Rayvin

Yeah you're right about the privilege element. As far as I can tell, feminism's view on such matters is strikingly similar to the notion of 'trickle down' economics. That the gains made by the super privileged women benefit the poor ones. As such, I've heard feminists state that women at the bottom of the pay ladder on minimum wage don't need help in this respect because they're already 'equal' with men in the same position. A lot of it has become middle class and 'trendy' in my view. I do actually see her point about the problems she would have faced in other countries which have done less for women's rights, but IMO that should only emphasise how well Western society has done in this regard. I don't think the current social justice vehicle is a particularly good solution to these problems because it's primarily motivated by self interest, but if we are going to achieve meaningful change, I would argue that encouraging children to focus on people as individuals rather than as members of certain groups, would be the way to achieve this. i.e., they are a person first, a woman second. I don't think the current movement deals with this, as it sees power in terms of being able to group people and assign a set of 'values' to that group, with pressure to adopt them. I think we'll come up with something better in the end. Egalitarianism maybe, although I've heard that described as an "MRA plot to destroy feminism" so who knows if it'll ever take hold.

Nice.

Fair, but I've been playing devil's advocate for the feminists for the purpose of advancing the discussion a bit. I'm a barely veiled misogynist/nazi remember.

I was being facetious with the entire sisterhood comment tbf...

To be fair, LunaD12 is literally knifing the sisterhood in the back by claiming that she has never experienced any such things. Women being a collective, rather than individuals, after all.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/17/us-far-right-trump-politics "The American Far Right is Crashing After It's Trump Victory"

If that's directed at me, I get this mostly from the Guardian, but tbh I used to do wider reading on it while I was trying to understand what the current prevailing social narratives are. I know you all hate me, don't worry.

I wasn't criticising it so much as pointing out how the mechanism works. And apparently we're onto 4th wave now anyway, so maybe things have changed since November 2017... EDIT - I stand corrected, the contention is that 4th wave kicked off in 2012 with the rise of social media.

They've split different periods of feminism into 'waves' in order to allow for a moving of goalposts as objectives are achieved.

Nice post. Especially the final comment.

The problem with that view is that you're basically saying 3rd wave feminism isn't actually working in the interests of women by pushing on this. Which I would have to then ask you, what you think it's working towards? You think they're just misguided? I mean this isn't random people on Twitter, this is the Guardian.

The Guardian is running with this narrative, it seems clear that the legitimate socio-political capital generated by the campaign in its early stages will be used to push forward a number of other items on 3rd wave feminism's wishlist: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/17/young-women-react-metoo-dating-female-writers-discuss-panel-aziz-ansari-cat-person Consent will require an enthusiastic "Yes" when they're done, I would imagine. If this is what we need to do for women to feel safe, I guess this is what we need to do.

"#MeToo isn't enough, now women need to get ugly" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/metoo-women-daughters-harassment-powerful-men

Tbh, that probably is the truth of it

Aye but tbf, didn't Clinton release medical reports in the campaign due to fears over her own wellbeing?

I said it early on and was fine. I guess people don't like you

Aye I would just take yourself online. May as well enjoy the game to its fullest.

Aye absolutely better than him, but Troops was talking like they were looking to Man City someone. I just don't think that's what this is about.

Yeah but you're looking at this as if it was a discussion between two average people on the street. There are millions at stake here, all she will care about is the money. She's not going to walk away if she thinks she can get a good outcome for her fund. She will have far thicker skin than that.

The main appeal of PCP buying us was to get rid of Ashley. They're an investment fund. Even if they did buy, there is no chance they were going to throw money around like the lunatics who own City. Sure we may well have spent more and have been generally better managed, but it would have been a slow build over 5 years quite possibly with a view to selling on again at the end for profit.

Yeah. Was always nailed on tbh.

I still can't believe he was our manager at one point. Given how much money relegation would cost the club, it's beyond incompetent from Ashley. Willfully negligent.

@adios You're up to 96 hours already...! Must be about ready for the main game now, surely? Season will close in a couple of weeks so there's basically no consequence to online play now.

That is horrendously bad