It’s shocking but unsurprising that this sort of thing still happens, but women debaters at the Glasgow Union were openly booed — not for doing a bad job, but for their sex. Rebecca Meredith’s facebook page has the story, reproduced here because I know some of you are members of the Facebook Resistance.
Last night the amazing Marlena Valles and I were openly booed by a small number of misogynistic male Glasgow Union debaters and members during the final of the Glasgow Ancients competition for our presence as female speakers. Sexist comments were made about our appearance, and we were told to "get that woman out my my union" by a male member. Our speeches were interrupted by cries of "shame woman" and boos at mention of female equality within the context of the final. Sexism is not just something we talk about – it is something real people experience everyday. After complaining, we were told by several GUU debaters that it was "par for the course" and "to be expected" that female speakers in the Glasgow debating chamber would be booed (though several members including the wonderful John McKee supported us admirably). I have been told as a female debater that I should be careful not to sound "hysterical" as a female speaker, I have been told to defer to my male partner on analysis and economics because male debaters are "more convincing", but never have I been openly disparaged in a final merely for being a woman. I was increadibly proud to be in the final of the LSE Open with the wonderful Freddy Powell, epecially against the likes of Sam Block and Fred Cowell, but was deeply saddened to be informed by several other debaters (well meaningly) that I should be proud to be only the 4th woman to ever get there in the past 5 years. I am not proud, I am sad. Debaters should probably realise that while we all say we care about sexism, incidents like those of last night, the lack of proportionate numbers of females in competitive finals, and (most worryingly) the number of female freshers who report they have abandoned debating due to sexist behaviour or intimidation are not acceptable, and we should probably start doing things to change them.
Marlene Valles also has an account.
This weekend was Glasgow University Union’s annual Ancients competition. For those who don’t know what happened, during mine and my partner’s speeches, in opening government, we were “shame”-d and booed by members of the audience whenever we spoke about how the motion ‘This House Regrets the Centralization of Religion’ affected women (My partner spoke about Leila Ahmed and female clergy and I spoke about dogmatic opposition to contraception and Catholics who identified as pro-choice). We both realised why we were being booed: it was because we were advocating for women’s rights, speaking in the GUU. It was only when one of the men making the misogynistic comments and interruptions had the nerve to stand up in the floor debate and very sarcastically say, “The GUU has been proudly admitting women for thirty three years and we are committed to equality” when a member of the audience bravely stood up and responded in a rousing five-minute floor speech telling the entire chamber that the men who were booing us were whispering *women* after shouting “shame” at all of our points and making patronizing comments about our dresses. Her brilliant speech called them out and received a standing ovation from a large majority of the chamber and is without a doubt, the most inspiring thing I have seen in debating.
I understand the way that the GUU “bear pit” chamber works, I have spoken in outrounds at Ancients since my first year and last year, was a guest speaker for the Facist party at one of the Union’s famous Parliamentaries. I am fine with speaking to the gallery and having audience members clap when they like a point and even say “shame” when they don’t. What I’m not okay with is people interrupting speeches to be misogynistic. It is difficult to speak confidently to an audience that is booing you for the sole reason that you are a woman in a dress talking about women’s rights, especially when you are the only girls in the final (which is depressingly often the case on the Scottish debating circuit). I realize that it was only a few men who don’t usually debate competitively that were involved with the heckling. The problem was that it was the entire Union that seemed to be weirdly proud of its misogynistic roots throughout the competition. The social Friday night was a pub quiz which included the question, “In 1980 the GUU had a vote to allow women into the Union. There is an annual dinner to honour the men who voted against the motion– how many men were there?” and the two GUU teams participating in the quiz whooped and banged their hands on the table in support of the voters against.
After the final, I had six separate members of the GUU, many of whom I have been friends with for years, approach me and give the exact same apologist speech – “I’m sorry that they did that, but they aren’t bad guys and it’s just how it is here and how they are. They are only joking”. We were told that that was the GUU and that it was “part of the course” and our fault for calling ourselves QMU A. My partner and I were a composite team, as Ancients is an Open, and Ancients has a policy of only allowing serious sounding team names. QMU was Glasgow University’s women’s union and as an all-female team (one of four at a twenty-eight team competition) the description fit. Later, as I was getting a drink, one of the men who was booing us said quite audibly “Get that woman out of my chamber” as his GUU friends, who had minutes ago apologised for his behaviour, laughed along.
This is my question: Members of the GUU clearly knew that this was something that happened. They knew that certain members would boo women if they spoke about women’s rights. Why on earth were they allowed to come to observe the final and why were they not asked to leave after or at the very least, issue a genuine apology to the speakers that they had rudely interrupted with their misogyny?
The reason that I am writing this post is because at Ancients, nothing has changed over the last three years. I remember when I was a first year, in 2011, the opening PowerPoint read “Proudly admitting women since 1980” with the word ‘proudly’ crossed out. I feel so sorry for the women that debate in that Union, especially because the reasoning for why none of them stand up against it as told to me by three senior GUU women was that that is just how things are done and “If you can’t beat them, join them” which is intolerable. The sexism of the GUU isn’t quaint and it is not a tradition to be jokingly celebrated. I appreciate the efforts of members within the GUU to make it better and maybe that incident needed to happen because we were told by many senior GUU female members that they couldn’t do anything about it without being laughed down. Until this is genuinely dealt with, as the director of training for the Edinburgh University Debates Union, I would be incredibly wary of sending female first years to Ancients next year and will certainly not be attending in the future unless there is assurance that this won’t happen again.
This controversy has been more frustrating than anything I have ever encountered in debating. I have spoken on motions that I thought were beyond the pale and I’ve had people say quite rude things to me in debates but I have never seen such an abysmal response from a Union for something so clearly sexist. I cannot imagine that if the same situation happened but audience members in a large final were shouting out racist or homophobic interjections the response from the hosting institution would be “That is just how it is done here” or “You provoked them with your team name”.
I would like to thank the CA’s Pam Cohn and John Beechnoir as well as the equity officer, John McKee, for making it exceptionally clear that these comments should not be tolerated. If only the GUU would do the same.
As is clear from the comments, this behavior is not universal — it seems to be a small obnoxious minority that are doing their damnedest to create an uncomfortable environment for women, while the majority approve of greater participation by everyone. But as we’ve learned on the internet as well, assholes everywhere are really good at cloaking themselves in the defensive armor of “Free Speech!” and doing their best to create a chilly atmosphere for genuinely open communication.
Thank you, PZ. :)
It’s so nice when they don’t even bother to hide behind weasel language, isn’t it? That’s the one good thing I can see coming out of this whole battle – they are getting so desperate and upset that they’re no longer able to hide behind a veneer of civility.
Absolutely dead-classic territorial/strategic harassment. When women enter a field or workplace that has been traditionally male they can be pretty much guaranteed a long, bitter course of sexual harassment.
What’s the Gaelic term for “slime pit?”
The Glasgow Union has a history: I knew from a good friend that the GUU was very late to even admit women. I didn’t realise until I read Wikipedia that it was 1980!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_University_Union
And THESE are the men who are the REAL problem. If, instead of trying to get their women colleagues to see all the sexism as just a joke, they instead went to their men friends who were perpetrating the misogyny and said, “Not cool, man. Stop it or we aren’t friends anymore,” the women at the GUU would be so much further along the path to acceptance and equality already. The die-hard misogynists have too much invested in their bigotry to let it go easily. The best we can hope for is that they eventually become marginalized, and their minority less vocal before it dies off, but that won’t happen as long as well-intentioned, non-sexist, but apathetic men continue to make excuses for other men’s bad behavior.
The next time someone tells me “It was a joke” to defend any kind of sexist, racist or phobic comment, I will get violent. And then smile sweetly and say that I was just joking, too.
I’d take the first “a” out of the word apathetic, SallyStrange.
Tradition is a shield small minds hide behind.
we were told to “get that woman out my my union” by a male member.
That’s cowardly at multiple levels, isn’t it?
*Grumble grumble grumble* Grow a thicker skin *Grumble grumble grumble* They were obviously just joking *Grumble grumble grumble* What, are you saying that men don’t get heckled, too? *Grumble grumble grumble* I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say “SHAME!…women” *Grumble grumble grumble* Women are so emotional and sensitive *Grumble grumble grumble* Maybe men are just more evolutionarily suited to debate *Grumble grumble grumble* Misogyny can ONLY mean hatred toward ALL women, so this isn’t misogyny *Grumble grumble grumble* Women in India have it far worse, you know *Grumble grumble grumble* Feminism is all about turning women into victims *Grumble grumble grumble* Women’s rights? Pssh. Wake me when we start debating about something important *Grumble grumble grumble* What do you mean you’re offended that I’m debating your bodily autonomy? *Grumble grumble grumble*
@mythbri
Well, it’s not like there’s a law against women debating at GUU, so I don’t understand what these [redacted] are complaining about! Just another example of misandric feminism over-reaching its proper bounds.
Gaelic for slime pit. Hmm. Well ‘fid’ means apparently: Hole in a green plot of land filled with water, slime etc.
There’s a fair few words for both slime and pit, but sloc-clodach may be closest.
What a bunch of gobshites.
No surprises from Glasgow there then. The University union is historically and surprisingly sexist with separate buildings for women and men in recent times. The city also has a long tradition of religious intolerance. Criticise the Catholic/protestant religions in front of a mixed audience and a few people will take an instant and possibly violent dislike to you.
Glasgow is a great place to visit and live in – go there, it’s wonderful. But it has serious issues.
Like in PZ’s thread a while back, I wonder what reasons the misogynists could come up with for why women shouldn’t participate in the debates:
– Tradition!
– Uh (crickets)
Seriously, what kind of argument (other than tradition) can one make supporting such a ban?
I guess the good news is maybe the debating society has an idea of a good topic for next years’ debate…
@Marcus Because debating, talking about issues, having ones arguments and opinions considered with respect–guy things.
Sorry, was that supposed to say “1980” ? Nineteen-eighty? That’s surely a mistake ….. isn’t it?
Why did the organisers not stop the debate and issue a warning to the audience that shouting out sexist abuse was not acceptable, and then attempt to identify those shouting the abuse and remove them. Make it clear to the audience that if they are sat next to someone shouting abuse they have a duty to report it,
SallyStrange @5:
That would be nice, but I’d note that if we are looking for easy first steps for the “male in the middle” to consider, not even that level of challenge is needed. The catcallers probably just need a “dude, shut the f*ck up” by the person sitting next to them in the gallery. Responsible GUU members can send the message that boos and catcalls during the debate had better be related to content, or they won’t be tolerated, without necessarily confronting someone to change their core beliefs.
Again, I’m not disagreeing with you; ending friendship with obvious bigots is a perfectly good (and probably better) response. I’m saying that for men who find even that level of social conflict too much, they can still do things to help out. Not wanting to rock the boat is no excuse for inaction here: there are responses to heckling that are perfectly acceptable even in this sexist forum which one can use to reduce this sexist behavior.
Your union? I don’t see your name on it.
Can the speakers respond to the hecklers? Would it be worthwhile to develop a series of smartass comebacks? “Oh, you have noticed I am female. How very observant of you! Did you figure that out all by yourself?”
At the very least, perhaps a Super Soaker. Anyone who says anything sexist gets water in the face. (Okay, so it’s a dream. But it’s a good dream!)
A positive response
I taught at Glasgow in the 80’s; The male students compared with those-say, from University College London, were very immature. Those who spent most of their time in the Union were known for their proclivity to alcohol and right wing babble . So not much has changed in thirty years.
Sally:
At least one of them is a woman, Imogen Dewar, who shows up on Marlena’s thread to chide her for “taking this to social media,” which is “inappropriate.” (not verbatim)
@eric
That’s a fair point; even if they are not offended by the sexism, surely any debating society would be offended by any interruptions to the actual debate?
Maybe if action had been taken at the time Marlene Valles would not have felt the need to.
I am put in mind of racism at football (soccer) games here in the UK. There used to be a massive problem with the racial abuse of black players. Today this is rare (what racism there is seems to be player to player) as the authorities got tough. Matches would be stopped if there was racism directed as the players, those identified as being responsible would face prosecution and a lifetime ban from attending game. People in the crown were encouraged to identify wrong-doers, and they did (and still do). The policy has been a model in sport on how to deal with the problem.
Why could GUU not adopt the same zero tolerance approach.
@Ms. daisy Cutter
She thinks recounting a tale of harrassment on social media is innappropriate, but she doesn’t think the harrassment itself is innappropriate? FFS.
The less charitable side of me wonders whether an accurate translation of her objection would be something along the lines of “How dare you make this so public, it will be embarrassing if people find out how backwards our Union is”.
Thumper1990: Given that Valles quotes Dewar as describing the harassers thus: “They’re idiots. Funny, but idiots” (bold is my emphasis), I think the less charitable side of you is correct.
They encourage heckling from the crowd?
Exactly what purpose is that supposed to have?
If the purpose is to prepare debaters to be able to argue in front of a rude and abusive crowd, they’re doing a wonderful job.
Also very good job at training people to be parts of rude and abusive crowds.
To be read in the voice of Marlon Brando:
“So, this is college? I didn’t miss nothin’.” — Carmine Sabatini, The Freshman (1990)
I suspect it serves the same purpose as hazing. Builds esprit de corps, while inflating the individual’s sense of accomplishment by having been put through a crucible.
Different day, same shit. “How dare you write about what Michael Shermer said without first giving him a chance to escape having to deal publicly with being wrong?? It makes us look bad when we fight amongst ourselves!!”
The heckling itself might not be so bad – I’ve often watched the parliamentary debates of other countries and wished it was socially acceptable here in the US for a member of congress to shout “liar!” and the like while assholes were speaking.
What Anthony K said. In addition, heckling is common in Parliament. If any of them do have political ambitions they are going to get heckled. The story dealing with the decision of the Cambridge team does mention:
One of my Canadian Political Science profs told a story (probably apocryphal, since I can’t find any record in Hansard, though he may have been referring to the UK Parliament) of a member who snuck an insult in thusly:
MP: “Mr Speaker, would it be unparliamentary if I referred to the Honourable Member So-and-So as an ‘asshole’?
Speaker of the House: “Yes, it would.”
MP: “I thought so.” [Sits down]
Of course, as we’ve since stacked our Parliament with assholes from Alberta (though really, it’s Calgary that houses the real fuckhead generator), there’s no need to futz about with Parliamentary rules .
I once read an account from the last years of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, when a German chauvinist “defended himself, chair-swinging, against the charging Young Czechs”. I guess that’s why the parliament building in Vienna now has benches instead of chairs!
I’m not so sure. Anyone else remember when Republican What’s-his-face shouted “You lie!” when newly-elected President Obama was addressing Congress? That was pretty roundly condemned as being unacceptable.
Although apparently saying the word “vagina” is unacceptable in some state senates, so what do I know?
I’m on this circuit, and I have to say that a lot of people are doing their damnedest to make it better. A member of my own union’s society was caught making women uncomfortable at a competition, and instantly kicked out.
A competition I was at this weekend had notes scattered around from the former president of that Uni’s union, and it was about making severe changes to equity issues. And everybody seemed to agree. And about half the people in the final were women, and it was a women team that won it :D yaay
In response to this particular issues, a lot of my friends (people who have influence in this debating world – I do not) are doing lots of things about it and being generally very angry at these people, as evidenced by Cambridge pulling out entirely and my own union are planning to do the same.
I was at Glasgow University in the 80s. I tried to enter GUU three times in order to join and was threatened by men at and near the entrance who did not want women in there. I gave up and joined QMU instead.
I gather from friends that I had a lucky escape, with others telling me of women being assaulted in there on a number of occasions, with no repercussions for the perpetrators. I also heard of something called the ‘Freds’, apparently Fred Quimby cartoons interspersed with porn clips. GUU was hostile to women then and doesn’t seem to have made much progress in a quarter of a century. Glasgow’s excellent debating tradition was one of the reasons I wanted to go that university but the attitude towards women meant it was not something I pursued once there.
I’m so disgusted by the failure to deal with the rampant sexism that I will not be sending any money to the university when they write to alumni for cash (as they do regularly) until they do something about it. Perhaps they need to be hit in the pocket to force them to make changes.
I was in the GUU in the early 70’s and yes it was sexist. Something that spilled over into classes. Taking Physics (sorry , Natural Philosophy) was fairly typical since any female student was wolf-whistled into the lecture theatre. You had the men’s union and the Queen Margaret and never the twain shall meet except during the Saturday night dances.
In all the time I was at GU, I think I only ever went into the QMU once or twice even though I passed it by everyday. (it was right next to the Mathematics building where I took Maths and Astronomy and also the Basic Science building (Boyd Orr if memory serves) where during one year I had most of my lectures.
The debates were supposed to be modeled on Parliament and so the tradition of robust heckling was ingrained. Glasgow was pretty strong in debating then and the Union Hall was the setting for a TV debating series (hosted by Magnus Magnusson). The final was between GUU and the old foe Strathclyde University (or jumped up Technical College as it was called in one debate). GUU lost out because the chief debater for GUU lost his temper over mention of an incident (on rag day) that left the QMU damaged. So the tradition continues obviously. This is more of a ‘setting in context’ rather than an attempt at justification which I have no interest in doing.
I only ever attended a debate once and I must admit I left pretty perplexed. The ‘Freds’ were much easier to understand. (Tom and Jerry cartoons) The leading soft porn film was a black and white rendition of Leda and the Swan complete with a very unanimated swan. Most of it was pretty harmless but it did leave most of us a bit isolated as far as the opposite sex was concerned. Mind you, the divisions between Arts and Science and Engineering were almost as great.
Still this was back in the seventies when sensitivities were less developed. One of the problem the GUU did have was one of “life members” who were graduates who treated the GUU as a gentlemen’s club and had voting rights that meant that any change (such as introducing women) was very difficult. I seem to remember there was such a vote (nowhere near as extreme as admitting women, just limited visiting rights) that got defeated because of this. I’m only surprised that women got admitted as early as the 80’s. That there is a huge legacy of sexism still around doesn’t surprise me.
Full marks to Cambridge. Instead of recommending that no female teams be sent why don’t you and other Unis join Cambridge and simply not send any teams. GUU sounds so isolated and insular I doubt they would notice until they fights broke out when they insulted and heckled themselves.
It’s nothing to do with the fact that she was female, females give talks all the time, it’s to do with the fact that she was so sexist towards men, if I was there, I would have booed also.
People who use the words misogynist are usually sexist from my experience
Also, she talks about things like equal rights but many of her comments were extremely offensive to catholics, glasgow has spent 100s of years fighting anti catholic bigotry and if someone like her is going to come along with her outdated views then she has to accept things like this
Oh for fuck’s sake.
@Andy Mansfield
She? She who? There were two women mentioned in the OP who related their stories of receiving sexist abuse.
When you say “females”, do you by chance mean women?
Really? How so? What specifically did she say that would indicate she’s prejudiced against men?
Really? Would you have addressed her arguments or her gender?
Catholics are notoriously offensive to women’s rights. But specifics would be helpful, if you have access to any quotes.
And women have spent hundreds of years trying to be viewed as full human beings in the eyes of the church.
Since when are women’s rights considered “outdated views”? Can we at least give it a 1,000-year try before we give up and claim that the idea that women are equal human beings is outdated? And regardless of what her arguments were, she (whoever you mean by she, because you didn’t specify) should expect sexist abuse? What in the world does your disagreement have to do with her gender, unless you disagree because of her gender?
thread effectively trolled. because really, “it’s to do with the fact that she was so sexist towards men”? “People who use the words misogynist are usually sexist from my experience”? “her comments were extremely offensive to catholics”? lol. watch me not give a flying fuck if my right to my body offends catholics.
and apparently, Meredith and Valles are a single woman now. doublelol.
*cough*
five bucks says your experiences are more limited than those of the average earthworm.
why?
no seriously, trace the history of WHY.
then come back and tell us about it.
I disagree. It was not effective, it was actually a piss-poor attempt.
why?
no seriously, trace the history of WHY.
then come back and tell us about it.
As someone who lives in Glasgow I know full well the history, it’s been going on for 100s of years, she offers nothing new
Catholics are notoriously offensive to women’s rights. But specifics would be helpful, if you have access to any quotes.
And feminists are notoriously offensive to catholic rights, what is your point? Are you trying to say because I am catholic I should expect abuse and not give any back?
The idea that Glasgow has been fighting ant-catholic bigotry for 100s of years is a bit of exaggeration. Although the university is very old, Glasgow as a city is comparatively young, being a product of Victorian industrialisation when it became second city of the Empire.
Scotland has always had a divide between catholic and protestant, particularly in education where the catholic authorities insisted on their right to have separate schools. I remember one instance on the news where a new primary school was built as a mirror image, one side for catholic and the other side for others. The news report was about the catholic church complaining about the fact that the kitchen facilities were shared. Any animosity was in two directions. The most public aspect of this divide was with Rangers and Celtic football clubs. However the ability of religion to cause deep dissent amongst otherwise ordinary folk was typified by the last ever (I believe) Orange march in Perth. I remember in the lead up to this the amount of bad feeling was huge. My father, who was a shopkeeper in Perth got both sides of it.
As far as the behaviour in the debate is concerned, the scene described brings back memories of my one visit to the public gallery in the hall during a debate. (I seem to remember some of them lasted days, just like Parliament) The phrase ‘bear pit’ is very apt and was mirrored by the behaviour during the ‘Freds’ (at least that was just a bit of private laddish fun). That and the rather peculiar sexist history of the place probably explains a lot of the resultant behaviour. What is intriguing to someone who hasn’t been to Glasgow for at least 30 years is how little things seem to have changed.
One would have hoped that, being a place of learning, the University would have managed to have moved on much further than it apparently has. Yes it was only a few, but the comments from the organisers seem to suggest that this is still considered acceptable. I’m a bit sad about that I enjoyed my time there and hate to see the name of the University dragged down.
Honestly, why are the commenters so apathetic on pharyngula lately? I used to not comment because I knew I’d be lost in a sea of thousands. Where the Horde at y’all?
Which rights would those be? Because “telling women what to do with their bodies” is not a right.
What ‘catholic rights’ are you referring to? The catholic rites or actually legislated rights particular to catholics alone? Because I’m all the happier they tread on your supposed rights. Catholics are not special and do not deserve preferential treatment, nor should they be afforded any say in governance propped up by false claims of Providence and other twaddle. If those are the rights of Catholics which are being offended then I’ll offer ye a cheery cup o’ fuck off to ya rights!
to be fair to him
andy mansfield could be right if the circumstances and facts of the situation were entirely different
For anyone unsure about the history of secterianism in glasgow and the west of scotland check out this article.
http://nilbymouth.org/history/
You say you are happy to tread on catholic rights but yet you react in outrage to any alleged gender bias, the most intelligent, confident women i know are devout catholics and certainly dont have their rights taken away from them.
I think she was very naive and perhaps badly advised to bring up religion, especially catholicism in a place like Glasgow and not expect a backlash.
@Andy Mansfield:
Savita Halappanavar. Look her up and see what happens with “women’s rights” in relation to Catholic rights.
You belong to the most evil organization on the entire freakin’ planet.
Are you disputing the witnesses who heard members of GUU whisper ‘women’ after shouting ‘Shame’? Are you disputing the sexism prevalent in GUU? Why are you shifting the goalposts away from the general and well-evidenced toward this obscure claim that it was in retaliation to anti-catholic bigotry?
Really I don’t get how this backlash was any more justified because Glasgow is endeavoring and laboring to become the next Dumbfuckistan.
@Andy Mansfield
First, learn to use blockquote. Type
<blockquote>text quoted</blockquote>
and you’ll get:
Second, repeating what’s already been said; specific examples, please. You can’t expect much in the way of sensible replies if you don’t say anything specific yourself. E.g. exactly what Catholic rights are you referring to as being violated by feminists?
The Catholic church is certainly opposed to women’s rights, e.g. the long history of fighting against abortion rights, use of contraception and even basic, life-saving medical treatment, as in the recent case in Ireland.
Third, what, specifically, did she (who?) say that was sexist against men? Give examples or withdraw the comment.
Fourth, you’re beyond the three-post rule. I’m being polite here as a courtesy, not because you’ve done anything to earn it or because you’re entitled to it. Your behavior so far has been distinctly trollish. I suggest you shape up and respond to the questions posed.
Andy Mansfield:
There’s a big difference between being a Catholic and being a woman. You choose to become (and stay) a Catholic. You do not (transgender issues excepted) choose to become or stay a woman.
You belong to the most evil organization on the entire freakin’ planet
If that is the sort of views that those people have it’s no surprise she was shouted down, there has been religious divide in the west of scotland for 100s of years, people here, whether catholic or protestant are generally wise enough to see through people who have an agenda, it’s been going on for centuries, why a 20 year old from Cambridge thought it would be a good idea to open up that can of worms is beyond me and quite frankly a bizzare thing to do.
If you are going to abuse catholics, then don’t be getting offended when someone says something you, yourself do not like, it doesn’t work that way in Glasgow.
Ah, the sweet smell of Christian persecution. “How dare you not allow me to impose my beliefs on you.”
Andy, the next time you join a religion and expect to be given medals for it, try to pick one whose saviour doesn’t explicitly say you’ll be rewarded in the afterlife for being persecuted and criticised.
Because every time a feminist tramples a Catholic’s rights, that Catholic gets two-for-one coupons at the buffet in heaven.
So, they’re doing you a favour. If you don’t like it, be sure to punch Jesus in the face when you next see him. He made the rules.
As for the abortion situation, that’s a matter of personal choice, most catholics will be against it as they see it as important to protect the vulnerable, it’s not just the catholics in glasgow, the protestant community would equally be against it, I just see it as people from an entirely alien culture coming to Glasgow and trying to force their views onto others, the mock outrage is quite funny.
I’m not so sure what you mean by medals for being religious Anthony, a word of advice though, if you are trying to impose your views on others, like the woman giving the talk did, don’t be surprised when some people react angrily.
Well, only those who haven’t read the Bible.
Those who have know what Jesus explicitly promised rewards to those who are persecuted for him.
Christians who whine about being ‘abused’ in the manner you describe are throwing that gift right back in his face.
Andy Mansfield:
So, if Catholics try to impose their views on others (RE: contraception, divorce, abortion, women barred from priesthood, etc), you shouldn’t be surprised when some people react angrily.
Seems to me you’re trying to give special “react angrily” privileges to the Catholics, but deny that same reaction from others in response to the imposition of Catholic views.
And also, let’s see if you can spot the difference in angry reaction:
1) “The Catholic Church has institutionalized misogyny, and here’s how:” (Followed by a list of ways in which the Catholic Church has institutionalized misogyny)
2) “Get that woman off the stage!”
And I wouldn’t be too hard on outsiders imposing their beliefs, Andy.
That’s how Christianity came to Scotland, after all, as Jesus never saw fit to visit there himself.
He might have.* After all, there’s a couple of decades that are unaccounted for in the Bible. And where else would he have learned English to write the Bible?
Having looked at Mr Masefield’s FB page, it seems that he is no stranger to not having a clue what he is talking about.
I think you are digging a great big hole for yourself here Andy. How do know protestant people disagree with abortion? Exactly which protestant people, Church of Scotland, Free Church, Episcopal? And are you really saying the fact that the Catholic Church is against abortion has no relevance on the opinion of catholic people? Come on, get real.
As for your alien culture jibe, that really insults the people of Glasgow. Exactly which planet do you think Glasgow is on? Although I was brought up just outside Glasgow (Lenzie in fact) my english accent marked me out but I never had a problem walking around the streets of Glasgow even late at night. I think Glaswegians, in general, are far more open to ideas than you appear to be.
The problem at the GUU stemmed from the peculiar tradition of heckling combined with some diehard morons who believed that the fact that the speaker was a woman talking about woman’s issues was a good enough reason to make silly sexist comments.
Oh yeah, it’s totally a personal choice… a choice between toeing the line or getting excommunicated, something that the Pope has supported. But, yes, technically still a personal choice.
Except, of course, if you’re at a Catholic hospital, in which case they’ll just leave you to die, slowly, painfully, over the course of several days.
Exactly how did she try to impose her views on anyone? Are you going by some alternative definition of “impose”?
Thankfully the issue Catholic hospitals that is such a problem in the US is not one in GB.
LykeX:
I think if we’ve learned anything over the last few years, it’s this: the worst kind of fascist imposition is to say, “Guys, don’t do that.”
Andy is playing the ‘They deserved it for challenging the status quo established by my sacred cow!’ card. Such brutish honesty. Fair enough. Here’s some of my own brutish honesty to accompany yer attempt to gloat: fuck off Andy.
I must admit that I am really impressed with Andy’s ability to regard MAKING A SPEECH as imposing your views on someone.
That’s not imposing your views on people, Andy, it’s EXPOSING your views TO them.
Yes. “Imposing your views” on someone is when you something like, I don’t know, pass legislation that adheres to your own views and not theirs, maybe?
Who the fuck is Andy Mansfield and why is this thread all about him?
Didn’t you know, myeck waters? Saying something aloud, or typing it onto a screen where IT STAYS FOREVER is exactly the same as imposing a matriarchal dictatorship.
@Andy Mansfield
You realize that this is an atheist blog, right? And the fact that you’re Catholic or have any kind of religious tradition is not considered a valid argument here?
Speaking of which, you still haven’t clarified which of the women speakers was so offensive to you (there were two, remember?). So which woman did you disagree with, Andy, and what did she say that was anti-Catholic bigotry and/or sexist against men?
Or do women all look the same to you?
Andy Mansfield is some git who posted some stupid shit upstream about how powerless the Catholic Church against the powerful onslaught of feminism, and how the hecklers in the crowd in the OP were just defending their strongly held Catholic views that women are baby-making machines and not much else. The two female speakers were just mean to them, challenging their beliefs like that!
So this thread is about him because he’s become a proxy for the gormless gits in the article.
Masefield is also convinced, according to his Facebook page, that universities in the UK have been taken over by the far left. It was never really true, but he is 40 years out of date.
And feminists are notoriously offensive to catholic rights, what is your point?see? told y’all this thread was well and truly trolled. because now apparently institutionalizing violation of women’s human rights is equally as bad as defending those rights and pointing out the institutionalized sexism. also, apparently there’s now such a thing as “catholic rights”. lol.
oh honey, that’s not how Catholicism works. Just because you agree to the curtailing of your rights because of your irrational beliefs doesn’t mean they’re not curtailed.
toxic little troll. Catholic anti-abortion dogma doesn’t “protect the vulnerable”, it kills women.
so they’re just as toxic and dangerous to women. and?
so apparently Glaswegians are not only misogynists, they’re also xenophobes. Nice picture you’re painting here.
“Look, a child! He needs protection!”
“Well, what should I do?”
“His penis is the most dangly and vulnerable bit about him. Better put it in your mouth for safekeeping!”
With the greatest respect nTB, I’ve read the thread, I’ve read Andy Mansfield’s contribution to it, I’ve read your perfectly intelligible answer, but I’m afraid that my question still stands:
Who the fuck is Andy Mansfield and why is this thread all about him?
From my point of view, I see him frantically shitting out purported arguments like some sort of crap-mangling sausage machine, but none of it seems very relevant to the OP. I don’t know whether he is a poor troll or if he thinks the glister of those little nuggets is solid gold rather than foetid mucus.
*Sings* You’re so vain, you probably think this thread is about you…
see? told y’all this thread was well and truly trolled. because now apparently institutionalizing violation of women’s human rights is equally as bad as defending those rights and pointing out the institutionalized sexism. also, apparently there’s now such a thing as “catholic rights”. lol.
oh honey, that’s not how Catholicism works. Just because you agree to the curtailing of your rights because of your irrational beliefs doesn’t mean they’re not curtailed.
toxic little troll. Catholic anti-abortion dogma doesn’t “protect the vulnerable”, it kills women.
so they’re just as toxic and dangerous to women. and?
so apparently Glaswegians are not only misogynists, they’re also xenophobes. Nice picture you’re painting here.
stop eating my comments, Pharyngula!
see? told y’all this thread was well and truly trolled. because now apparently institutionalizing violation of women’s human rights is equally as bad as defending those rights and pointing out the institutionalized sexism. also, apparently there’s now such a thing as “catholic rights”. lol.
oh honey, that’s not how Catholicism works. Just because you agree to the curtailing of your rights because of your irrational beliefs doesn’t mean they’re not curtailed.
Point successfully missed.
stop eating my comments, Pharyngula!
toxic little troll. Catholic anti-abortion dogma doesn’t “protect the vulnerable”, it kills women.
so they’re just as toxic and dangerous to women. and?
so apparently Glaswegians are not only misogynists, they’re also xenophobes. Nice picture you’re painting here.
see? told y’all this thread was well and truly trolled. because now apparently institutionalizing violation of women’s human rights is equally as bad as defending those rights and pointing out the institutionalized sexism. also, apparently there’s now such a thing as “catholic rights”. lol.
oh honey, that’s not how Catholicism works. Just because you agree to the curtailing of your rights because of your irrational beliefs doesn’t mean they’re not curtailed.
That’s not how Catholicism works. Just because you agree to have your rights restricted because of your irrational beliefs doesn’t mean they’re not restricted.
so here’s a question: why does Pharyngula dislike the words “honey” and “curtail”?
“Honey Curtail Don’t Care!”
Bernard Bumner:
Now, that’s a visual for a Tuesday morning.
Yeah. I get yer point. He’s pretty much an intellectually-void mockpuppet spouting the usual drivel, with the standard mix of victim-blaming and blind privilege.
Also, he seems to have Sir Robin’d.
LOL at the whole “poor poor Catholics” schtick.
Catholicism is morally reprehensible. Deal with it.
As long as the vulnerable aren’t gay, or pregnant women, or atheist, or…
…born.
You talk about anti fascism and the far left as if they are different to catholicism, yet all the anti fascist and far left groups here in glasgow are mostly made up of catholic men and women, to be catholic in the west of scotland is to be left wing, due to the demographics of the people it is basically belfast imported to the mainland.
Anyone going to either of these places and slagging off catholics are not going to get far, certainly not a 20 year old from cambridge, we are 400 years ahead of you.
As long as the vulnerable haven’t been born yet, we must protect them right?
As for protestants not wanting abortion, if anything over here they are more against abortion than catholics
We totally get that you’re a puffed-up git, Andy. You don’t need to keep repeating yourself.
To be Catholic in Scotland at all is to be an import.
Embrace your foreign beliefs, Andy.
fixed for you
@Andy
Who are you responding to and what does this have to do with anything? How about you go back and clarify the original statements you made. Specifically:
Who was being sexist against men and how? You’ve dodged this long enough. Time to give a clear answer.
What specific “Catholic rights” are you talking about here?
How did she do that? Give a quote, retract the statement, or face the fact that you’re a liar.
In short, start making sense or fuck off.
“we”?
How old are you, Andy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvkfJM6DrCQ
For anyone unaware of the background of Glasgow, check out the excellent video above, it’s perhaps the best one there is on the net.
It’s something that rightly or wrongly is ingrained into the culture here, so we are naturally inquisitve when someone who knows little about that, starts to tell us about catholicism in glasgow, many more important people than her have tried and failed.
To be Catholic in Scotland at all is to be an import.
Embrace your foreign beliefs, Andy.
You will never meet anyone more left wing than me pal, if i lived in the states i’m sure i’d be right wing but here in glasgow i’m as left wing as they come
tiocfaidh ar la
come again?
Once you understand the history and culture that exists in Glasgow it should be easy for you work out Rev, i’m surprised a budding sociologist such as yourself hasn’t educated himself on the issues in hand here.
@Andy
You’re dodging. Again.
the only places so much farther right than the U.S. that an U.S. right-winger would be considered left-wing are theocratic dictatorships. You’ve pretty much just made Glasgow sound like the worst place on the planet :-/
And I pretty much guarantee you I meet people more progressive than you on a very regular basis. Silly troll.
So you are both the most left wing person I could meet and you’re sure you’d be right wing here in the states?
oh yeah, and I pretty sure you meant 400 years behind of… well the entire civilized world it seems, if you think you’d be a U.S. right-winger.
anyway, Andy is making a pretty compelling argument that in fact, it does not appear that Glasgow can do better.
Good thing I know enough people in/from Glasgow to know that they’re not all this horrible.
I told you he was trolling.
Andy, you’ve not given a credible defense of any of your earlier statements defending the misogynists. Were you going to get around to doing that some time, or are you going to concentrate on the “Glasgow is an alien world so advanced, you stand no chance of comprehending us,” gambit?
I know a fair few people from Oop North (never been north of Watford, me), so please allow me to anecdata-confirm that they in no way are represented by this foetid left-wing-right-wing-plucked-turkey troll.
Here are the city council election results for Glasgow in 2012. As you can see, Andy Mansfield is so full of shit that I deduce he’s actually Galsgow’s main sewer.
Dodging would imply Andy actually ever engaged. It’s been pissural, throughly pissural.
Dear Andy,
kindly stop giving everyone the impression that Scots are stupid and unable to argue their way out of a paper bag.
yours sincerely
an Edinburger
Emrysmyrddin:
That’s good to hear. I’ve known folks from Glasgow, and they were generally a progressive, nice, intelligent lot (though one of ’em laid on the burr so strongly I could barely understand her sometimes — but I think she did that on purpose).
Andy had me thinking maybe they were in Alaska because they were driven out of Glasgow by a bunch of theocratic thugs armed with pitchforks and torches.
Apparently Andy Mansfield thinks women have more rights than men and prefers homoeopathy to conventional medicine, going by his comments on his facebook page. That’s the standard of thinking we’re dealing with here.
I…I think he’s saying that Glasgow in general is skewed even farther to the right than the US? I do not believe this to be true, but that’s the only way I can parse that.
A Catholic lover of homeopathy – crank magnetism in action.
.
Just like the Mormon nurse I met recently who after years of Real Medical Study wants to go into naturopathy…
.
Keeeeryst.
Oooops. This window clearly hadn’t been refreshed as recently as I thought when I posted that. Sorry all.
Glasgow’s mostly Labour and SNP.
Ah, as KG has so conveniently linked to. Cheers for that. Ignore me, all ;)
Did someone ask for anti-woman citations from Catholics?
— Bishop Richard Williamson, (formerly, it says there) of the SSPX
Apparantly, he’s even pissed off the SSPX by ignoring Catholic rules about hierarchy.
I kinda hope he declares himself Pope. Yay, Popefight!
As an atheist woman from a Catholic (Irish- and Italian-American) background, can I just mention how INCREDIBLY much it chaps my ass when people piss and moan about “anti-Catholic bigotry” when people complain about harmful Catholic doctrine?
Anti-Catholic bigotry is when you are bigoted against Catholics, as in, all laypersons who are practicing or lapsed Catholics, who had their helpless infant arses baptized in a Catholic church without having any idea what was going on, or, in some cases, are from Catholic families or even merely Catholic-dominant ethnic backgrounds regardless of their own religion. It refers to being bigoted against the people, not the institution of the Church and certainly not the Church’s ideas.
“Anti-Catholic bigotry” refers to doing shit like preventing Catholics from peaceably assembling to worship, racializing Catholic-dominant ethnic groups and then being racist about them (relatedly, see: anti-Semitism and Islamophobia), barring Catholics or Catholic-dominant ethnicities from employment or educational opportunities (“No Irish Need Apply” and all that), trying to outlaw Catholic-specific religious or cultural practices for no reason other than that Catholics do them, and otherwise being bigoted against Catholic LAYPEOPLE.
It has LESS THAN NOTHING to do with telling people they’re wrong when they’re wrong, or pointing out that harmful things are harmful, or accurately describing an evil organization (like the institution of the Church) as evil.
@thecynicalromantic
Very much on the nose. I think it’s especially ironic that this guy tries to pretend that he’s more historically aware than everyone else and yet seems completely oblivious to the actual anti-catholic bigotry in the past.
God forbid that he would ever have to put up with real bigotry. If he gets this upset over people disagreeing, the real thing would kill him.
Andy mansfield sez:
othering catholic fuckwit is hereby dismissed from consideration for rational discourse.
you belong to a bygone era, either give it up, or go away.
many people have tried to alleviate you of your ignorance, I’m sure. no reason to brag that they have all failed though.
Sadly, while the discussion of heckling in Parliament has passed, I still wanted to mention Rick Mercer’s Rick’s Rant on the topic about the Canadian Parliament’s Question Period:
Ha! It’s never too late for Mercer. Awesome.
many people have tried to alleviate you of your ignorance, I’m sure. no reason to brag that they have all failed though.
Ignorant of what and whom? As far as I am aware I am the only person from Glasgow in here
Judging some of the comments on here, it’s good that the people of Glasgow were able to see the hate and vile of Rebecca Meridith, it was only last year neil lennon recieved death threats for being catholic in glasgow, it’s crazy that she thought it would be a good idea to preach here
For starters, ignorant of how to friggin blockquote.
And of course, I can’t help but notice that you’re still not answering any of the pressing questions, clarifying your previous comments, or providing quotes to support your assertions.
And now I screwed up the tags. That’s why I gave the handy guide to blockquoting.
For starters, ignorant of how to friggin blockquote.
And of course, I can’t help but notice that you’re still not answering any of the pressing questions, clarifying your previous comments, or providing quotes to support your assertions.
Such as…? A quote? An example? Anything?
And that’s what persecution and bigotry looks like. Notice how it’s somewhat different from simple disagreement? Did any of the women in the debate make threats?
So, what’s your point? Some people have mistreated Catholics so therefore any critique of Catholic dogma is bigotry? Please, spell it out for me. What exactly is your argument here?
Any examples of this “preaching”? Or are you going by that alternative dictionary again? You know, the same one you were using when you talked about “imposing”.
Yes, but fortunately people here are too intelligent to conclude from your example that any significant part of the population of Glasgow consists of fuckwitted bigots like you.
That’s a very bigotted thing to say Nick, and lykex what are these questions you keep talking about?
What people here are seeing it as, is a very privileged anglo saxon woman, from a very privileged background, studying at the most elitist university in europe, coming to perhaps the most working class city in all of britain, a city we’re people have been killed for being catholic, where the majority of catholics are descended from northern ireland where people have fought opression for years, a city that up until 20 years ago refused to allow catholics to play for it’s football team Glasgow Rangers.
Okay she didn’t label us as taigs or fenians, she dressed it up a lot differently but for all intents and purposses she may as well have done.
Andy Mansfield:
I know you’re being disingenuous, as you’re pretending that the questions Lyke asked you two posts above your post are invisible, but I’ll bite anyway because I’m bored.
MY first question is “do you think that the above quoted statements from you mean that Catholicism should be immune to criticism?”
*Sorry, LykeX.
The ones I asked here, here, and here, as well as in the post that you’re replying to.
Andy Mansfield,
You are indeed a fuckwitted bigot. Your entire schtick here has been to try to justify a misogynist attempt to silence two women taking part in a debate, by equating criticism of Catholic dogma with death threats against Catholics. You have failed to provide even a scintilla of evidence for your claim that there was any anti-Catholic bigotry in what they said – and even if there had been, one form of bigotry does not justify another. The questions you have been asked mostly relate to your absurd claims that there was any such bigotry in what the women said, which it is abundantly clear you cannot justify by evidence, or you would have done so. You have also failed to support your claim that the women were “sexist towards men”, or to explain the nonsensical claim that:
You have been asked questions about all these things, but instead of answering, just repeat the same shitheaded drivel over and over again.
do you think that the above quoted statements from you mean that Catholicism should be immune to criticism?”
It shouldn’t be immune to criticism but if it is going to be criticised by people with an agenda of their own, then they have to expect to be criticised back. That’s just how it works
Also nick, that is a very bigoted thing to say
Andy Mansfield, fuckwitted bigot,
Evidently you are unable to distinguish between criticism, and misogynist silencing. That would be because you’re a fuckwitted bigot. And having been told once again what questions you haven’t answered, you have made no attempt to answer them.
Is “get that woman out of my union” criticism? Is “SHAME WOMAN” criticism? Is booing the very mention of female equality criticism?
More to the point, you’re still ignoring LykeX’s questions. Why?
You are ignoring Nick’s points. Why?
you ask “what ignorance?” and then say that.
you’re not just ignorant, you’re nothing more than an idiotic ass.
…on top of that, you’re also obviously too fucking stupid to even figure out how to use simple html, when the commands ARE RIGHT BELOW THE REPLY BOX.
are you SURE you want to make Glasgow look bad by continuing to speak?
Point successfully missed again.
“Look, if you’re going to be a black guy, and talk about civil rights in a city like Birmingham, you just better expect to get called a nigger!”
…or am I being unfair to Andy M?
Since we’re stacking up the questions, we might as well throw these in as well:
Exactly what agenda do you think the women in the debate had, what are you basing that on, and why do you think this justifies comments like “Get that woman out of my chamber”?
Andy Mansfield, fuckwitted bigot,
Evidently you are unable to distinguish between criticism, and misogynist silencing. That would be because you’re a fuckwitted bigot. And having been told once again what questions you haven’t answered, you have made no attempt to answer them.
Again that is a very bigotted attitude, it’s sad that so many people think and feel that way. You seem to want to silence anyone who has a different opinion to yourself, yet you get angry at other who you perceive as doing the same.
Since we’re stacking up the questions, we might as well throw these in as well:
Exactly what agenda do you think the women in the debate had, what are you basing that on, and why do you think this justifies comments like “Get that woman out of my chamber”?
She has an elitist anti catholic agenda and like i have already said, anyone who knows the history of Glasgow, knows it is not wise to do that here, anyone budding sociologists students could learn a lot from the history of Glasgow, as I get the feeling most posting on here know little about the situation here.
For an oxbridge elitist such as Rebecca Meridith to come here and preach her views, she would need to be more sensitive to the culture of this part of the world, sadly she failed on that.
Squeaker’s broken.
Are you being silenced? Were the misogynist assholes at the debates being silenced?
So, what are you talking about?
Well, at least you’re trying a bit. You’re responding, but you’re still not answering the questions. Once more, what exactly do you mean by “elitist anti catholic agenda”? Does any kind of criticism of Catholicism count or only some kinds? What are you basing this judgment on? What precisely did she say or do that qualifies as elitist or anti-catholic? Why do you think that any of this justifies comments like “Get that woman out of my chamber”?
What views would that be? Seriously, I’m not sure what you’re referring to because you’ve never made it clear. From the beginning of this you’ve made an artform out of being as vague as possible.
It looks to me like you’re trying to prevent any serious critique of your own position by making sure nobody can get a clear picture of what it actually is. You assert your opinion, but when it comes to backing it up, suddenly you’re unable to express yourself.
If you think you’ve got anything relevant or interesting to say, then sit down, think it through and make a clear coherent post explaining your position, how you get to it, what supports it and why people should agree or at least respect it.
If you’re not willing to do that, you’re implicitly admitting that your opinions aren’t relevant or interesting and that people shouldn’t agree with you or respect your views.
Or in shorter, more colloquial terms; put up or shut up.
*looks at the thread title*
*looks at the flailing mess of Andy Mansfield’s rants*
one would HOPE so.
Andy, for fuck’s sake please learn how to use blockquote. It’s not that hard to figure out.
How to blockquote
<blockquote>Quoted text in here</blockquote>
Looks like this
yup.
seems to be stuck on something that sounds like “FREEZE PEACH!”
No, fuckwitted idjit. You need to open your mind to new ideas. You probably haven’t considered a new idea in your life. Insular, bigoted, ignorant, and must stay that way. No potential for growth. That is what you keep saying.
Andy, are you a product of the Glasgow education system and should we start to consider that there may be issues with it because of your performance here?
It’s not a bigoted attitude to recognize the difference between being critical of an institution and attacking one’s sex.
It’s obvious you are incapable of focusing the brain cycles to see this.
OMG, in Andy Mansfield really trying to tell us that Galsgow is a colonized third world slum and that catholics are the worst prosecuted minoruty on planet earth?
So, you’re left-wing, except when it comes to women’s rights, abortion, contraception…
Tell me how are you left wing again exactly?
Oh, and if you don’t want those folks from those English universities coming to yours giving a motherfucking speech, how about not inviting them?
Oh, I remember, that’s only an issue if they send women (with cooties)
@Andy Mansfield
Bravo on finally naming the woman you specifically disagreed with! No, seriously – kudos! I was beginning to wonder if you actually couldn’t distinguish one individual woman from another, and I was worried for you.
Since you’ve done so well with that specific, let’s see what we can do to get more, shall we? I’ll even number my questions so you can correspond your answers in a clear, concise manner. There’s a first time for everything.
1. What, specifically, did Meredith say that was sexist toward men?
2. What, specifically, is the difference between voicing criticism of the Catholic church and voicing anti-Catholic bigotry?
3. What, specifically, does Meredith’s gender have to do with criticizing her views? Or were those particular men of Glasgow just too incompetent to engage her argument instead of her sex?
Take your time. It’s open book.
AM, this is how you present evidence: “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” Christopher Hitichens
It consists of the statement you wish to discuss or complain about, and the source of the quote, be it video or transcript. Give approximate position/time if not obvious.
Until you do so, everything you say that is OPINION is *floosh* dismissed into the sewer.
You’re a liar. You are the one defending the silencing of people who have different opinions to yourself. You’ve done it repeatedly, on this very thread, by attempting to justify the silencing of two women in the debate.
Woah! I just had an epiphany.
Andy’s not a troll. Andy’s a performance artist. A keyboard comic. His goal isn’t to get us to respond, to attempt to manipulate us into specific kinds of frustrated comments. He’s engaging us, the audience, in a post-modern absurdist comedy about the futility of life, the ludicrous and unrealistic worldview of the bourgeois, and the impossibility of social justice. We’re part of his act!
*slow clap*
Bravo, Sir. Bravo.
Forgive me if I’m being obtuse, but I would think that repeatedly inviting Andy Mansfield to answer questions to clarify his position is actually the opposite of silencing him.
We WANT you to speak, Andy. We want you to answer our questions, which you seem not to be willing to do, though, rather than keep repeating the same assertions without adding any more information (oh, except you did finally say the name of the specific woman you had a problem with, as noted by mythbri above. That was good).
Who are we trying to silence?
You didn’t answer the part of the question regarding what you’re basing that on. Specific quotes would be handy. Also, even if it was true, how does this warrant a sexist response rather than an on-topic response?
A judge “was sitting behind the boys from Glasgow Union and could hear them making audible derogatory comments about the speakers’ appearances – their hair, dresses, chest size, how attractive they were – physically picking them apart, as well as yelling ‘shame woman’ and booing.” Because there’s no better way to stand up to a woman criticizing your church’s dogma than talking about her tits, amirght?
Said the judge, “I ‘shushed’ them – and one then called me a ‘frigid b—-’.” Well, that’s obviously because she was imposing her anti-Catholic (though I’m not sure when talking about bra sizes became part of Catholic dogma) agenda on those poor men.
All my posts have been along the lines of, if anyone comes to Glasgow and is anti catholic it’s not going to be easy for them, given the history, demographics, location and culture of the city, anyone who doesn’t understand it feel free to watch the video I linked up, it’s unlikely anyone would be surprised at what happened if they would be willing to educate themselves on the city.
Certainly an 20 year old oxbridge elitist was always going to be in for a rough ride, did noone advise her about what may happen? I find that staggering
My views are obviously interesting to some as each time I log on, I have at least half a dozen replies, as for me saying i’m being silenced that was in response to someone accusing me of doing the same.
I know it’s a working class culture, so perhaps it’s alien to a lot of people on here but it’s been like that here for 100s of years, certainly as far back as the partition of the 6 counties.
All of your posts have also been rather shy on evidence that the women were anti-Catholic. Also, that doesn’t go very far toward justifying the response they got. The hecklers were misogynistic. So really, all I’m getting from your posts is that “Glasgow is a sexist, misogynistic shithole, and nobody should be surprised by that” would be a fair paraphrase. I do hope that you’re misrepresenting the place.
Mostly asking for specifics which you seem loathe to provide.
Your views are laughable trash, incoherent, and oblivious to the wider world. We laugh AT YOU.
Still waiting for you to present evidence, not *floosh* OPINION that is laughable.
@Andy Mansfield
Oh, dear. You seem to have overlooked my helpfully-numbered questions (accidentally, no doubt). I’ll re-post and enhance for your convenience:
1. What, specifically, did Meredith say that was sexist toward men?
2. What, specifically, is the difference between voicing criticism of the Catholic church and voicing anti-Catholic bigotry?
3. What, specifically, does Meredith’s gender have to do with criticizing her views? Or were those particular men of Glasgow just too incompetent to engage her argument instead of her sex?
Well, fuck. The second question is supposed to be bolded, too.
That’s exactly the problem. You keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. And not answering anyone’s questions.
Glaswegian, hell, I’d be surprised if you passed a Turing test at this point.
… Of making completely unsupported assertions and then ignoring anyone who asked you to clarify or back up your statements. You’re still doing it.
Believe me, I’m not responding because anything you say is interesting. I’m responding to make sure that it’s very clear to anyone who happens to drop by how dishonest you are, how you refuse to back up your assertions and how you continually evade even the most basic questions and requests for clarification.
Actually, you weren’t being accused of silencing anyone. You were being accused of defending people who were trying to silence people. Nick’s original comment was:
More to the point, you haven’t shown that this was an unfair accusation. The people in question were, quite explicitly, trying to silence the women speaker and you were, quite explicitly, defending their attempts to do so.
The accusation was spot on and you responded not by defending yourself or making a counter-argument, but by simply reflecting the accusation back, despite offering no support for it and apparently now admitting it wasn’t true.
So, let’s get absolutely clear here: Do you think you are being silenced or that anyone here has attempted to silence you; yes or no?
If yes, please explain how, with examples.
If no, does that mean you were lying when you made the accusation?
Feel free to start making sense at any time.
It seems completely reasonable to eject audience members who are disruptive.
“Then speak up for us and tell them to pipe down, that’s not acceptable behaviour!”
P.S. PZ, it’s “Marlena” Valles.
One more thing on this point, now that I’ve thought about it enough to properly express it. My problem is that you aren’t treating your own communication as if it matters. You’re not behaving in a manner consistent with saying something of relevance and import.
If you thought that what you were saying was important and you wanted other people to listen, you’d take the time to express yourself clearly. You’d welcome any request for clarification as a chance to win people over to your point of view.
When you’re being vague, as you are here and when you’re being evasive in the face of questions and challenges, you’re sending the clear message: “Ignore what I say. I don’t care about it, so you shouldn’t either.”
This is not really a point regarding correct argumentation. It’s a point relating to social communication. The way you act tells me that you’ve got nothing relevant to say and this is in completely isolation from any other factor concerning your style of communication or the validity of your views.
To be clear, I think you’re completely wrong (insofar as you’ve managed to express any coherent opinion at all), but even if I agreed with you, I’d still have a problem with the manner in which you’re communicating.
Who the fuck is Andy Mansfield and why is this thread all about him?
All I know is that Andy Mansfield doesn’t answer questions.
He’s the guy who’s trying to defend the sexist assholes. What else are we going to do, sit around and pat each other on the back? There’s really only so much you can say if everybody agrees. In this case, nobody with any sense disagrees with the OP, so the only disagreement to be had is with the trolling, lying, evading scumbag. If you have something to say on the subject that isn’t about Andy and hasn’t already been said twenty times, feel free to put it forward.
LOL
this guy is funny.
stupid, but funny.
dude, drop out of school, it’s obviously doing nothing for your ability to reason.
Replies don’t necessarily indicate “interesting”.
Unless you equate “interesting” with “annoying”.
You obviously have a problem understanding that not everybody has the same views as her, in a city that people have been killed for being catholic and that still has no go areas for catholics, a place were to be catholic is to be a taig, a fenian bastard, the main song of glasgow rangers is ‘ the famines over why don’t you go home’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyNU608RuF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbsZTx2DLHA
Is it any wonder people do not accept this sort of bigotry from an oxbridge elitist. It’s just no gonna work here.
Was anyone open midned enough to watch the documetary?
Which part of that is wrong?
Are you trying to say she isn’t a 20 year old elitist preaching in Britians most working class city?
Don’t forget we don’t have to pay to go to university here, so many people at Glasgow University are from working class, non privelaged backgrounds, unlike Rebecca Meridith.
honeycakes, are you ever going to explain how criticizing misogynist Catholic dogma is anti-catholic bigotry, or not?
as for the “working class” thing somehow being a defense for misogyny… well, who knew there was a UK cultivar of the Common American Redneck: ” they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment […] as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Is the use of full stops also some kind of elitist thingy that doesn’t fly in Glasgow??
Comma – commie…OK, I think I get it.
What views would that be? What specific views are you disagreeing with? Quotes, please.
WHAT sort of bigotry? Can you give just one single example of the kind of “bigotry” you’re referring to? You’re very big on calling people bigots, but very short on actual examples of this supposed bigotry. Compare that with the opening post that had examples of exactly the kind of behavior that was being criticized, even down to direct quotes.
Once again:
1) What exactly did the speakers say that you think qualifies as anti-Catholic bigotry?
2) How does anti-Catholic bigotry differ from simply being critical of Catholic dogma?
3) How does anything the speakers said justify the kind of misogynistic heckling they received?
And there’s also the outstanding question regarding your accusation of being silenced, here. I’m having trouble keeping track of all the questions you’re dodging, but since there’s no chance of you ever actually answering any of them, I guess that’s not such a big deal. A representative sample will do to illustrate your dishonesty.
Come on, pal.
People have been asking you questions, Andy, and you just keep jinking and dodging til it looks awfully like you don’t have any answers.
LykeX has asked you loads of times, and mythbri even put in some handy numbers to help you get it straight:
How about it? Have you got any answers? Or do you admit you were just bullshitting?
So, when you say “elitist”, what you mean is “not from a working class background”? Your problem isn’t with anything she said, it’s with how rich her parents were? If a woman with a working class background had been a speaker, she wouldn’t have been bigoted and she wouldn’t have been heckled?
It’s getting tiring to repeat this; please be more clear. I literally can’t tell what you’re saying. I don’t know what your position is, what you have a problem with or why. We’re not even at the point were I can evaluate the validity of your claims because you haven’t made a claim clear enough that I can tell what it actually is.
Could we at least agree that if you’re going to use a word in a non-standard definition, you will let us know what kind of new definition you’re using? Can we do that much?
Andy seems to be saying “working class people get to be misogynists because they don’t know better”.
Wow, Andy. You sure have a low opinion of the working class. Most of my family is skilled tradesmen and secretaries and food service workers and they aren’t sexist assholes.
Sorry – I’m treading on your heels, there, LykeX!
How about it, Andy?
No worries. It’s hard not to bash that piñata. Just remember to get out of the way when it pops; it’s not candy it’s full of.
Letting the cat out of the bag here, Andy is closet IRA. Let him go on long enough and he’ll be back to Oliver Cromwell in no time.
The basic problem is that there were some aspects of the speech that were critical of the Catholic Church. As far as Andy is concerned he just sees red and claims this as bigotry. As far as he’s concerned any thing critical of the Catholic Church is mere bigotry. The fact that there may be valid reasons for such criticism is an alien concept.
Of course Andy is right, there has been a lot of bigotry in Scotland and a lot of tension between faiths as a result. Jobs is one such issue because it impacts on basic stuff as ability to make a living. Certainly there was severe discrimination (probably still is but I am in no position to comment on that).
The problem though was exacerbated by the Catholics insularity and insistence on their own schools and the curriculum in these schools. I still remember the shock when a friend, who went to a catholic school, showed me his timetable. Out of 40 lessons each week he had 12 lessons of religious instruction. To put that in perspective, this was the year we were doing Highers and each subject took up 5 lessons per week. The average number of Highers taken at my own school was 4 to 5, at the catholic school it was 3 to 4.
I remember many employers using this as a reason Catholics were not employed. It included a (Catholic) manager at an engineering firm who complained that Catholic boys just didn’t have the education to go into engineering. The same reason was given in mining.
This illustrate a little of where Andy is coming from but, of course, in no way justifies his position that something was said against the Catholic Church so this requires a violent and sexist response.
Fixed that again for your Andy. you keep conveniently forgetting an important part of this discussion.
You just can’t bring yourself to actually address her points can you?
This sounds very familiar…
Takes criticism of the Church as bigotry despite the validity of the concerns…
Attacks the messenger instead of the message…
Can’t argue himself out of a whisky soaked paper bag…
Makes charges of elitism instead of addressing the points…
Has a problem with uppity women…..
Andy, is this you?
@Carlie
You’d love the House of Commons then, they never shut up when the other side is talking.
You mean like this?
Unfortunately it works both ways.
@Andy Mansfield #152
Evidently you are a fuckwit who cannot distinguish between criticism and misogynistic silencing. Here’s a clue; “Get that woman out of my Union” is not legitimate criticism.
In fact, in the British parliament it is considered “unparliamentary” to called another member a liar so other more indirect methods are required. Calling members by name is also unparliamentary, so calling someone a liar might come out as:
“the Right Honorable Member’s comments are somewhat devoid of facts”
In fact, there have been many debates as to what is the parliamentary way of calling someone a liar.
Whilst I am posting I might clarify my “closet IRA” comment. The IRA had two basic properties (not unique to them) which they raised to a high art. One was they used ancient history to justify current actions and, second, they considered violent action (verbal or otherwise) as a legitimate way of settling arguments.
Mind you, the “robust handling” that Andy was talking about is a Glasgow legend. There used to be a theatre in Glasgow called the Glasgow Empire. It held regular variety shows (that used to be called “music hall” or “vaudeville”) long past the time anywhere else held them. I only ever went to one when “The Barron Knights” headed the bill so that dates me. It was an important venue for artists but a much feared one. As (I think) Billy Connolly once said of the audience:”If they liked you they let you live.” So I suppose Glasgow has a reputation of sorts to live up to.
PS I think my paragraphs still need work, sorry about that.
I can confirm what Iain writes .It is sociologically accurate. I taught for many years in Scotland including nearly twenty years at Glasgow University; this before 1980; I am assured from friends who presently live and teach in Glasgow that the situation, well described by Iain, holds good.
I noted earlier that some folk seemed to believe that the commenter called ‘Andy’ was supposed to be the only Glaswegian commenting-not so -not so at all.
@Andy Mansfield #182 and #183
Hooray! You’ve learned to blockquote! Congratulations. Please use your new-found skill to answer the following questions:
1. What, specifically, did Meredith say that was sexist toward men?
2. What, specifically, is the difference between voicing criticism of the Catholic church and voicing anti-Catholic bigotry?
3. What, specifically, does Meredith’s gender have to do with criticizing her views? Or were those particular men of Glasgow just too incompetent to engage her argument instead of her sex?
Glasgow is the largest city in Scotland, the term redneck wouldn’t apply to someone from Glasgow, if the ‘working class’ thing is a defense for misogny, is feminism a defense for bigotry?
Oxbridge it the most elite university in europe, I don’t see it as unfair to describe someone who goes there and with her background as elitist, that’s certainly how she would be percieved in Glasgow, by males and females.
That is the perhaps the only intelligent reply I have had so far, As for the IRA using history to justify it’s actions, how is that different to feminism? Yes Glasgow is an outspoken volatile place, yuo are certainly correct there but I wouldn’t have it any other way to be honest.
And here is the one you have all be waiting for
1, As far as I am aware the speech is not available on line, someone please point me to it if it is. But as an ex sociology student, most of the feminist talks I listened to would have offended me in some way, i dont see why this one would be any differen and having spoke to someone who was there he assues me it was not, please feel free to link me to the talk if you want quotes
2,What, specifically, is the difference between voicing criticism of the feminism and voicing anti-female misogony? See how easy it is to do that?
3, I don’t see how her gender has anything to do with it, if it was a man he would have been treated just the same, if anything a little more harshly.
For anyone open minded enough please check out the documentary
Also there is nothing to say it was catholics who gave her the rough end of the stick, it will just as likely have been protestants.
Andy Mansfield:
Wait. What.
You don’t even know what was said in the speech, but feel confident in assuming the content based on hearsay and your past experiences of other, completely unrelated ‘feminist talks’? So much so that you felt compelled to shit all over the comments here with your vague bullshit? I just don’t even. But ok.
In that case:
What was in those feminist talks you have seen (which this talk allegedly was so similar to) that offended you? What did your friend who assured you Meredith’s speech (if it was hers, you didn’t seem so sure before about which woman was which) wasn’t any different from all those other feminist speeches you claim to have seen (which said friend presumably was also present for?) cite as examples from the speech that gave you cause to be so angry?
Examples, not more vague references to anti-Catholic bigotry.
You also didn’t answer the question about whether there is a difference between anti-Catholic bigotry and actual criticism of (to be specific) either a: Catholic individuals or b: Catholic doctrine or c: The Catholic Church as an organization. You just asked a different question in return, which wasn’t as clever as you think. Answer what’s asked of you before asking things back, eh? Conversations, how the fuck do they work?
So if I say that the Catholic church has been historically discriminatory/oppressive towards women, am I being a bigot?
@Andy Mansfield
All these vigorous defences of Popery – fuck a lot of kids, do you?
Still not defining what you mean by “elite”, just that you’re pretty sure she’s elitist and therefore deserved the treatment she got.
Translation: I don’t know what she said, but I’m just going to assume and assert that it was sexist and bigoted to justify my claim that she deserved the treatment she got.
Do what? Dodge questions? Yeah, I see you’re a pro at that.
So…you can confidently assert, at the same time, that she got harrassed because she was being bigoted towards Catholics, AND that maybe the people shouting abuse at her were not Catholic.
So…the motivation of a potentially non-Catholic man subjecting her to sexist heckling because she was allegedly being bigoted towards Catholics would be….what exactly? Not that I hold out any hope of getting any straight answers out of you.
I just want the questions on record.
Go re-read the OP and come back and tell everyone why what you wrote is incredibly fucking dense.
I needed that Woody and Buzz meme image with the caption: “Assumptions. Assumptions everywhere.”
Since you admit you have no evidence, why did you make the claim in the first place ? Is there any reason why we should not consider you dishonest for having done so ?
I’ll just quote you for a bit:
That’s how you entered this discussion; criticizing what was said. And now, after three days, you’ve finally managed to admit that you don’t actually know what was said.
You’re willing to demonize specific named individuals, calling them bigoted, anti-Catholic and sexist, and you’re willing to do that without having any idea what they actually said. That tells me a lot about your character.
No, not really. That’s a legitimate question (or, it would be if it was asked in good faith).
A criticism of feminism would include a working definition, an identification of a problem, a demonstration of why it’s a problem and perhaps a proposal for an amended position that avoids the problem.
Misogyny (“anti-female misogyny” is kinda redundant) would include some kind of disparaging remark or dismissal of the opinions of a person, based not in the validity of their position, but simply on their gender.
If you have a legitimate critique of feminism, then let’s hear it. Start by defining feminism for us. I suspect that’s going to be hilarious.
Really? You don’t think her gender had anything to do with it when the guy say “Get that woman out of my chamber?” REALLY?
Are you for real? After having spent several days trying to defend the sexist bullshit these women were subjected to by calling them anti-Catholic and referring back to historical Catholic mistreatment, you’re suddenly going to claim that Catholics has nothing to do with it? You think it’s “just as likely” to have been Protestants?
Congratulations. For the first time in this discussion you’ve actually managed to be funny.
@Andy Mansfield #202
Hooray again! You’ve actually attempted to make a coherent response to specific numbered questions! Now let’s take a look to see if you were successful:
Q1. What, specifically, did Meredith say that was sexist toward men?
Andy Mansfield’s answer:
Ah, sorry, no points awarded here. See, I asked for specifics because you made a specific accusation that Meredith had made remarks that were sexist toward men. Despite you stating in your debut comment in this thread that you had not been there, I foolishly made the assumption that since you were able to make such a specific accusation, you must have had access to Meredith’s words somehow. But since Meredith is a woman talking about women’s rights, which is generally considered feminism, and you don’t like feminism, you assumed she was sexist toward men and you assumed that you would have been offended, had you actually been there or actually read/listened to/watched her speak. I don’t mean to pry, but where did you come by your remarkable psychic powers?
Q2. What, specifically, is the difference between voicing criticism of the Catholic church and voicing anti-Catholic bigotry?
Andy Mansfield’s answer:
Ouch. No points for this one either, because it doesn’t actually attempt to answer the specific question at all. But since you asked, I will do you the courtesy of answering:
“Voicing criticism of the feminism” is about engaging the arguments that feminists make. It means making counter-arguments and providing evidence for those counter-arguments. Unfortunately for you, it means making note of specific arguments in order to provide valid criticism of those arguments. If you wanted to make a counter-argument to, say, the pay gap between equally-qualified men and women who do the same job, then you would of course provide evidence to show that such a gap doesn’t exist, or is mitigated in some way.
“Voicing anti-female misogony” is exactly what happened in Glasgow. Meredith and Valles were booed and shamed because they were women. That’s not criticism. It’s bigotry. Unless you can explain to me how shouting “SHAME!…..women” refutes or counters any of the arguments you can’t specifically name.
Just to show you how generous I am, I’ll answer my own question for you: criticism of the institution of the Catholic church or Catholic dogma is not anti-Catholic bigotry.
Q3. What, specifically, does Meredith’s gender have to do with criticizing her views? Or were those particular men of Glasgow just too incompetent to engage her argument instead of her sex?
Andy Mansfield’s answer:
No points for this answer, either, because you’ve refuted yourself in your own comments. Sorry, Andy. You get a zero.
Her gender has nothing to do with it? Then why the gendered slurs? Why the calls of “SHAME!….women”? If her gender is irrelevant, then the “criticism” shouldn’t have mentioned it at all.
Do you really believe that if a man had made the same remarks as Meredith and Valles that he would have received calls of “SHAME!….man” or “frigid bitch”? Would you have said that this man’s remarks were sexist toward men?
Well colour me gobsmacked. Andy has no fucking idea what Meredith said, but he still thought he should jump in and criticise what she said … despite having no fucking idea what she said.
And by his own admission, he has no fucking idea what the difference is between criticising what someone says and yelling gendered slurs at them.
What a numpty.
way to miss my point. It’s you who defends misogyny by citing “working class” roots, which makes you a variety on the Common American Redneck regardless of the size of your city. It’s typical for rednecks to do this, and it’s just as much bullshit as when you do it. Working class people are perfectly capable of not being bigoted assholes resentful of everyone who isn’t like them. I know, since I come from a family of Polish/German farmers and miners, and my boyfriend is a crossbreed between Redneck and Detroit Blue Collar.
And again, it’s you who defends bigotry, not us. And now that you’ve admitted that you don’t even know what the women said, you can be dismissed entirely as basically a prejudiced whiner.
we don’t kill people.
honeycakes, not everything that offends you is bigotry.
the difference is attacking the content, not the person. D’uh. Same with the difference between criticizing Catholic dogma and anti-Catholic bigotry. Ideas should and must be criticized; people should not be attacked though.
lol
Andy? You’re using words wrong.
That’s just my Concise Oxbridge Dictionary, though.
Elitist! Working class people don’t have dictionaries, so you can’t expect them to make sense. Your demand that words be used according to established meanings is bigoted.
Gee, sounds like being a Catholic coincides with a definition of elitist.
@LykeX, I know, right?
You’d think my working class upbringing in a Northern industrial-decline city with a Catholic cathedral would give me some sympathy for the poor misogynists of
Glasgow“belfast imported”.(Not to mention having actually having lived in the actual Belfast.)
But no, apparently my
OxbridgeCamford education has corrupted me.Since you admit you have no evidence, why did you make the claim in the first place ? Is there any reason why we should not consider you dishonest for having done so ?
I’m guessing you didn’t see the talk either, i’ve spoke to people who were there, have you?
Likewise, a criticism of catholicism would include a working defintion, an identification of a problem, a demonstration of why it’s a problem and perhaps a proposal for an amedend position that avoids the problem.
Glasgow is a multicultural city, it could be people from any group, i’m sure you are aware of that, although like I have already said to come to a city with the histroy of Glasgow and talk about catholics in that way, is pretty naive.
And i’ll also say, criticsim of feminism is not anti female misogny, or do you think we should have special rules because it’s femiminsm ?
If you view the original quote you will see I said the Ira uses history to justify it’s actions, at no point did I mention killing, sinn feinn is a political organisation, with many genuine mps.
Also out of interest, from my original posts, which went along the lines of ,it was naive for an oxbridge elitist such as her to come to a city such as Glasgow, where there are no go areas for catholics, where people have been killed for being catholic, to not being advised of the sensitivitys and culture of the city, it’s hardly surprising this may happen, what bit of that was so shocking that caused such anger from you people?
Are you not supposed to be free thinkers? Or is it only people with the same views as your own that are entitled to be free thinkers? Do you think maybe you have been brainwashed to think this way?
Andy Mansfield, you are a terminally dishonest idiot.
You were the one who came in with a claim. You claimed that Meredith’s speech was “sexist against men” and bigoted against catholics (bigoted against people as opposed to critical of a belief system or institution). We have asked exactly what she said that made you think so – and you have provided absolutely fuck-all evidence. And then admitted you weren’t even there and had no idea what she actually said.
Examples please. Give us an example of what she said that was so sexist and/or so bigoted. Or, of course, you could just admit that you’re pulling all this out of your arse.
I’ll give you a clue: “get that woman out my my union” is a quotation. That’s an example of what was said (well, shouted) – one of the sexist and bigoted attacks on the speakers (on the speakers, not on the content of their speeches). Now, have you got any examples of what Meredith said? Examples that would substantiate your accusation that she was sexist and bigoted?
Oh, cupcake, cupcake. You’re not doing too well, are you. Don’t forget to explain to us how yelling “SHAME!…..women” and gendered slurs is “criticism of feminism” and not misogyny. How yelling “get that woman out my my union” is a criticism of feminism.
I won’t hold my breath.
Aaaaand you still haven’t answered any of the questions put to you.
If the people ‘protesting’ (where “protesting” is code for “subjecting the women to sexist abuse”) were not Catholic, why would anything said about Catholicism be an explanation for why these women were treated the way they were?
If the people ‘protesting’ (see above) WERE Catholic, then what was said that offended them?
If you weren’t there, what words are you hearing that make you think these women said offensive things? What offensive things did they allegedly say?
We have specific quotes of the abuse these women received, from people who were there. They’re in the OP and in several of the comments.
You’ve given us nothing, just vague references to alleged anti-Catholic bigotry (which you then contradicted by saying the ‘hecklers’ might not have even been Catholic, which would invalidate the claim that anti-Catholic bigotry was the cause of the abuse).
You’ve refused to answer any questions about what specific things were said that offended you. You don’t even have a fucking clue why you’re offended.
Why are you here? What is your point? What are you trying to say? Because from where I’m sitting, it sounds like “I have no idea what’s going on but SOMEONE TOLD ME THOSE NASTY LADIES WERE MEANIES ABOUT CATHOLICS RAGE RAGE RAGE!!!!”
This is fucking rich, considering you don’t even know what you’re angry about.
So you are going by second-hand information which explains why your accusations of anti-Catholic bigotry are completely non-specific. I don’t know what that’s called in Glasgow but in the US it’s usually called “pulling it out of your ass.”
If you want Catholicism criticized than we can do it. However that’s a separate topic from the jeering of women which is the actual topic under discussion.
Nobody is disputing this. However since you haven’t criticized feminism, other than to claim it’s “anti-Catholic bigotry”, then why are you bringing this up?
So “The Troubles” were purely a political matter, an acrimonious debate between Sinn Feinn and Ian Paisley’s group, with the British army as disinterested on-lookers.
I hadn’t realized that Glasgow was a combat zone, where Catholics tread lightly in fear of snipers and IEDs. No wonder a couple of “elitist” women were shouted down at a university debate.
What’s your definition of “free thinkers”? Is it misogynist, Catholic arseholes who scream at women for being women or is it something else?
Aw, Cm’s Changeable Moniker beat me too it at #215 :(
@Andy Mansfield
Mate, do you even read your own posts? First they got booed because they were misandric. Then they got booed because they were insensitive to Catholics. Then it turns out you haven’t actually seen or heard the speech and it may very well have been Protestants that booed them. Stop moving the goalposts.
I’m still catching up after being away for a while, and may not be able to participate well in this, but… fuck it.
The two unions are run sort-of independently of one another – both of them are funded by the SRC, but generally allowed to do their own thing, and they have some sort of agreement over room use for gigs and student clubs. The GUU is the original union, and is known for having many bars and many members of rugby, shinty and rowing teams occupying them; the Queen Margaret Union was the women-only one when gender segregation was still official policy, and has the best gigs these days. Some of the GUU members still haven’t gotten their heads around the change. I learned this as a first-year undergrad after going there for the Principal’s Pint on my first day, and joined the QM in subsequent years.
I remember reading a paper several years ago about levels of violence experienced by specific demographics: Glasgow was rated favourably in terms of tolerance of immigrants, people of non-British dsecent, and religious differences (Catholic/Protestant thing notwithstanding), but was among the worst for domestic violence and violence against homosexual, trans* and other-non-binary people (the other elements of LGBT+ were not separated out). I can’t remember the reference, or I’d attempt to link, but the attitudes this implies are broadly consistent with the worst I’ve seen or heard of the GUU on a Saturday night. Dealing with the territorial and the willfully foolish would be a hell of a lot easier if there were not people willing to go, “It’s okay, he’s a bit of an idiot”, “it was just a joke” and so on.
The Catholic/Protestant conflict is a persistent problem, even these days, but its relevance here hasn’t really been stood up. For what little it’s worth, I’d be inclined to believe the assertion that the hecklers were a minority, purely because of the kind of markers-as-proxies (re: football, nationalism) that used to show up long University Avenue, Byres Road & Woodlands during my time there.
I’m sort of relieved to be out… Some aspects of it seem more bizarre when they’re described to others. Still homesick as hell, here and now.
Sorry: that should be “the assertion that the hecklers were a minority if this was relevant“. Too tired right now.
and you imagine that’s a rebuttal… why? because that’s exactly what criticism of misogyny in the RCC usually looks.
but there was no criticism; no ideas were being challenged or discussed; the women were simply attacked.
sez the Catholic. lol.
dude. no one was surprised, since this group already had a reputation for toxic misogyny (being proud of not having admitted women until 30 years ago, for example). Not being surprising doesn’t make is toxic bullshit though. It just makes it predictable toxic bullshit.
what does misogynist heckling have to do with free thinking? if dudes had provided substantive criticisms, that would be one thing; but they were just sexist assholes. Such things needn’t be taken seriously as counterarguments, only as a form of harassment.
[OT P.S.: Fort Lauderdale is the worst airport to have a layover at. There’s nothing here :-/ ]
Andy you are doing little to convince me that my suspicions that you are really Bill Donohue are wrong.
humm
Yep criticism of feminism.
I see: just coming to Glasgow, in your view, justifies being subjected to misogynist abuse. I really hope you don’t work for the Glasgow Tourist Board.
I have no idea if they were Catholic, but anyone who speaks down about Catholicism in a place like Glasgow is usually in for a rough ride, in the same way that if you criticised the black community in Harlem, similar is likely to happen, the fact that the criticism came from an oxbridge elitist, in Britians most working class city, doesn’t help matters either, try not to swear or be as abusive in future.
Andy Mansfield
What, exactly, did they say about Catholicism?
Oh! And what’s your problem with that.
Sorry, should have been a part of the previous one but I fumbled.
You have yet to say what was said that you found offensive.
And you still have not addressed the point that saying things like “get this woman out of my union” and shouting “shame woman!” when a female debater is speaking are not “criticising feminism,” but simply being misogynistic.
All you keep saying is essentially “don’t come ’round here saying stuff that gets the locals riled up or you’ll see what happens to ya” which is ignorant bullshit that deserves no consideration whatsoever.
You might as well argue that anyone who criticises the treatment of women in some Islamic countries, for example, 1. Is automatically an Islamophobic bigot (as you don’t seem to recognise the difference between valid criticism and knee-jerk bigotry), and 2. Deserves to have their words met with a violent response.
Are you ever going to actually address any of the points brought to you, or are you going to keep repeating the same non-argument?
Andy, you’ve got nothing. Continuing to spout that nothing will not magically turn it into something.
This is a man who thinks speaking magic words over a cracker turns it into the flesh a 2000 year old Jewish Carpenter.
RevBDC:
Egad! Anti-Catholic bigotry! /snark
Are you actually prepared to say you are against misogynist abuse of the kind reported to have taken place at this meeting? A simple question, requiring only a “yes” or a “no”.
Andy Mansfield @ 234
Given the quotes presented as evidence in the OP, that’s a particularly poor comparison. They were heckled for being women, not for being anti-Catholic. That’s not like criticizing the black community in Harlem. The power differentials are completely different. That’s like a black going into a dominantly white community and being heckled for being black. That’s egregious discrimination.
If they were heckled for being anti-Catholic, that would be a different matter, but you’ve completely failed to present any evidence to support that idea. You’ve no examples of heckling based on their alleged anti-Catholicism. If they were heckled for being an elitist from an elitist institution that would be a different, but again, they was heckled not for that but for being women. If the heckling were anti-elitist, then all their companions should have received identical heckling.
Instead, we’re required to accept that Glaswegians and Catholics are misogynists. (We already knew the latter.) It’s not exactly appealing. That’s why PZ said Glasgow can do better.
Predicted answer: “What about the Catholics huh? That Oxbridge elitist didn’t think of that when she blah blah blah blah your mean”
I’d love to know how many Oxbridge men have been called “frigid bitches” by the Glaswegians. Surely the men are just as elitist as the women, so if that’s really the problem then it must happen all the time.
The Protestant Catholics are the ones who really heckle the anti-Catholic Oxbridge elitists. Just ask Andy, he’ll explain how the Sinn Fein are all Glaswegian Protestants now, grieving over the deaths of Oliver Cromwell, William III and John Paul II. Or something like that.
Actually the name of this blog is Pharyngula. It’s part of the Free Thought Blogs.
It’s free thought that’s causing you so much trouble. You keep throwing allegations about the two Oxbridge women and about us with nary a hint of evidence to support your allegations. You’ve made it obvious you don’t know what Meredith talked about but you’re convinced it was anti-Catholic bigotry, based on your unsupported opinion that she’s anti-Catholic.
>blockquote>Quoted text in here
Has anyone here seen the talk? I would love to see it to be honest, if her views are as bigoted towards Catholic as many on here then she has nothing to complain about.
I wouldn’t see the power differentials as being all that different, there are not any no go areas for black people in Harlem, there are many no go areas for catholics in Glasgow. Women give talks at Glasgow Universities on a daily basis and rarely, if ever are they heckled, it certainly wasn;t anything to do with her gender, if it was a male he would have faced much harsher criticism, besides feminists have never been shy about disrupting talks in the past, if it’s something that goes against their view, I don’t think they have any claim for the moral high ground.
I’m actually very proud of how Glasgow behaved, has anyone seen the talk yet? I’m hoping it will be on youtube soon.
Technically Freethought Blogs
Yes, you’ve made that very clear that you approve of misogynistic heckling.
Still no answers. Still no substance.
Are you unaware that you’ve failed to answer any questions (and continue to throw out baseless accusations) or are you perfectly aware and just dishonest?
Oh and, just to be clear, as I don’t trust you not to add my implying that you’re dishonest to your collection of alleged “anti-Catholic” insults, I am asking if/implying that you, personally, Andy Mansfield, are being dishonest in your engagement here, not Catholics in general, not you because you’re (apparently) Catholic, but you personally, because you continue to fail or refuse to answer the questions that keep being asked of you, which are very relevant indeed to the issue at hand and your insistence that somehow the abysmal treatment of these women is their own fault.
@Andy Mansfield
Wait, wait, I think I’ve got it!
They, Oxbridge Elitists, criticised Catholicism in Glasgow, a working class city with sectarian divisions, so they should have expected misogynistic abuse! Much like women in short skirts who go up dark alleys should expect to be raped! And young girls who post pictures to redditt about what they got for christmas, well, they revealed they were a girl on the internet, so they should expect creepy, perverted comments from older men! It’s obvious!
Wait, there’s a name for this, isn’t there? Begins with a V… Vic… Victim Blaming! That’s it!
I see AM has no idea what freethought really means. It means challenging accepted orthodoxy, like RCC teaching, in your life. Look at the evidence, rather than accepting what they say without question. AM, you don’t show freethought. You show free from thought, swallowing religion and the neighborhood prejudices without question.
@Andy Mansfield
You shouldn’t be. Your performance here has been ridiculous. You have made very specific assertions and been unable to support them with any kind of evidence. If this is the standard for debate in Glasgow then I’m surprised that the GUU is as well-regarded as it seems to be.
If the men in that Glasgow audience couldn’t come up with real criticisms instead of commenting on the speakers’ gender and appearance, then that reflects poorly on them, and on you, if you support it. It’s nothing to be proud of. You’re happy because you think those gents gave those elitist bitches what for, are you? You’re happy to join in on piling abuse and making accusations against them because you think that what was said confirms your pre-conceived notions of bias?
You are a sad excuse for debater. It is you who is not challenging your long-held assumptions here.
Do you even speak English?
Rey Fox:
Careful! You might get accused of anti-Scottish bigotry! /snark
la tricoteuse
Glaswegians have been known to ask that of other Scots if they’re being too quiet in response to being
harassedspoken to in the street. The d00d doesn’t seem to be reading for comprehension, or genuinely doesn’t understand. If it’s the former, he’s an arse. If it’s the latter, he is not giving thought to the arguments against him and is responding condescendingly… persistence in which would suggest he’s an arse.AM
[Cue snark about the plight of protestants in Calton]
There is a problem. It’s been there for a while, and it’s getting better than it was. But as long as both sides* spend all their time pointing to the provocations of the other while doing nothing about the aggressive, territorial fuckers who are in their own midst today, it’s not going to be fixed, and there’s still nothing to support any claim that this is relevant.
1. At this point it is clear that you’ve never been a woman talking to a group at Glasgow University outside of a classroom. I’d also infer that you aren’t overly attentive when such talks are going on in your vicinity.
2. Yes, if the speaker was male, there would probably have been stronger words. The point is rather that they would have been words about the argument expressed, rather than his clothes, appearance, present set of reproductive equipment, or perceived status of ‘not belonging’, with some variability depending on how much classism the audience wanted to go for.
mythbri
Damn fucking right. It’s strange how many people are apparently blind to the meaning of ad-hominem when they’re not using the term to dismiss an argument they oppose.
* I’m aware that Catholics have historically been on the bottom end of this, but have too many painful memories of the consequences of being a “neither” to see either side as wholly blameless.
Rev. BigDumbChimp @246
Thanks for the correction.
Andy Mansfield @245
How do you know we’re bigoted towards Catholics? Many if not most of us are anti-Catholicism but that’s not the same as anti-Catholic. There is a major difference between disliking Catholics and criticizing the misogynist, anti-human dogma expounded by the bunch of celibate bachelors who run the church. I have no trouble with people who believe the lies the Pope and his pals put out. I have major problems with the lies the Pope and his pals put out. Does the name Savita Halappanavar mean anything to you? Even though she was not a Catholic, she was killed because of Catholic dogma.
Me @ 256
Upon further consideration, I realize I have a complaint with the people who believe the Pope’s lies. How can they be so blind not to realize the Pope and his pals aren’t interested in people but are only concerned with grabbing and holding power? The bullshit the Catholic Church, along with every other denomination, puts out has nothing to do with “saving souls” and “glorifying God” but is about domination of other people. “Follow the nonsensical rules we decree or else gawd has a snit and you don’t want gawd to have a snit. We know this because gawd tells us so. Also give us lots of money and ignore our employees raping your children or else gawd has a really big snit.”
Is this the point where you say “You wouldn’t dare treat a Muslim like this…”? Please do, that’s always good for a laugh with us.
I think I must point that the problem was not the standard of debate but the standard of behaviour of the audience who were doing the heckling. The audience has always done this, back to my days at the University. As I have pointed out, Glasgow audiences are feared and this is just a peculiar offshoot of a general principle that is acted out in the Union. For the audience up in the gallery it’s just a turkey shoot. Things get shouted out and people get carried away with the sort of things they shout out. It just like the Tom and Jerry shows in my day. Except of course, these are guests not performers and they are here to make serious points not entertain on pain of death. What irks me is how little time seems to have moved on since my time there.
Of course, this does not address Andy’s determination to reach the Earth’s core in spite of all attempts to deflect him. I have tried to point why he might why he might be sensitive so he could argue his point but this seems to have been misunderstood. Historical discrimination and abuse does not legitimise trying to catergorise valid criticism as bigotry. Also, the Glasgow Andy describes is not the one I remember, in my day most non-catholic Glaswegians would be perfectly happy to let strangers take a pop at Catholics, valid or otherwise, they’re fair game. Anyone having a go at Glasgow, different matter. Glaswegians are proud of their city to the point of obsession, second city of the Empire and all that.
One property that Andy does share that I remember is that he does not let logic get in the way of his position. Glasgow is the only city I have driven in where pedestrians will stand in front of you and dare you to knock them down. They do this in complete contradiction of the logic of their position. I.e if the dare is taken up they will come off worst. One of the consequences of this position used to be (I don’t know if they are still there) signs at junctions saying things like “17 pedestrians were killed at this junction last year” Glaswegians argue like someone playing chicken with a herd of rampaging elephants, they’re convinced the other side will blink first.
iainuk, my understanding of the format of the debate is that in the final, eight debaters are randomly paired up, given a motion (“this house believes X”) and then each pair is instructed to argue a particular viewpoint (for, against, neither, wrong question, etc.). The judges then decide a winner on clarity, coherence, etc., with bonus points available for witty smackdowns of hecklers.
Is that right?
[Super-bonus fun fact from Facebork!]
Meredith, the “elitist Oxbridge” debater is from a village 15 miles away from …
wait for it …
…
…
… Glasgow.
Not too sure because I never was bothered to see a debate through. I only looked in on one once with some friends (what a riot). You may very well be right on this but I cannot verify it from personal experience. Mostly it was the Arts students that did this sort of thing, not us Science students. In particular, I don’t know about the quality of heckling bonus, but it stirs some vague memory. It was, after all, 40 years ago.
Sorry should be quality of heckling smackdown bonus. I do seem to remember something about that even though I was not much interested.
I remember some friends talking about a debate between GUU and Strathclyde Uni (the old foe) when one GUU speaker was interrupted by a paper dart floating down from gallery then saying “I see Strathclyde’s aeronautics department is improving.”
I suppose you had to be there.
Heh, works for me even at this distant remove. ;-)
Thanks anyway, though. I was going from the comments on this article at the Spectator. Ashish K and Kitty P-B (see: the reporting in Varsity and the Telegraph, respectively) have been all over the comments section …
As you are seeminly the only poster who knows how to reply without abusive heckling and seem to have a bit of knowledge and intelligence, i’ll give you my reply. If the audience has always done this, why is it only a problem now?
If feminists want equality why should they be treated any different to anyone else here? You say time doesn’t seem to move on, but becoming as bland as everyowhere else would be a step backwards in my opinion.
You talk about valid criticism but people are able to see through elitists such as Miss Meridith, it’s likely she will have the same views as many on here and there is an underlying dislike of the catholic way of life on here, i’m sure Meridith shares that view, also it’s not as if feminists have been shy about heckling in the past when someone with a different agenda to their own gives a talk, was it Warrenn Farrell in Toronto recently? It reeks of double standards to me and shows how dogmatic sociology is and how taboo it is to veer from the mainstream.
Also I would fancy my chances against a car to be honest.
Oh I SEE. Andy isn’t answering our questions because we’re MEAN, not because he doesn’t have any answers. He totes does and is withholding the cookie. Right.
Define “the Catholic way of life” as you see it so I can decide if I dislike it, please.
I notice that Mr. Mansfield continues to claim Ms. Meredith is anti-Catholic without presenting a shred of evidence to support this accusation. I also notice that in all the reports of the heckling that nowhere is any mention of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, or any other religious believers. Could it be that Mr. Mansfield is pulling his assertion of anti-Catholic bigotry out of thin air?
Yawn, still not one iota of evidence presented for AM to make his case. Exactly like he is tacitly admitting he has nothing but his own irrational prejudices to defend, all out of hearsay. Sigh, they don’t make noisy irrational wankers like they used to.
I believe Mr. Tom Lehrer described certain aspects of “the Catholic way of life” in his song The Vatican Rag:
Ulysses (and Tom Lehrer):
Oh yeah. I remember that bit. Always made my knees hurt and my head spin a bit, all that up-down-up-down. :D
For someone who defends offensive hecklers to death, Andy Mansfield is such a fragile flower. “You’re mean! I won’t answer your points until you’re nice to me! *pouts*”
Is Andy Mansfield the stupidest troll we’ve had here? Admittedly, there’s some stiff competition, but repeating the same evidence-free crap in every post for several days is certainly a fine effort. Congratulations Andy!
@Andy Mansfield
Complaining that people here are being “abusive” to you and yet still continuing to comment seems counter-intuitive, don’t you think? You always have the option of NOT coming back here.
Did you miss the comment where it turns out that Rebecca Meredith is actually from a village close to Glasgow?
I don’t have any contempt for you based on your religion, necessarily, though I have great contempt for how the Catholic church treats women as second-class citizens and meddles in their legal rights. I have contempt for you based on the way you think. I have contempt for you because you don’t seem to recognize the difference between engaging the argument and attacking the person making it. I’ll give you a hint: you’ve so far only demonstrated your ability to do ONE of those things, especially since you’ve admitted that you don’t even know what Meredith’s argument even was.
I surely hope that not all people – men – from Glasgow are like you and the men that heckled (in a SEXIST way) Meredith and Valles at the GUU. If they are, then that is nothing to be proud of.
Shame on you, Andy Mansfield. Why are you whining about yourself being challenged while simultaneously defending the practice of sexist heckling? You can dish it out but you can’t take it?
Andy
It’s odd that you seem to have a problem with that, seeing as it’s exactly that which you have been defending for days. But you wanna know what I consider rude behavior? Accusing Ms. Meredith of saying sexist and bigoted things and not ponying up any evidence to support it. I think you owe her an apology. And us, as well, for putting up with you for so long out of hope that you’d begin arguing in good faith.
I imagine somebody in the American South of the 19th Century asking a similar question about owning slaves. It’s not only a problem now, it was always a problem. It’s just finally getting some attention.
I must have missed the part where people said it was a shame to have men in the Union and called the men there “frigid bitches” or talked about what the men were wearing or how big the men’s breasts were and how fuckable they were. It would seem to me that there are some qualitative differences.
I’ve hard this basic argument on several occasions and on several different subjects. The lesson I draw from it is that we need to scream and shout and make a big deal out of everything because the moment we don’t, it’ll be used as an excuse for why there’s really no problem at all.
If we don’t make a big stink out of something, that fact will be used to undermine all future efforts to solve that problem. So, when somebody asks why you’re making a big deal out of something; when they ask if you’re not making a mountain out of a molehill;when they tell you there are other, more important things you should focus on, refer them back to comments like Andy’s.
Get this hypocrite out of my comment thread.
If there’s always been conflict between anti-Catholic prejudice in Glasgow, why is it only a problem now?
If there’s always been Catholic “no go areas” in Glasgow, why is it only a problem now?
Really, Catholics only bring attacks down on themselves when they complain. They should shut up and sit down and wait until Protestants graciously grant them equal rights, when said Protestants feel that they deserve it — with the caveat that said Protestants are free to punish Catholics who are uppity.
Right, and Catholics keep wanting to be treated differently to Protestants. Shame on them!
Quite right. Anti-Catholic bigotry is part of Glasgow’s ancient and colourful heritage. How bland the city would be Catholics were not treated with bigotry! Blandness is obviously worse than bigotry and prejudice. It would be a step backwards for Catholics to be treated fairly!
And they can see through elitists like Catholics, too.
Well, I’m am sure that all Catholics have an underlying dislike of the Protestant way of life, so of course they deserve to be treated with bigotry by Protestants.
You do indeed reek of double-standards, and show how dogmatic Catholicism is, and how taboo it is to veer away from Catholic bigotry.
So of course one might modestly propose that Catholics deserve everything they get.
[NB: There are probably people who thought that Jonathan Swift was actually advocating cannibalism.]
It has been a problem for 100s of years
It’s interesting how people here are so allegedly horrified by the heckling the young woman recieved yet have no problem behaving that way themselves, I will apologise when people apologise for the anti catholic bigotry on here, have you seen the talk yourself by the way?
Likewise, with anti catholicsim in Glasgow, that has been a problem since the 19th century also, a privelaged elitist such as meridith has little understanding of that.
Like i’ve said mate, to come to Glasgow as a priveliged elitist and talk about religion is a very taboo thing to do here, many people have family, friends, ancesters etc who have lost lifes over the conflict.
Where was I complaining? I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of a group of people so allegdly horrified at a bit of heckling yet, seem to behave the exact way themselves. I enjoy coming on here.
Has anyone seen the talk by the way?
Care to cite an example, or would you prefer to keep talking out your ass?
Yes okay.
Post 13 hit the nail on the head
Glasgow is a great place to visit and live in – go there, it’s wonderful. But it has serious issues.Although he was talking from an outsiders perspective, it’s no a place where people, certainly can come in and talk that way without expecting consequences.
Where did i say they should expect misogynist abuse? I never even used that word. Of course she should expect to be heckled, remember, all people are offended by different things, what’s seen as good to rich girl like Meridith, could be seen as offensive to someone from Glasgow, surely you can see that?
I see you are still unable to tell criticism of dogma from bigotry against individuals. You also lack the ability to detect satire. Your reading comprehension sucks. And I won’t be surprised if you later quote this comment as another example of anti-Catholic bigotry.
Is Andy “I didn’t even see the talk but I’ll assume the speaker’s motives” Mansfield still carping on about anti-Catholic bigotry – which he doesn’t even know whether it took place or not?
Does Andy still think anyone in an atheistic, anti-religious blog gives a rat’s ass about what particular flavor of God he prefers?
Is Andy unable to understand sarcasm?
Is Andy unable to recognize his own posts when they’re thrown back at him?
I will accept quotes such as
As satire’ when people like yourself accept misogyny as satire, your knowledge and awareness of other cultures is extremely poor.
Did you see the talk yourself?
You’re the one going around making very specific claims about what was said there without having seen it.
As for that quote that you’re hung up on, I’ll address that briefly, though I am not the one who said it. It is an example of a rhetorical device where one substitutes the subjects and objects of a statement to show what it is like when the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. If you replace Catholics with women and Protestants with men, then you have pretty much the current situation in our culture. If you think it is unreasonable to expect Catholics to endure a situation like that, then you should agree that the situation for women is also unreasonable.
As for misogyny being satire, well misogyny is such a common ordinary experience all over the world every day that it takes a pretty seriously skilled satirist to be able to say something that is distinguishable from the real thing. Anybody making a satirically misogynist statement should be aware of that risk and accept the consequences when they are mistaken for the real deal. One of those consequences being that they are making actual misogynists feel validated when they see other people saying the same things they do.
Wow. That’s some industrial strength point-missing you’ve got going on there.
That’s bigotry? You think that refusal to give you special privileges is bigotry?
Actually, I’m not that surprised.
I’ll repeat:
Get real, Andy. This ain’t Glasgow, and anti-Catholic bigotry isn’t a thing in other parts of the world. You’re accusing us of not knowing other cultures, but your entire chain of posts is based on projecting your own cultural biases on Meredith and us.
So has misogyny. Which was the whole point of posting that question in contrast to your asshole “question” in defense of misogynist heckling. Are you really so dumb that you don’t get that?
Given that your first comment here was heckling, and so too have all of your subsequent comments, your hypocrisy is noted.
Liar.
People who use the phrase “anti catholic bigotry” are usually anti-non-Catholic bigots, in my experience.
What talk about religion?
Many women have lost their lives from misogynist abuse.
No, you’ve been a hypocrite and a heckler and a liar.
=======
Pretended examples of “anti catholic bigotry”:
Pointing out that some Scots are misogynist is not aimed at catholics, and is not bigotry.
Actually, what did you mean by “catholic rights”, that this is in response to?
A statements of fact about what the Catholic church has in fact done and what its policies are is not bigotry against catholics.
Rephrasing your own damn words so as to highlight your bigotry against non-Catholics is an attempt to get through your stupid head with satire, which was of course doomed to fail because you don’t understand the words you read.
Using satire to point out that you were defending misogyny was another doomed attempt to get through to you. I’m sorry you don’t understand English.
======
1) You defended the heckling.
2) You said you would have heckled too
3) The heckling was misogyist — “get that woman out my my union”; “shame woman” ; boos at mention of female equality
4) The heckling was NOT anti-religious-bigotry. No-one said “shame protestant” or “shame anti-catholic” or “get that protestant out of my union” or “get that “anti-catholic out of my union” or booed at mention of anti-catholic statements
Therefore, you have been defending misogynist heckling.
What on earth makes you think she’s rich? First you lie and put words in her mouth; now you’re lying about the contents of her bank account?
How the hell does that even make sense? Misogyny is not satire; misogyny is serious bigotry towards women.
Were your comments @#265; that equal rights are “a step backwards”, intended satirically? If not, you were being a deadly serious misogynist.
@Andy Mansfield #280
Andy, my post pointed out the misogyny these women experienced, put it up alongside other, arguably more serious, incidences of misogyny, and compared the reactions to each in an effort to make you see that what you are engaged in is victim blaming. You have said, explicitly, many times, that they only got abused for saying nasty things about Catholics (what nasty things you are unable to specify), the implication obviously being that if they hadn’t said the nasty things about the Catholics, they wouldn’t have recieved misogynistic abuse. That’s victim-blaming.
Mansfield,
You have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence of this anti-catholic bigotry you claim was spouted.
You have repeatedly failed to provide any. Why do you persist in your claim, you even you must realise that to do so is dishonest of you ? To make it east I will turn in into a multiple choice question.
A) Because you are stupid.
B) Because you are lying for Jesus
C) Because you see nothing wrong with misogyny.
D) Because you are a misogynistic and stupid liar for Jesus.
Andy still has nothing.
Andy still keeps trying to magically turn nothing into something by endlessly repeating the nothing.
The universe does not work that way, Andy.
Anti-Catholic bigotry?
This is just a statement of fact, for crying out loud. Would you like to try denying any of this? I mean, I know you’re not interested, I know you’re more concerned with keeping Glasgow safe for misogynist thugs, but really, man.
(And shaming elitist possibly-rich possibly-elitist woman speakers from villages outside of Glasgow)
The only claims i made were that I found it very naive for someone from an elite background to come to glasgow and talk about religion given the culture of the place, there is no way i would talk about religion in a public place in glasgow it’s just not the done thing, here it would be seen as a bad personality trait and a bad form of etiquite. It would be much easier if we could all watch the video but going off posts made before me it seemed accepted that she spoke about catholicism in a negative tone,
As for the second paragraph, i could just as easily swap feminism for catholicism and if you think it is unreasonable for feminists to accept certain stuff then the same should apply for catholics
For the 3rd paragraph i did exactly what you did in the 2nd paragraph, it was a example of a rhetorical device where one substitutes the subjects and objects of a statement to show what it is like when the shoe is on the other foot, what has been misogynist about anything I have said, I am one of the few posters that hasn’t resorted to ad hominem attacks, that’s not the done thing here.
You think the refusal to give you special privelages in mysoginism?
And also things noone else has been able to specify, it would be fantastic if the video appeared on youtube, i’m hopeful it will. Many times it has been said that they only got abused for being women, that is also victim blaming, for someone who may have spent there life being told ‘the famines over why dont you go home’ which is a very popular song by anglo saxons such as meridith in glasgow, to expect them not to react to alleged anti catholic quotes then that is very naive.
Andy:
What special privileges?
Like, being let out of the house before dinner is cooked.
Gee, you haven’t proven there are any special privileges in this discussion other than your inane fuckwitted opinion that your church as an institution can’t be criticized by anybody, and if it is, all paritioners of the church are insulted with bigotry, even if the criticism is leveled at the hierarchy.
The privelage not to be questioned when talking about religion in Glasgow, in the same way anyone else would?
What pro catholic privelages was everyone else talking about?
I’m starting to understand now. We must always question Catholicism but we must never, ever, dare to question feminsim?
Andy Mansfield:
Even if she did insult the Pope, the parish priest, and a nun, the reaction, the heckling, was done in a very specific sexist manner: “Get that woman out of my union,” and, “Shame, woman.” These are misogynistic cat calls and are not acceptable. If they disagreed with the content of her speech, there are appropriate ways to disagree without using her sex as an insult. Why is this such a hard concept for you?
Andy Mansfield:
Are you saying that yelling “SHAME woman!” is “questioning”?
Is “Get this woman out of my union” questioning?
In what way were these women “questioned when talking about religion”?
(And WERE they talking abotu religion? What did they say about religion? How do you know? And before you say “has anyone else seen a video?” remember that you are the one claiming to know the content, not us. We have quotes of the treatment they received, so we can reference that. You don’t have quotes from their speeches, but you seem nonetheless confident of what they contained. Why?
The heckling in question wasn’t about religion, but rather the sex of the speaker. Funny how you keep ignoring that simple fact.
Why can’t you stick with the real topic, which is the heckling of the woman with sexist remarks. That isn’t questioning the topic.
Lest you accuse me of not answering YOUR questions in the way you keep not answering ours:
Well, you seem to think (as you keep repeating) that she (either because she’s a woman, or because she’s a student at a posh school, or something?) should have “known what to expect” when talking about Catholicism in a city with a fraught history in terms of Catholic/Protestant relations. So she was subjected to sexist heckling, according to you, because she allegedly discussed Catholicism in a way that was offensive to Catholics, though you have offered ZERO evidence of the content of her speech.
So apparently, the pro-Catholic privilege is not to be subjected to anything but positive opinions of Catholicism, or to be given carte blanche to hurl any kind of abuse they like at anyone who dares to make any criticisms of Catholicism (putting aside for the moment that you seem not to know the difference between criticism and bigotry). Or both.
I have a question:
Get these fucking Catholics out of my 2013.
And feminists have never used shame tactics themselves in the past?, post 13 says she was talking about, but as he threw in a few insults about Glasgow, noone questioned him, are you saying she didn’t mention catholicism at all? Where did ever say ‘I know the content’ by the way?
Andy are your argument skills and reading comprehension a product of “The Catholic way of life”?
Because that’s easily one of the dumbest responses I’ve read to anything on the internet this week.
If you don’t know the content, you have no context to criticize what PZ or anybody here says. You jumped in fuckwittedly without context and keep repeating the same old tired and well refuted drivel like your OPINION has to mean something to me. It means nothing to me without evidence to show it is an informed opinion.
Get the speech up and I will give you the evidence, like I will have to repeat again the only claim i made was ‘The only claims i made were that I found it very naive for someone from an elite and privelaged background to come to glasgow and talk about religion given the culture of the place’ which I stand by.
As for the 2nd paragraph I could just as easily say the pro feminist privilage is not to be subjected to anything but positive opinions on feminism and be given carte blanche to offend catholics in a city like glasgow,.
Well, since you have no evidence for any of this, you’re a fucking dolt to stand by those claims.
Andy, you are the one who must supply the evidence for your claims. If you are a person on honor and itegrity, either provide evidence for those claims or shut the fuck up about those claims. Only liars and bullshitters can’t/won’t put the evidence, or shut up about the claims. You need to shut the fuck up.
Andy Mansfield being fucking dishonest again:
FOR FUCK’S SAKE
YOU made the claim. It is YOUR job to provide the evidence.
Unless you can do that, your entire presence here has been based on NOTHING and you should SHUT THE FUCK UP.
And the award for the Most Obvious Cowardly Dodge Today goes too . . .. ANDY!
How so? I live here I know all about the culture of the place, do you live here?
I also know she comes from a privileged and elitist background, is that even up for debate?
Are you saying she didn’t mention Catholicism?
Andy Mansfield:
That isn’t answering my questions. Here they are again:
As for where you implied you knew the content of her speech:
Comment 41:
Comment 42:
Comment 65:
And quite a few more in a similar vein that it seems pointless to quote…
Comment 152:
Off this very web site
My partner spoke about Leila Ahmed and female clergy and I spoke about dogmatic opposition to contraception and Catholics who identified as pro-choice
Did you see the the talk yourself?
My next reply will be tomorrow, only intelligent responses will be receive a reply.
None of that matters, Andy Mansfield. It really doesn’t. Because the quotes (the only actual quotes of what was said there) are sexist remarks which had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONTENT OF HER SPEECH! The hecklers attacked her as a woman, not for what she said. They attacked her for being a woman in their ‘man space’ and not the actual argument she made. Why is this so hard for you?
Andy Mansfield:
I was beginning to suspect, but it’s clear now.
Andy is suffering knee-jerk class rage. This woman’s only crime was attending a prestigious university full of posh students. That is why he’s angry. That’s his problem with her. How dare she be an Oxbridge student!
<blockquote.My next reply will be tomorrow, only intelligent responses will be receive a reply.All replies to your fuckwittery are intelligent. You responses are anythig other than intelligent. The are presuppositional idiocy.
And once again Andy Mansfield the Coward refuses to do the very first thing he should have done when he joined this thread – back up his claims with evidence.
You are pathetic, Andy Mansfield.
Dang, borked the blockquote in #317. First sentence is quoting AM, the rest my response.
Andy Mansfield, this is not about the talk. It really isn’t. It is about the sexist reaction of some members of the audience — members of the GUU. It is not about Catholicism. It is not about forcing others to obey Catholic teachings whether they are Catholic or not. It has nothing to do with the history of Catholicism in Glasgow. It has everything to do with the blatant misogyny on display as expressed through the catcalls of men. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
And apparently have the gall to be a woman who spoke in public in Glasgow.
If that is all, why should the truth be heckled with ad hominens? Why should you care if folks don’t follow dogma to the nth degree? Why should you keep defending that which isn’t on topic and doesn’t need defending?
@Andy Mansfield #293
Andy, I said that merely to point out the level of ridiculousness to your argument; i.e. you can’t even prove that the supposed “Anti-Catholic” abuse happened. Judging from your post #279, I doubt very much that whatever you point out in their speech as “Anti-Catholic bigotry” would be in any way recogniseable as such to any rational person anyway.
And no, no one is saying that them being abused for being women is victim blaming. I am saying that you are blaming them for the abuse they recieved by attempting to provide justification for the abusers, and that is victim blaming. The thing you fail to understand is you are not providing justification at all, because you fail to distinguish between a justification and an explanation. Even if two women came on stage and started singing “The Famine’s Over, Why Don’t You Go Home”, it still wouldn’t justify misogyny in exactly the same way that a black person calling you a cracker doesn’t justify you calling them a nigger. It explains it, sure, but it doesn’t justify sinking to their level. The fact that the “justification” itself is unproven and currently unproveable by anyone here is merely the second level of ridiculousness. The first is your argument itself.
Fuckhead, you couldn’t describe the inside of your bowels if we filled your nostrils with penlights.
There are other Glaswegians here, and they confirm that you’re dumber than shit.
Is this even debatable?
Speaker: I would like to discuss the things I find disturbing about the brainwashing, social separation and forced labor that happens in Scientology
Crowd: Fuck You, you’re just a woman get off the stage with your ugly dress. Who let you out of the kitchen.
Andy: That elitist woman should have known better than to come to Clearwater and talk about Scientology
Oh I think that’s bothering him too, yes. But I think he’s at least almost as angry about her being (allegedly) posh as about her being a woman. Because see, those elitist posh Oxbridge wankers, how dare they come up here and tell us how things should be! That’s why he can’t comment on anything she said. He doesn’t give a shit about the content. It’s bullshit tribalism “you’re not from around here so how dare you have opinions” type stuff. Except she was indeed from around there, in geographical terms.
It’s a bit like southerners’ distrust of northerners in the US, especially from the city. Especially if they went to Harvard or something. Cue the derisive “city boy” and “college boy” “coming down here with your fancy big city job/education” type reactions.
Anthony K:
Only if they’re working class Catholics! No other Glaswegians’ opinions can be trusted!
Is there a corresponding Scottish term for Carpetbagger?
Like ive said before and ill say again, the only claim i made was ‘The only claims i made were that I found it very naive for someone from an elite and privelaged background to come to glasgow and talk about religion given the culture of the place’ which I stand by.
Is there as much criticism on here when feminists disrupt people giving talks?
Does the fact she’s a woman bother men? No, not at all, women in Glasgow are known for being loud and confident, more so than any other place in Britain, so that would be no issue to me.
As for someone coming from the big city to Glasgow, again you got that wrong, she is from a small town, whereas Glasgow is the largest city in the country so to label her as the big city intellect coming to the country is so far wrong I don’t even know where to start with that one.
Also, why is tribalism bad? I see it as natural.
@Andy Mansfield
Andy, judging from your post #279, whatever you manage to dig out of their speech and hold up as “Anti-Catholic Bigotry” wouldn’t be recogniseable as such to any rational person anyway.
Amd no, no one is saying that them being abused for being women is victim blaming. That’s called misogyny. I am saying that you are blaming them for the abuse which they recieved by attempting to find justification for their abusers. I am saying that this, apart from being morally wrong in and of itself is also a shit argument, because you fail to distinguish between a justification and a reason. Even if the two ladies had come marching on stage singing “the famines over why dont you go home”, it would not justify misogyny. It would explain it, sure, but it wouldn’t justify it in the same way that a black guy calling you a cracker doesn’t justify you calling him a nigger. It explains it, but it does not justify you sinking to their level. The fact that your so-called justification is also unproven and unproveable by anyone here just adds a second level of ridiculousness.
OK, third attempt.
@Andy Mansfield
Andy, judging from your post #279, whatever you manage to dig out of their speech and hold up as “Anti-Catholic Bigotry” wouldn’t be recogniseable as such to any rational person anyway.
And no, no one is saying that them being abused for being women is victim blaming. That’s called misogyny. I am saying that you are blaming them for the abuse which they recieved by attempting to find justification for their abusers. I am saying that this, apart from being morally wrong in and of itself is also a shit argument, because you fail to distinguish between a justification and a reason. Even if the two ladies had come marching on stage singing “the famines over why dont you go home”, it would not justify misogyny. It would explain it, sure, but it wouldn’t justify it in the same way that a black guy calling you a cracker doesn’t justify you calling him the N-word. It explains it, but it does not justify you sinking to their level. The fact that your so-called justification is also unproven and unproveable by anyone here just adds a second level of ridiculousness.
*headdesk*
What part of that requires calling a female judge of the event a “frigid bitch” for shushing sexist hecklers? No one is asking for the privilege not to be questioned. We’re asking that it not be done in such a misogynistic fashion. For fucks sake, what’s so hard to understand about that? Is your skull made of neutronium?
Do you think that it was perfectly acceptable for some members of the audience to use sexist and misogynistic heckles to shut her up? Because that is what the original post is about, not her talk.
Please present an example of a feminist using sexist or man-hating catcalls to stop a man from speaking. Please present an example of a feminist doing this and having the support of much of the audience.
Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!
Yes they had a problem with a woman speaking. That is why at least one of the hecklers shouted out, “get that woman out my my union”. That is why they were saying “Shame” and “Woman” during her talk. If a man gave the same talk (and, let’s face it, you have no idea what was actually said by your own admission), if a man, with the same background, stood up on stage and said the same thing, would someone have said, “get that man out of my union”? So you see, it really is about her being a woman.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? They did not disagree with what she said, they disagreed with what she is!
The evidence at hand does not support this assertion.
Andy, which respons is an ad hominem, and which addresses the substance of the argument:
Boo, go home woman.
or
Boo, protestant drivel.
Then justify how the heckling went as addressing the substance of the argument…
Andy Mansfield:
1. Is everything natural good?
2. When it manifests itself the way it has in your case, on this particular subject, it is bad. Your entire premise seems to be that she deserved the sexist abuse she got because she was from a posh uni and was talking about Catholicism. As if merely discussing Catholicism while being from a posh uni is automatically bigoted no matter what the nature of the discussion.
3. (or 2b, I guess) We don’t know exactly what she said, and you haven’t provided any reasons why you found it offensive.
Merely the fact that the subject (if it indeed) was Catholicism is not enough to make it “offensive” or “anti-Catholic bigotry.”
If I say that I think certain Catholic dogma is harmful, that is not bigotry.
If I say “all Catholics are backwards scumbags” that is bigotry.
If someone who happens to be Catholic is giving a speech and I yell “SHAME CATHOLIC”, that is being bigoted.
If I express my views that I find certain Catholic teachings troubling, that is not bigotry.
If I say “No Catholics allowed in my club” that is bigotry.
If I say “Get that Catholic out of my union” that is bigotry.
If I say “the Catholic church has historically promoted views harmful to women” that is not bigotry. And so on.
Do you understand the differences in the above statements?
@Andy Mansfield
*I’m from Britain and this is not a stereotype I’m familiar with
*How does the fact that Glaswegian women are known for being loud and confident somehow preclude Glaswegian men from being misogynists?
*Why would the fact it’s not an issue for you somehow mean it’s not an issue for anyone else?
Re. my head desk at #330; do you understand what the Appeal to Nature fallacy is?
I forgot to address this part:
Start with learning to read for comprehension. I said this:
Just for you, I italicised the part where I talk about Meredith and your attitudes towards her, and bolded the part where I talked about anyone being from a city. As you can see, it was not in reference to Meredith. It was in an analogy about similar attitudes towards outsiders viewed as elitist. I talked about my impression of your attitudes towards Meredith and those like her in the first paragraph. No mention of cities there. In the second paragraph, where I mentioned cities (as bolded), I repeat, I was making an analogous statement about similar attitudes in the US, in this case on the part of rural southerners towards “elitist” northern city boys with fancy college degrees.
Read. For. Comprehension.
But people are saying standing up to an elitist talking down about catholicism is victim blaming, i’m not blaming them for receiving abuse, I am saying it is naive to go to a city with such a culture and talk about catholicism, people have been trying to solve this problem in the west of scotland for generations, it shows no sign of going away, the culture seems to be growing., where did I ever blame them?
Off the top of my head, here is two.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
If it was a man it would have been ‘get that man out of my union, we treat everyone equal here. Did you see the talk yourself?
I enjoy being part of a tribe or a clan of people, it gives a great sense of belonging an identity that many people struggle with these days, you should try it, it feels great
People like to think women who are not from a secular, feminist society are somehow not as confident or outspoken or women who are but from my experience it is the opposite.
It may be a good analogy but here it is different, if Glasgow was the equivalent of an american city it would be scotlands new york, meridith would be from the equivalent of somewhere like ohio or missisipi
1, Not everything natural is good but most things are, i prefer to live that way, as opposed to how we are taught by others how to live
2, it depends on your perception of good and bad, for me it is good to be proud of your culture and tradition and to express negative emotions to something you do not agree with. just being posh doesnt mean you are bigoted, but for a person born into privelage to preach anti catholicism in glasgow is not wise, i am out in glasgow tonight and it wouldnt be wise for even me to speak about any religion in a public place.
3. ive provided many, like i said it would be fantastic if the video was on youtube, these talks often end up on youtube so hopefully this one will to, all ive ever said it was naive of her, i could get that quote again The only claims i made were that I found it very naive for someone from an elite and privelaged background to come to glasgow and talk about religion given the culture of the place’ which I stand by.
If I say that I think certain feminism dogma is harmful, that is not bigotry.
If I say “all feminists are backwards scumbags” that is bigotry.
If someone who happens to be Catholic is giving a speech and I yell “SHAME CATHOLIC”, that is being bigoted.
If I express my views that I find certain feminist teachings troubling, that is not bigotry.
If I say “that feminsim has historically promoted views harmful to catholics” that is not bigotry. And so on.
Do you understand the differences in the above statements?
Plus I am no fan of political correctness, if it was a man he would have been much harsher treated
Whoosh!
The point, it’s up there quickly sailing by.
It wasn’t. Your theoretical is bullshit, just like the rest of your drivel. Do you really hear yourself talk? You go in circles.
This isn’t political correctness. This is misogyny being used where it had no place. That you won’t see that says a lot about your lack of cogency.
Andy Mansfield:
You have not shown that she did this. You have simply repeatedly asserted it.
Either you think this means you think she deserved the sexist heckling, or it’s completely irrelevant. Which is it?
What elite background? She’s from Kilmacolm.
What talk about religion?
What does this even mean? Are you saying that Catholics should be allowed to be misogynist?
The entire point is that the heckling was misogynist, and you are defending the heckling.
You think that heckling women for being women is not misogyny?
How do you know that Meredith is anglo saxon? Going by the name alone, I see that it’s Welsh, which is pretty much the opposite of Anglo-Saxon.
So now you’re revealing your bigotry against Anglo-Saxons, and against Ms. Meredith by claiming that she is an Anglo-Saxon that you’re bigoted against.
======
You should be shamed for your misogyny, you misogynist.
No, it doesn’t. You can’t read English.
What is in that post that is different to what you have been saying about Glasgow?
======
Who gives a shit where you live? Your claims aren’t just about where you live; they’re about what you’re saying she said.
Kilmacolm is “privileged” and “elitist”?
You mean mentioning Catholicism is wrong? So you’re an anti-catholic bigot yourself because you mentioned Catholicism?
LIAR. She was heckled for being a woman.
Then why the fuck are you defending misogynist heckling?
Holy fuck, are you really that stupid? You’re complaining about anti-Catholic bigotry — a perfect example of religious tribalism — and you ask that?
So it’s natural for Protestants to hate Catholics? It’s natural for Catholics to hate Protestants? Hate is natural, so it’s good?
You enjoy hating Anglo-Saxons? You enjoy hating Protestants?
Since “feminist dogma” is simply that women should have the same rights as men, it is implicitly bigoted against women to claim that this “feminist dogma” is “harmful”.
How the fuck is that different from Ms. Meredith being a woman and being heckled with “SHAME WOMAN”?
You find it “troubling” that women want equal rights?
It’s bigotry because it’s misogynist and a lie.
When have feminists set up Catholic “no go” areas or killed or injured Catholics, you lying bigot?
Another tragic reminder that Dr. Deuss’ “The Sneetches” is not a well-known book outside of the good old Us of A.
Owlmirror :
The quoted text in there was mine when I was contrasting criticism of Catholicism with anti-Catholic bigotry. He just forgot to change “Catholic” to “feminist” in that line.
This does not, of course, excuse him from the other vile/stupid shit he’s been saying.
@Andy Mansfield
Your comments are essentially only repetitions. Your “arguments” are essentially word substitution – “feminism” for “Catholicism”. This leads me to wonder:
Are you a particularly dexterous parrot who also happens to be Catholic?
If so, well done on your vocabulary!
If not, your vocabulary needs improvement.
@Andy Mansfield, you haven’t even got the right target. The person talking about Catholicism was Valles (OP):
And then:
Ashish K (ref-ed upthread) explains:
Valles again (OP):
Which was:
And there was other stuff, too, but that’s the starting point.
So…it turns out that this supposed anti-Catholic bigotry Andy was on about was actually some people making reasonable speeches which included some points in which they disagreed with the current Catholic position?
That was it? That was what got Andy all flustrated?
(“Flustrated” was a word my foreman used to used, ages ago when I worked in a factory. He insisted it was a real word.)
@myeck waters
It’s a perfectly cromulent word.
Don’t.
I don’t hate anglo saxons and have never said I hate protestants, I do enjoy being tribal though, especially on a weekend
Likewise, with yourself and Catholics.
People keep asking the same questions, I keep giving the same answers.
Many catholics, including myself and my wife are pro life, are people on here able to accept that? Have you ever thought to the people booing and heckling, that may have been much more offensive than someone shouting ‘shame woman’. Different people are offended by different things.
For me what she said in the quotes given was more offensive than someone shouting ‘shame woman’ and that is why there 2 cultures clash. Considering she is apparantly scottish herself, albeit not from Glasgow, but from out in the sticks, it’s likely she knew full well what she was getting involved in and her innocent, victim act, is exactly that.
Think whatever the fuck you like. Catholics are free to not kill as many people as they wish. As for the rest of us, well, every dead fetus is a soul shipment sent straight to heaven. Better to kill them in the womb, then to let them live and potentially strike it rich.
Also, a Christian being pro-life?
Ha.
What if Jesus hadn’t been killed? Who’s teachings would you ignore then (besides scientists, of course)?
Come on Tony, no need for swearing, you’re better than that surely? If you want to abort your kids go ahead, it’s just not something i’d do. I’m a huge fan of science, why would I ignore science? All the founding fathers of science we’re Christian.
I get the feeling people want me off here, but turning the debate in the merry go round of abortion/anti abortion science/religion debate isn’t really wise.
In other words, thank fuck for God’s Rube Goldbergian concept of justice that the Romans weren’t pro-life. If they were, can you imagine how fucking irritatingly annoying Christians would be then?
“You need Jesus.”
“Who?”
“He was an upstart Rabbi in a small province of the Roman Empire. The locals found him annoying, so they asked the Romans to have him heckled and removed. He lived out the rest of his days peacefully in Cyrene. Anyway, he got late stage dementia and a hip fracture for your sins.”
You’re not, however, so the need is there.
False. Nothing but hyperbole. Both the the same rights as anybody else. No more, but no less. You appear to not recognize that fact. But then, you seem to get off playing a victim, which you aren’t.
Fixed that for you. Your answers aren’t true answers. You aren’t honest enough for true answers.
We don’t give a shit what you believe privately. But you shouldn’t take your theology and force it upon anybody else. Your freedom is religion means other people are free from your religion. That is the problem with the anti-choice movement, they want to force others to obey their theology. That should never be legislated.
This is victim blaming again. Topics were chosen at the talk from what I hear. Why do you keep repeating such lies and misogyny? Unless, of course, your are a misogynic illiterate bore. You should know better. And the university students should have known better. Apparently you want to not better yourself, and expect the same from everybody else in your city.
Who the fuck taught you history?
Whoever it was, punch them, they deserve it.
what good little authoritarian numpty!
Andy, being a religious numpty is a CHOICE, it is not an issue of rights like it would be with your gender, race, or sexual identity.
so very very tired of the religious trying to equate their idiotic dogmas as if they were somehow innate.
sorry, but being a member of “tribe catholic”, should NOT grant you special rights, any more than being a member of any other voluntary group should. It’s way past time for this nonsense to end, everywhere.
At a time when one went to church or was tortured. You fail to understand context, and keep in mind 93% of the US National Academy of Science don’t believe in god. Many of the early scientists didn’t either. They just kept quiet or pretended to be deists, which was tolerated.
…oh, and still waiting for someone from your “tribe” that actually has a brain in their head to represent your “position” in an actual rational fashion.
because you’ve clearly made the case that there ISN’T a rational position so far.
You are SUCH a liar.
I know we can name a few rights the Catholic Church has taken or tried to take from women. So why don’t you name a right anybody here has suggested taking away from Catholics.
why, their own imagined right to discriminate against others of course.
all in favor of “taking away” that “right”?
Aristotle was Christian???
In “Andyland”.
Yeah, I guess I should have included a caveat that most civilized people don’t consider oppressing outsiders to be a right.
Also, I want to take a stab at this really quick:
I accept that some people are pro-life. I accept that those people people hold beliefs that when enacted into law are demonstrably harmful to women (ex, Savita Halappanavar). I also accept that I am free to criticize those beliefs. You may be offended by my disagreement with your position, but it is a criticism of your belief, not your person, and you need to learn how to separate the two. This is 100% different than booing women for being women. Thibeault did a good blog post on that recently.
^^LOL perfect.
but, it doesn’t even make any real difference if xianity existed since before the evolution of our current species.
why?
because it has FUCK ALL to do with why science exists, or how the method was adopted specifically.
there is nothing special about xianity, aside from having existed.
might as well say: “Breathing air contributed to the development of science as we know it!”
Andy should be far less concerned about what a woman in a debate says about rights, and FAR more concerned about the apparently poor quality of education he appears to be receiving at this university.
or is it a case of me blaming the university for the poor quality of the student?
@Andy Mansfield
No, no one is saying that. I am saying that by attempting to justify the misogynistic abuse they recieved by stating that their actions were somehow the cause of it, you are victim blaming. That is absolutely nothing like what you just said.
Also, first it was “Anti-Catholic Bigotry”, now it’s just talking about Catholicism? We’re not even allowed to do that now?
And Andy, you are still failing to distinguish between criticising a group of people and criticising an idea that a group of people happen to follow. If I say “Catholics are all lying bastards who can not be trusted”, that is anti-Catholic bigotry. If I say “I disagree with the Catholic Church’s position on abortion because the Pro-Life position is flawed because X, Y, Z”, that is legitimate criticism of an idea which a group (in this case Catholics) happen to follow. Do you see the difference?
Likewise. I don’t care too much what you believe privately. But you shouldn’t take your theology and force it upon anybody else. Your freedom is feminism means other people are free from your feminism. That is the problem with the anti-choice for fathers and the unborn movement, they want to force others to obey their theology. That should never be legislated
For the founding fathers of modern science, such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, the laws of nature were changeless Ideas in the divine mind. God was a mathematician. The discovery of the mathematical laws of nature was a direct insight into the eternal Mind of God. Similar sentiments have been echoes by physicists ever since, they we’re all christians.
It depends on the perception you hold. For many ‘pro choice’ is harmful to women and it is certainly harmful to the unborn
I’m not victim blaming at all, I have nothing to feel victim about, I agree that they we’re correct to heckle, as I am for equality and certainly anyone else would have been heckled for being so out of touch with the feelings of the city, why should these 2 women be given any special treatment?
Of course I see the difference but it’s very easy to twist it around.
If I say “I disagree with some feminists position on abortion because the Pro-choice position is flawed because X, Y, Z”, that is legitimate criticism of an idea which a group (in this case feminists) happen to follow. Do you see the difference?
Mansfield,
Why do you not want women to be treated equally ?
Note that claiming you want then to be treated equally will be a lie on your part, since you have railed against feminism, which is merely the idea that women should be treated equally. So don’t claim that unless you accept that in doing so you will be admitting you are a dishonest scumbag.
When have I said I don’t want women to be treated equally? I have 4 sisters, why would I not want them treated equally? Do you have a quote from me that says that? Feminism is not just the notion of women being treated equally, it is about surpressing the views of others in my view and is very anti Catholic at times, although there are Catholic feminist groups.
Take Warren Farrell recently in toronto, why were so many people determined to stop him expressing his views?
Likewise. I don’t care too much what you believe privately. But you shouldn’t take your theology and force it upon anybody else. Your freedom is feminism means other people are free from your feminism. That is the problem with the anti-choice for fathers and the unborn movement, they want to force others to obey their theology. That should never be legislated
Andy, this is just idiotic. For a start, pro-choice cannot sensibly be called theology because it is not religiously motivated.
Second, Feminism is the belief that women are equal to men and deserve equal treatment. Expecting others to respect other people’s rights is not bigotry. The equivalent to what you just said is “Well, you can treat black people like they’re equal, but you shouldn’t expect everyone else to”. As usual, when framed is terms of race rather than gneder the idiocy becomes obvious.
To your last point, you can’t force someone to follow a Pro-choice ideology, by definition. The clue is in the name. The central ethos of Pro-Choice is that if you believe abortions to be evil, that’s fine and you have every right not to get one but you do not have the right to force everyone else not to get one either. It’s very simple, and it is exactly the opposite of forcing others to do anything.
In short, that whole paragraph of yours was one big false equivalency.
No one is saying you have anything to “feel victim [sic] about”, but these women were the victim of misogyny. You can’t seriously not understand that? Do you still, even after all my explanations, still not understand what is meant by the term “victim blaming”?
And no one has said they should be exempt from heckling, we are saying that they should not have to put up with misogyny. How are you not getting this? If the speaker was Black and the crowd were racist, would you still count that as just heckling? Of course you wouldn’t. So what’s the difference? Explain, please.
Your last point; how am I supposed to see the difference if you have offered no other position to contrast it with? If you must lower yourself to simply quoting my words back at me and calling it an argument, at least do it in a way that makes sense.
And you say you have twisted it round; how so? All you’ve done is replaced one idea with another, you haven’t changed the message or the point at all. You have every right to criticise the Pro-Choice movement. I disagree with you, for myriad reasons, and I believe you are completely and totally wrong, but no one ever said you can’t criticise the idea. I don’t think you’ve actually understood my point at all.
Also, feminists aren’t the only people who are Pro-Choice. Where on Earth did you get that idea?
When have I said I don’t want women to be treated equally? I have 4 sisters, why would I not want them treated equally? Do you have a quote from me that says that? Feminism is not just the notion of women being treated equally, it is about surpressing the views of others in my view and is very anti Catholic at times, although there are Catholic feminist groups.
Oh dear.
Do you want to apologise for your stupidity, dishonesty and ignorance ? Or shall we just agree you accept you are all of those, and you just fuck off ?
Oops, blockquote fail. First paragraph of above is a quote from Andy’s #372
he loves his sisters…but if they’re raped he loves the zygote more. Duh
and please please whine about me misconstruing catholic pro-life stance…it’d be hilariously ironic.
I wouldn’t see it as misogyny, for me by saying that you are just making yourself out to be the victim, the people who heckled may have been equally offended, but the crowd we’re mostly catholic, not black so they have every right to be offended. Also, where did I ever say feminists are the only people who are pro choice?
Luckily you know what’s good for them better than they do. Can’t let the poor women out there go hurting themselves by making their own decisions, now can we? Not when we got a big tough guy like you around to make the decisions for them.
In fact he would stand by and watch them die, if they only way to save their lives was to terminate their pregnancy. Some love that!
he loves his sisters…but if they’re raped he loves the zygote more. Duh
and please please whine about me misconstruing catholic pro-life stance…it’d be hilariously ironic.
And a zygote becomes human like at around 8 weeks by the way
Andy:
Are you HIGH?
I fucking dare you to substantiate the claim that I find it troubling for Catholics to want equal rights. Catholics (except women) HAVE every goddamn right that non-Catholics (except women) have.
The right not to be subjected to contrary views (and before you pull your usual switcheroo, shouting “shame woman” is not expressing a view, it is not putting forth an argument, it is merely trying to shut her up because she’s a woman) is not one of them. The right to enact laws based on their beliefs that force other people to abide by them is not one of them.
Name one instance of non-Catholics trying to force Catholics to obey laws they don’t agree with (that do not involve preventing said Catholics from forcing non-Catholics to do things).
Name one thing I’ve said that implies I think Catholics should have their rights restricted. I fucking dare you. (And you can shove your admonishments about naughty language right up your jacksy. You’re not my father.)
As for the claim that pro-choice hurts women, go ahead and substantiate that, too. Giving women a choice is harmful to them? Fucking citation needed.
Not true, but don’t let that stop you getting on with your agenda, My nephews and nieces are lucky they have me for an uncle not you, or they’d have been butchered.
Let’s break this down:
Yes it is.
In that case your view is wrong. Unless you can explain, with evidence, how feminism is about suppressing the views of others? Please be aware that the behaviour of individual self-described feminists is not actually indicative of the founding principals of a movement.
How so? Most feminists are Pro-Choice because the Pro-Life movement is seen as misogynistic, but being against the Pro-Life movement does not mean you are anti-Catholic. Please explain how feminism is anti-Catholic.
Well, this directly contradicts what you just wrote, doesn’t it? The idea of a Catholic anti-Catholic group is a bit of an oxymoron.
Not true, but don’t let that stop you getting on with your agenda, My nephews and nieces are lucky they have me for an uncle not you, or they’d have been butchered.
So you would not disapprove of one of your sisters having a termination to save her life then ?
Oh, and that was not an apology was it ? Are you having some trouble working out how to spell sorry ? Only I cannot understand why you have not said sorry for your stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty. Do you think you don’t have to say sorry, because if so that would be very odd.
Which rights do catholic men have that catholic women not have?
Says who?
Name one instance of Catholics trying to force non catholics to obey laws they don’t agree with.
I think you need to go for a lie down young lady
What part of “the woman’s choice” don’t you understand? Being the brother of the pregnant woman gives you exactly as much say in what she does as being any other man on the planet. Zero.
It is not remotely relevant to talk about existing, wanted children in an abortion discussion.
If you find yourself at any point thinking that the “rights” of the bundle of cells inside a woman trump her right not to have something unwanted growing in her, you are treating her as subhuman.
A human being has 100% right to control what happens to his or her body. There are no exceptions. None.
“Butchered”? You dishonest emotive-language abusing wankshaft. Do you know what happens to womens’ bodies during pregnancy? Do you even care?
As for your comment about anti-choice for men, get back to me when men can get pregnant and be forced to incubate an unwanted child for 9 months. Then we can talk about men having any fucking say at all in the matter.
ah I see Andy. for thee but not for me ay?
You’re a bad catholic. You’ve endorsed child murder and as Jesus said that’s the same as going it in your heart so you’ve just commuted a mortal sin. Best confess quickly
Trust me 4 years catholic school I know what the theology and ethics are supposed to be.
Very few abortions are actually done to save the life of the woman, I was in Ireland recently and people there are horrified at the ‘buy one get one free’ abortion culture they have over in England.
Apology for what? For being open minded enough to have a view different to what yuor told to have at University, I certainly won’t be apologizing for that.
Andy the abject fool:
Andy, either you demonstrate with solid evidence, realizing that your OPINION isn’t evidence, that feminism has the following: a deity, a church, a holy, places of worship, tithes, etc. If you can’t prove it, you must retract your assertion if you are a person of honesty and integrity. But then, we both know you are neither.
name one?
Fucking inquisition? Crusades? POpe Leo the greats mass banishment of pagans from Rome? Fucking gay marriage? Fucking birth control or abortion at hospitals? Fucking blasphemy in India and elsewhere?
A human foetus can’t breathe air until the 26th week at the earliest, you idiot. How on Earth can it be human at * weeks? Who told you that? Because you ought to go slap them.
http://www.sharinginhealth.ca/biology/development_weeks_09-40.html
So you would let your sister die. Which is what I said in the first place, and you said was not true. Can you explain your lack of honesty ?
I told you, stupidity (which you show again claiming you don’t know what I said you need to apologise for) dishonesty and ignorance. I will take your reply as your admitting you do not see anything wrong with any of those. Which makes you, by your own admission, a fucking nasty person.
My sisters comes to me for advice on almost everything, including when she was pregnant, I advised her to keep it and I am glad she listened, I have a great nephew, perhaps it’s different in your family but mine is very close knit , as i’m one of 11. I’ve seen abortions done at 8/9 weeks and there certainly not a bundle of cells, the legs we’re on one side of the room and the arms we’re on the other, and the head was in the bin, that women is still in counselling.
As a man it is important for me to protect my son or daughter from everyone and that includes the abortionists.
buy one gwt one free? You’re a liar. Also a sin.
Also where did you get 8 weeks? That’s not the church stance
Andy the liar and bullshitter:
From your post #279 classical victim blaming:
So, when will you apologize for proven lying? Or don’t you have honesty and integrity?
But earlier you said you would allow an abortion to save your sisters life. Do you value you daughter less ?
In one hospital I worked in, there was a 26 week old fetus and a caserian was done another 26 week old fetus was mutilated, the one that survived is still alive today, it certainly was able to breathe.
[citation needed]
I am English and that culture doesn’t exist you liar. And even if it did the opinion of some random Irish people would have no bearing on it whatsoever.
if you ever have children you will know how protective you will feel over them, no sociology student will ever change that for you, also you have misquoted me there once again
Yeah I know in all abortions they throw chunks around like confetti…when we all gather around and jizz on the peices. Cause were evil
Late term abortions are almost entirely due to medical reasons, I can’t think of one documented one where it wasn’t.
I’m not making me out to the victim. The victim was the women who were shamed simply for being women, not what they said. You never address that, and avoid it like the plauge, as you lack honesty and integrity.
Andy Mansfield:
Are you stupid or dishonest? Catholic dogma forbids women to have full bodily autonomy. They’re not supposed to even use BIRTH CONTROL, much less have the right to end an unwanted pregnancy.
That makes them unequal, as men have full control over what happens to their bodies in the eyes of the law.
Are you alleging that the law in Scotland provides for preventing people from saying anything at all, however well-reasoned, that someone somewhere might find offensive?
Are you kidding? Catholics are forever trying to ban abortion, emergency contraception, and regular contraception thus attempting to force women (Catholic and non-Catholicto abide by laws curtailing their bodily autonomy. For purely religious reasons.
Again, you are not my father. I am not a child. I am a grown woman, and your condescending sexist bullshit is noted, you misogynistic piece of shit. I honestly no longer care about reasoning with you. You cannot be reasoned with. You aren’t even engaging in good faith. You are either incredibly stupid or dishonest. I no longer care which.
196,082 carried out in 2011, it’s certanly not far off
hwt the important thing is that a catholic thug has derailed a thread again.
In Ireland for example abortion is illegal, non catholics and feminists are trying to enforce their views on others there to make it legal, it’s not abuot curtailing anything, it’s about protecting the vulnerable and weak, for me that’s a noble thing to do.
How have I misquoted you ?
I suggested that you would let your sister die rather than have a termination to save her life. You replied that was not true. Meaning you would allow your sister to have a termination. Later you suggested you would not. So you hold two positions that are mutually contradictory. You are lying about one of them. You need to say which, and apologise for your dishonesty. You also need to explain why you lied, and why you are pretending you did not lie.
So far you are showing us that Catholics are stupid, ignorant and dishonest. Is that in fact your intention ? And if not, why are you doing it ?
Andy, why do you persist in lying and bullshitting. There is no problem with debaters being heckled if the heckling is on topic. But when they are heckled for simply being women, that steps over the line into misogyny. Its not the heckling per se, but rather how it was done. Focusing on their sex rather than what they said.
lololololololollllll The plot thickens! Andy hates university-educated people! Universities are brainwash factories!
Andy is a Scottish redneck far-right republican anti-edumacation tosspot.
Move to Texas, Andy. They’ll looooove you.
So forcing women to travel to the mainland UK to have a termination, or to force them to undergo an unwanted pregnancy is noble is it ?
Your values are seriously fucked, you women killer.
Where did I say that? I’m a left wing activist from the largest city in Scotland and I now live in west London, unlike Meridith.I am certainly no redneck.
You say woman killer, I say baby killer
*yawns
catholics forced a woman who was miscarrying to die slowly from septic infection. She died helpless and powerless begging for the treatment they could use to save her. In Ireland. Because she had no choice even when the choice was between life and death.
You’re a liar and self righteous zealot. You don’t care about helping the helpless, you care about being seen helping. May god protect people from your help
Stopping you from curtailing the rights of women is not forcing views upon you. It is stopping you forcing yours upon others.
What they are doing in Ireland is trying to stop the oppression of women. Stopping Group A from oppressing Group B is not equivalent to oppressing Group A.
You are fucking stupid if you cannot see the difference.
What about the vulnerable, weak, fully-alive and fully-formed women? Not interested in protecting them? Happy to force them to incubate unwanted fetuses? Happy for them to be enslaved for nine months for your ideals so that they can give birth to children they don’t want who, especially if female, will become far less important and less deserving of equal rights once born? Seriously, fuck you.
So much bigotry on here, it’s no surprise Meridith and her friend we’re heckled.
Protip: believing any ridiculous bullshit you’re told just because it conforms with your pre-existing biases IS NOT being open-minded.
(Are these people confusing ‘abortion’ with ‘orgasm’ or something? Sheesh.)
On his FB page he has a post about how UK universities are bastions of the far-left. That was never really true, and it most certainly is not true now. Another example of his honesty and integrity. Still, what do you expected from a man who wants to kill women.
The right to bodily autonomy.
Andy, why can’t you stick to the topic? Oh, yes, you have been shown to be wrong. Therefore you must find something else to rail ignorantly and inanely about. Your church’s dogma is not a good place for you to go. That is definitely a religion, and trying to impose that dogma as a law is imposing your religion upon outsiders. Which simply isn’t done in a civilized society.
Stopping you from curtailing the rights of catholics is not forcing views upon you. It is stopping you forcing yours upon others.
These women should take responsibily for there actions, I don’t want to get you any more worked up but that’s just how many people feel.
Um, yes… because it was 26 weeks and therefore able to breathe air. Did you even read my post? Or are you being disingenuous? I said thy can’t breathe air until 26 weeks at the earliest. The website I linked to actually says lungs develop from 26 – 29 weeks.
And the population of the UK was 63.2 million in 2011 [1]. 196,082 is 0.31% of the 63,200,000 meaning in 2011 0.31% of the population had an abortion. “Buy one get one free” it is not (we’ll gloss over the fact that that analogy makes no sense in this context).
[1] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-and-household-estimates-for-the-united-kingdom/index.html
Isn’t it funny how people value houses more than they value women? If I suggested to you that you should be legally obliged to allow a homeless man to stay in your house because he would die if he had to sleep outside in the cold, would that be reasonable? If you ejected that man from your house and he died in the cold, are you a murderer?
If not, why not?
That bigotry comes from you Andy. You a bigoted against all non-catholics, those not local, those who have and use real educations, and those whose politics are different than yours. You don’t like being told you don’t get it? Stop posting, and it all goes away.
Oh dear, lying again.
We are NOT suggesting women are forced to have abortions. You though are suggesting they should be forced to carry their pregnancy to term. You statement is totally arse about tit. Please explain why you are still lying.
What rights of Catholics would I be curtailing by not allowing them to control my body?
Do Catholics have the right to control my body? Because they are trying to.
And don’t you fucking dare turn it around to ask me if I have the right to control their bodies. I AM NOT TRYING TO.
He actually thinks “neener” is a winning and moral argument.
For me personally none of my children would be aborted or mutilated in that way, fortunately my wife feels the same, I guess i’m very lucky and so are my children, I never said you we’re suggesting that.
Don’t move to Texas. I’m sick of people like this living in this state.
Half right. He thinks it is a winning argument, but he would not know a moral argument if one jumped up and down and shat on him.
“You’re baby raping atheist butchers…why are you so biggoted towards me?”
Fuck you.
Making abortion legal means that those who want them can get them, and those who do not want them do not have to have them.
Explain how that is forcing anything on anybody? Go on, I dare you to even try and make a coherent argument to that effect.
No one is “curtailing the rights of Catholics”. Catholics will still have the right to not get an abortion. Non-Catholics will have the right to get an abortion. That’s called “Religious freedom”.
the rights for catholics to protect the unborn, you seem to think it’s okay for feminists to force their views onto others, but it’s not okay for catholics to do the same, although there are many anti abortion feminists also, don’t forget.
Andy the incoherent:
You haven’t specified what “rights” of yours that are curtailed. Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion, or vote for a woman, or anything like that. Choice about something you don’t like is not forcing it upon you. We do expect you to follow the golden rule. Treat women as your full partner, with the same respect you want to be shown. But then, that requires understand context, what is and isn’t religious versus secular. And you appear utterly deficient in that comprehension.
Fuck you. I am not obliged to pop out children as penance for having sex. I am not fucking Catholic and I do not do penance. You have no right to decide for me what “responsibilities” I should take. Zero. It would be none of your fucking business if I had sex with every single man I met. Every one. This is another example of Catholics trying to force non-Catholics to adhere to their views. I am not required to see sex as a sin, simply because you do. I am not required to view children as a consequence, simply because you do.
On top of everything else, what a fucking life for those poor children. Better by far not to be born than to be born unwanted because penance.
That isn’t a right. You are free to do what you want within the church. But not in society as a whole. There is a difference between persuasion, which is allowed, and coersion, which is forced birth. By the way, there is no such thing as the unborn. It is drivel made up so sound intelligent, but is an oxymoron. Why? Inside the woman you have a fetus. When it is outside the woman and breathing on its own it is a baby. The birth process makes the difference, and is a real dividing line between the two.
Try keeping your legs closed then, is that so difficult? Instead of trying to force your views onto others, try learning a few morals and a bit of responsibilty for your actions, because your going to have to learn at some point, it may as well be now.
That is not a right. Catholics DO NOT HAVE the right to decide what happens in my uterus. That is not a right that you possess, so it is not a right that you can have “curtailed.”
My right to bodily autonomy exists. My right to decide what happens IN MY UTERUS exists. My right to decide what happens in someone else’s uterus, however, does not. But their right to decide it does exist. Your right to decide it for them, or for me, does not. You don’t have that right.
In order for me to force my views on you in an equivalent way, I would have to force you or yours to have abortions against their will. Is that happening, Andy? Is it?
wait Andy are you honestly saying that theres no way a parent could kill their child even for a profound greater good and for it to be considered acceptable to you? None at all? Can you think of any?
More intelligent answer than anyone else today but i would have to disagree with you there i’m afraid.
Why should your religious drivel become law? Why should you force it upon anybody else? Who the fuck are you and your church to tell anybody not of your faith such drivel and expect anything but laughter in return? That is your problem Andy. You don’t understand where your opinion ends, and those of other people take over. Which is half-way to them.
Is that what you’d tell Savita, who died from a septic WANTED pregnancy because of Catholics?
You fucking vile monster. You really are one of the most contemptible people I have come across for a long time. You want to know why so many people are opposed to Catholicism ? It is because of scum like you. I pity your wife, being married to a person such as you. No one should have to suffer that.
I see it differently, if you we’re to kill someone in the street you would go to prison for murder, I see little difference between the two, i know me having an different opinion is often socially unacceptable amongst academics (i’m an ex academic myself) but they are the views I have and so di millions, if not billions of others around the world
The position of my legs is none of your business. Your rights do not include the right to decide how much sex I have or don’t have, or with whom.
Your morals are not my morals. I am under no obligation to live my life according to your morals, nor do I have the right to tell you to live your life under mine. I can only seek to prevent you from forcing others to live their lives by YOUR morals. They have the right to decide their own, just as I do and just as you do.
Responsibility is not equivalent to popping out babies. I take responsibility by minimising the chance of pregnancy, and if ever my contraception failed, I would take responsibility by eliminating the pregnancy. I do not want children. I will not have them. That is my right. And it is none of your fucking business.
I bet Mansfield loved it that she died. It means he gets to kill women without getting his own hands dirty, because he is also a coward.
A lot of my friends call me ‘the monster’ so I don’t mind that one. But the unborn should have to suffer though? You obviously struggle to accept people with different views.
Andy, I dont’ give a shit about your OPINION. Show me evidence, not the OPINION of you or your church dogma. Funny how you won’t go there, and frankly I don’t give a shit. But your ignorance must be refuted for all to see you dishonesty and lack of integrity. When you realize your OPINION can and will be *floosh* ignored when it can’t be backed up by evidence, you will mature intellectually.
What a bizzare thing to say
Ugh, getting back to the original argument (Not sure how the thread got derailed but I may have had a hand in it, sorry)
@Andy
Yelling “Shame woman” is misogyny. Using a woman’s gender to insult her is misogyny in the same way using a black person’s race to insult them is racism. The people who heckled may well have been equally offended but that doesn’t make misogyny OK, does it?
Huh? What are you even trying to say here? Because what you’ve actually said is that Catholics have the right to be offended but Black people don’t. I’ll be charitable and assume that that’s just your limited literacy coming into play, and give you a chance to rephrase that.
And you implied that feminists were the only pro-choice people in one of your posts above. You could at least keep track of your own arguments.
That you see no difference between the inside of a woman’s body and the street tells us everything we need to know.
That you paint the dehumanisation of women as a mere “difference of opinion” tells us even more.
You don’t deserve any more words. “Fuck you” will suffice.
Andy is your house open to the homeless to sleep in?
What unborn? They don’t exist Andy. You haven’t shown that they do. Your presuppositions and dogma is no match for reality.
I tried that above, Ing. Ignored. Surprise!
I struggle to accept scum like you who are happy to let women die, yes. You are a killer, and deserve to be treated like one. You killed Savita Halappanavar, and you seem proud of it. So don’t complain when the rest of us treat you like dirt.
Allowing people to drink beer is forcing teetotalers to be alcoholics.
Right, got it. That’s very clear and indisputably correct reasoning.
No, we struggle to accept idiocy. There is a difference. If, for example, you could provide supporting evidence for your assertion and opinions, that would elevate it to a hypothesis that we would actually have to argue against. As it is, it is simply a baseless and harmful opinion to be mocked.
Andy, you are of the delusional OPINION we give a shit about your OPINION. Who cares what you personally think or why? But when you attempt to impose that thinking upon others by law, they have every right to care, and show how your OPINION has no place in a secular society, being driven by your religion.
Back tomorrow morning guys, looking forward to it as always.
Peace and love.
Why do you complain about anti-Catholicism then? Is tribalism only bad when other people do it?
As there was no abuse i’ll answer this one before I head off. I enjoy anti catholic tribalism to, I used to live near Ibrox, try being a catholic around there, it’s harsh, but I wouldn’t have changed it fae the world.I don’t see tribalism as bad at all.
Mansfield,
So you are pissing off without offering an apology ? Please don’t come back, you offer nothing.
Well isn’t that special.
What. You enjoy it, but you’re happy for
peoplewomen to be abused if doing anything you even suspect might be sort of close to it?Or you just think college-educated women should stfu.
It’s probably the latter, considering your opinion of women you don’t feel protective of due to having partial ownership of them.
Why are dissapearing at 3:00 in the afternoon, Andy? Just curious.
Andy, every post by you is abuse to intelligent people who understand fully the situations, and know the evidence. All you offer ignorant slogans, lies, and bullshit pretending to be defending your “tribe”.
Whether it is positive or negative you should never apologise for how you feel, remember that and you will go far in life.
That was the fastest damn bingo I ever did see.
Probably has to go and make sure all the women in his family have got their thighs firmly clamped shut.
“Waaahhh why can’t women accept my Super Important and Very Catholic Opinion that they are lesser beings who deserve to have their bodies controlled by men if they don’t use them the way
they shouldI want them to without cursing at meeeee? They’re so meeean!” – Andy MansfieldAndy, proven liar and bullshitter:
Not seeing any of the from you. But then you, and honesty and integrity, appear to be divorced.
It’s so frustrating to have questions ignored because of “abuse”
I have not asked you to apologise for how you feel, but for being dishonest, stupid and ignorant. Clearly you think those are virtues. Which is yet more evidence of how you are not a good person.
Hi Thumper, I’m actually at the dentist today at 4, so i’ve got tae shoot off early, i’m not looking forward to it, afterwards I think i’ll get my hair cut and visit my mother.
I’m one of the few here who have not resorted to name calling and swearing, abuse is not my thing, I don’t feel bothered by it yet at the same time I would never attack another person, even though it can be tempting online at times. It’s just not the done thing for me
@Matt Penfold
I am curious because here in the UK, when I left that comment, it was exactly 14 minutes past three. He can’t be going to pick his children up because school finishes at three, and as far as I know that’s country-wide. And no job that an “ex-Academic” would do would start at this time of day. So either he ran away or he’s lied about either being an ex-Academic or he’s lied about being in London.
Why abuse them when you prefer to kill them!
Is your mother proud to have raised a women killer ?
Why abuse them when you prefer to kill them!
Baby killer is not name calling. Got it. This is horseshit. Waste of time. God bot
@Andy
Oh sorry, didn’t see that post before replying to Matt, I thought you’d already gone. I take back my accusations.
Andy, in regards to your second paragraph, which I know was not directed at me; you don’t have to swear to be abusing someone, nor do you have to call them names. There are other forms of abuse. Maybe bear that in mind.
My mother raised many children and she is Catholic herself from county Mayo so I would imagine she is proud
I’ve no desire to kill anyone Matthew. Just to protect, if you can’t accept my feelings then that is your problem to deal with, not mine.
What you say is more important than how you say it. But then, that distinction is lost upon you. You give abuse when you fail to respond to real questions, change the topic to avoid acknowledging you are wrong, and other intellectual dishonesties you perpetrate. So it is all relative.
1. This is a load of shit. This is akin to saying you could never be wrong. And you’re an asshole. Which sums up your appearance here pretty well.
2. The day I take life lessons from you is the day I start believing a cracker can turn into the flesh of a 2000 year old zombie.
I’d much rather be told to fuck off than be told to close my legs, or that I don’t have the right to decide whether or not I want to be pregnant.
I must be insane!
I live among a lot of Catholics. I have yet to meet one quite as vile as Andy Mansfield.
I expect “hypocrite” is one of them Bad Words.
Oh, and Mansfield, telling la tricoteuse to keep her legs closed is abusive. So again, you are lying when you say you do not engage in abuse.
You keep lying, you keep getting caught. You must be pretty stupid .
Most abuse is subtle I know that, however as far as I am aware I have not made any ad hominem attacks, apart from 1 or 2 others I am the only one.
I’d much rather be told to fuck off than be told to close my legs, or that I don’t have the right to decide whether or not I want to be pregnant.
I must be insane!
I would rather be told to close my legs, everyone is offended by different stuff, to be fair to me if you read the 150 posts previous most have some form of abuse, that was my first and only retaliation so far.
Don’t call me Matthew. You are no friend of mine Mansfield.
So that you kill women is just a side-effect is it ? That does not make things better, women killer.
We need scrabble rules. Anyone shying ad him just define the galaxy and explain the example and why it counts. Failure results in a 30 pt deduction a missed turn and immediate execution by firing squad
Plenty of ad feminem attacks though. “Women should keep their legs shut. Just Feelings!”
He is rare amongst Catholics who are not priests for being quite so open about how he wants women to die. So much so that I am not entirely convinced he is not trying to make Catholics look bad. It would be hard to think of a better way to bring Catholicism into disrepute.
Fuck….Autocorrect
Anyone saying ad hom must define the term*
Oh and my mother’s still pretty Catholic, and in ROME too, so she trumps you by living in Popeland. CATHOLIC WIN.
And she loves my lovely manpartner with whom I live “in sin” and she respects my wishes not to have children. She would not be proud of her child behaving abusively towards others and seeking to force them into complying with religious dogma they did not share. My mother is a decent, kind, loving human being who just happens to cling to irrational long-held belief in an imaginary sky fairy because it makes her feel better. She acts out of love in everything she does. Never out of hate.
You? Not so much.
I wonder if that might have anything to do with your not being a woman and therefore not having people constantly try to police your sex life. Men are not being constantly subjected to people advising them to close their legs, because they shouldn’t be having sex unless they want babies, are they?
@Andy
Ok, good. Then do you understand that the “feelings” you have been esposuing constitute a subtle abuse of women? That is why people here are so angry.
Andy,
In Ireland abortion is legal, just legal in very restricted circumstances. Because the legislators refuse to clarify those circumstances, any zealot can make up any interpretation of both law and church teaching which suits their particular fantasy or power trip. The result? People die, people who should not have died either according to Irish law or according to Catholic teaching.
Oh, and an 8-week foetus is approximately 1.6 cm long and weighs 1 gram. Was it on Dr Who or on Star Trek that you got yourself magically shrunk to fit in that amazing room @ comment 395?
Bullshitter!
Also, Irish women obtain abortion drugs via the Internet, and take them without medical supervision which is far from ideal. And many get on boats and planes to the mainland UK to have a termination, which is thankfully why we do not see more Irish women dead from badly done backstreet abortions. Sadly those who’s life is in immediate danger are too ill to take the latter option.