of masculine traits and they are important, however if us lad m8s could be a bit more open about our feelings it would do both us and them a favour.

As >>16035 has just written; most girls just want a decent bloke that's alright with talking about his feelings.

General feminism doesn't want us all in chastity getting cucked and knitting, it just wants us to be a bit more open about our feelings and to stop having high suicide rates. We do have a bit of a shit time, and if you're not dense about it- it is an invitation to tell your story.

Or you could just conflate sexuality, gender studies, feminism, etc in to one ball.

>>16036

I'm interested to know where feminism has shown serious concern about male suicide rates. Ideally specific writers or researchers.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/10/dog-rape-and-mein-kampf-feminist-text-why-we-hoaxed-journals-terrible

>>16036
I can't think of any evidence at all that would suggest feminism gives a shit about anything so irrelevant to them as male suicide.

>>16036
>Unless I'm wrong, pink was very much for boys (and blue for girls) until 100 years ago.
You're wrong. I don't have the source to hand, but it's an urban myth. The current order is only around 100 years old, but it wasn't a straight flip.

>>16037
Oh, clear off ShowYourWorkingLad, this is a shedpub, not A Level trigonometry.

>>16041

PEOPLE ARE MAKING INTERESTING CLAIMS BUT NOBODYS ALLOWED TO ASK FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.GS

>>16041

Actually I am genuinely interested, because I've been honestly losing faith that anyone beyond a few very specific groups gives a shit about it.

I feel like there is a conflagration with performed and performative gender blue and pink is quite irrelevant (baby blue is far more a woman's colour then a mans).

Where as boys like cars girls like dolls seems far more rooted in biology. Girls will develop more sophisticated social/people skills then boys and much earlier (dolls tend to be about role playing this for girls) and boys will develop practical, fighting and mechanical skills much earlier. And as far as I am aware this will happen without promoting in controlled conditions. (I've met people who were quite determined to prove this is conditioning and we're somewhat disappointed with their results when they found them but objective enough scientists to acknowledge their results).

Academia has something of a circle jerk at the moment where the conclusions about gender have already been made and only the evidence and research that reaches this conclusion is acknowledged or even funded in the first place.

>>16044
How can boys be biologically predisposed to be interested in something invented in the late 19th century?

>>16045

It did seem like he explained that already.

>>16045
Time travel lad.

>>16045

How do cats know to use the litter tray but don't bother to learn to use the loo?

Something else for you to ponder whilst you consider the idea of how instincts for tool use might lead to favour play with mechanical objects over social reenactment.

>>16048
>How do cats know to use the litter tray
Conditioning.

>but don't bother to learn to use the loo
They tend to have trouble with flushing, the lid and (in case of single males) the seat.

>instincts for tool use
In primates we've observed tool use in the wild by females.

>>16048
>How do cats know to use the litter tray but don't bother to learn to use the loo?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vNpujPhs_U

>>16044

>Girls will develop more sophisticated social/people skills then boys and much earlier (dolls tend to be about role playing this for girls) and boys will develop practical, fighting and mechanical skills much earlier. And as far as I am aware this will happen without promoting in controlled conditions.


It just seems to be hardwired, and it both has its purpose and has made us a successful species, from an evolutionary standpoint. As a very generalised statement, boys tend to grow up to be the toolmakers, the ones who drive technology and are more mechanically inclined, and have probably done so since cavepersons first started fashioning hand axes from lumps of flintstone. While girls and women seem to have more of a knack for shaping and influencing social structures in a tribe or group of people, and they also seem to be more drawn to the task of rearing and looking after the children.

Gender studies sees this as a so-called biologism at best, but more generally as forced gender roles that should be abolished. While at the same time ignoring that it just very much seems to be the way our hardwired biology functions in the majority of human specimens.

That isn't to say girls should not strive to be engineers. They absolutely should, if they have that kind of talent and want to make a career out of it. More power to them. And also, there are boys and men with quite sophisticated social skills who are more tuned into the subtleties of human interaction, and good social skills often actually make you appear attractive as a potential mate to women as well (still talking from the evolution biology standpoint here).

Also, it's all well and good that people nowadays get to say they're gender fluid, or that they are one of a dozen genders that gender studies appears to have found out about. But the scientific fallacy of gender studies again is that it projects the concept of gender fluidity which around five to ten percent of the population will agree with and project it onto the remaining 90 percent of the population, who, if you ask them, will invariably identify as wholely male or female, and maybe even give you a funny look for even bringing up such a non-issue. And it is then not the fault of their ignorance that they adhere to fixed genders, but it is the fault of gender studies for not realising that gender for the majority of people really isn't fluid at all.

>>16049

>>How do cats know to use the litter tray
>Conditioning.

Except it isn't otherwise it would be equally easy to teach them to use the loo and we would have never bothered with litter trays, there is something in cats programing that litter trays appeal to.

>instincts for tool use
>In primates we've observed tool use in the wild by females.
I never implied we didn't, or that they were incapiable, just that the early development of males is more focused towards it than females. If I said black men can run the hundred meters faster than white men it doesn't mean that white men can't run the 100m and every white man is slower than every black man.


>>16051 I was aware of this, and the fact that you first have to make the toilet a litter tray to get them to make the association demonstrates my point, there is something hardwired into cats that litter trays play upon (like boys with mechanical toys), even though the litter tray is a relatively modern concept (like the toy car) it is designed in a way that appeals to the 'instict' for lack of a better term.

A TRANNY
IS A TRANNY
DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY'VE GOT A FANNY
STOP BEING SO UNCANNY
OR I'LL REPORT YOU TO YOUR GRANNY
YOU PATHETIC LITTLE MANNY
DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY'RE IRANI
IF THEY WANT TO CALL THEMSELVES ANNIE
OR EVEN DANNY
A TRANNY IS A TRANNY
THATS THE PLANNY

>>16053
>it would be equally easy to teach them to use the loo^{[citation needed]}

>I never implied we didn't
Yes, you did. See, you can't really have your idea that males are biologically wired for tool use without the inherent implication that females are not biologically wired for it, because it would otherwise be a completely empty statement. If males are indeed biologically wired for tool use, then in the wild we would see mainly male primates using tools, but what we've actually observed is mainly females.

>the fact that you first have to make the toilet a litter tray to get them to make the association demonstrates my point
No, it doesn't. It demonstrates the exact opposite. It's a fairly straightforward example of conditioning.

You have to either pick

that cats only use litter trays because we 'condition' them to and therefore we could' condition' them to use the loo without using a litter tray first just as easily. given both are completely unnatural concepts to them.

OR

cats have a better understanding of litter trays because of instict and it is therefore harder to train them to use the loo.

you can't have both.

>>16057
One behaviour is easier to condition because it's closer to natural instincts, but it's still conditioning.

>>16055

>Yes, you did. See, you can't really have your idea that males are biologically wired for tool use without the inherent implication that females are not biologically wired for it,because it would otherwise be a completely empty statement.


>without the inherent implication that females are not biologically wired for it

Where is that written? female lions are better hunters than male lions that doesn't mean the male can't hunt.


> If males are indeed biologically wired for tool use, then in the wild we would see mainly male primates using tools, but what we've actually observed is mainly females.

That might be relivant if there wasn't 4-13 million years of genetic drift from our closest common ancestor with them that is more than enough time for social roles to change..

>>16059

Good now take that sentance and apply it to everything that has been said about male and female developmental differances.

(A good day to you Sir!)

Finally, moaning about cats, we're back on topic.

>>16061
It's getting late, lad. You can stop making shit up now.

>>16061
>Where is that written?
In the definitions of the words "more" and "less". Surely you aren't stupid enough not to realise this. If boys are more inclined to mechanical stuff than girls, then by definition girls are less inclined towards it than boys.

>genetic drift
>social roles
2/10 SEE ME

>>16069

Less isn't the same as not.

>>16070
Do you want to argue substance or semantics?

>>16071
Don't ask questions you're not ready to hear the answer to.

>>16072
I'll take that as "semantics", and direct you to kindly fuck off and leave the grown-ups to it.

>>16073
I'm not him, you horrible little sod.

And even if I was, stop calling people names and telling them to "fuck off" like you're some kind of hardcase. You're Anonymous not Achilles.

>>16074
>I'm not him, you horrible little sod.
I'm not entirely sure what difference you think that makes. If you don't have anything constructive to add, I would refer the honourable member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

>>16076
I don't even know what you pair were talking about, I just made an off-hand comment and got your melodramitic, smug reply chucked at me and thought you might benefit from having it pointed out that you're taking yourself far too seriously and you're beginning to look silly.

Maybe your little sparring partner is as well, but he hasn't proudly declared himself one of the "grown-ups" while telling people to fuck off on an imageboard in the middle of the night.

>>16077

>telling people to fuck off on an imageboard in the middle of the night

A low point in anybody's life.

>The notion of racial fluidity, or transracialism, first hit the headlines when Rachel Dolezal, the white woman posing as an African American, was exposed in 2015 and used it in her defence. The terms apply to any person identifying with a race or ethnic group that differs from their biological reality or heritage. Being transracial is not the same as simply “feeling” black, or Asian, or white. It is the complex situation of being split between cultures and denied knowledge of one’s heritage’. Lennon has been identifying as a mixed-black man for large portion of his life, both on and off stage, and some believe he has a legitimate claim to blackness. Unlike Dolezal, Lennon hasn’t had to alter his appearance to be seen as black, stating in 2012 that he went through “the struggles of a black man, a black actor” when it came to landing roles. In 1990, he starred in a BBC docu-drama about his experiences and the show’s publicity declared that Lennon’s parents “both come from Ireland and are both indisputably white”.

>I know that racial fluidity can be a very real, very unsettling experience, but I’m not convinced that Lennon’s story relates to this concept. I was born to white parents, one of whom is Irish, with no real explanation for my obvious blackness. I looked mixed race, but found that well-meaning whiteness scrubbed out a large part of who I was. We didn’t discuss race within my family, and anxieties around whether I was really related to my parents disrupted an otherwise happy childhood, until a DNA test later proved my mother had an affair. Since writing about this, many others have shared with me strikingly similar battles of belonging: black adoptees who have been raised in white spaces; those who have been lied to about their heritage; others who have had their identities rocked to the core with DNA test revelations.

>We don’t know whether difficult truths about Lennon have yet to emerge. The black-Irish “throwback gene” story that some say applies to him was also repeated to me to justify my family narrative. Lennon hasn’t spoken about any genetic evidence of his heritage, so who knows if there’s something he doesn’t know, as there was for me. I can relate to his description of flirting with multiple identities – and in psychological terms, there has been much written about how the ways others view you can contribute to your overall sense of self.

>However, I’m concerned that the conversation around racial fluidity continues to be hijacked by a privileged minority, white or white-passing people opting for a performative, monolithic type of blackness that fails to acknowledge the complexities of being a real-life person of colour. Lennon’s new racial identity was apparently born after he failed to achieve success in the acting world as a white man. But this means he may have prevented talented ethnic-minority actors from accessing an already very limited pool of funding in the creative industries. One therefore can’t help but compare this maddeningly entitled approach to Dolezal who, as a white woman, unsuccessfully tried to sue Howard University in 2002 for discriminating against her because of her race, before deciding that co-opting blackness would improve her career chances.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/06/black-anthony-lennon-theatre-director-white-mixed-race

Is race fluidity a thing now?