Posted: Oct 07, 2016 2:05 pm
It would be a logically unassailable position to take, to say that – for instance – women are not very good at sport and it’s therefore not worth your time watching them doing it. If that’s what someone thinks, that’s fine: they don’t have to watch women’s sports.
It’s a more dubious position to argue that therefore – for instance – the BBC shouldn’t be wasting licencepayers’ money by covering women’s sports, because “what is newsworthy” is not the same thing as “what one particular person enjoys seeing”. It’s a dubious position, but one that I think can be dealt with by argument.
But what gives the game away, I think, is the appalling extremeness, the vindictiveness of some of the misogyny. If you think a group of people is a bit ridiculous and not worthy of your time, do you pour such vitriol on them? Or do you do it because you feel threatened when that group of people gets uppity?
Bearing in mind that the thread is not about feeling threatened by “a woman”, but “by women entering male-dominated fields”.
(Note: the word "you" in this post doesn't mean "pelfdaddy".)
It’s a more dubious position to argue that therefore – for instance – the BBC shouldn’t be wasting licencepayers’ money by covering women’s sports, because “what is newsworthy” is not the same thing as “what one particular person enjoys seeing”. It’s a dubious position, but one that I think can be dealt with by argument.
But what gives the game away, I think, is the appalling extremeness, the vindictiveness of some of the misogyny. If you think a group of people is a bit ridiculous and not worthy of your time, do you pour such vitriol on them? Or do you do it because you feel threatened when that group of people gets uppity?
Bearing in mind that the thread is not about feeling threatened by “a woman”, but “by women entering male-dominated fields”.
(Note: the word "you" in this post doesn't mean "pelfdaddy".)