Waitrose delivery driver

Seems on a par with their general reading comprehension, tbh, to over-extrapolate and editorialise in that manner.

Like I was saying , the best thing to do is not to give them what they want.
This person probably went to Ks house hoping for some sort of reaction so they could use it for their own twisted rhetoric or at least they were rubbing their hands together with glee when they saw who she was/what she stood for.
I do NOT think she should have been either kind or polite but I also think she could have handled this in a way that showed the TRAs to be the drama Queens (literally in some cases) that they are.

TRAs now saying KJK has been banned from Waitrose?

"Thank you @Waitrose for Protecting your Employees correctly and giving out warning and bans for those who Commit Hate Crimes and Abuse Employees."

Are you seriously arguing she is not trying to get her sacked?

Despite the drivers behaviour it was not KJK who reported the incident to Waitrose. There seems to be a pattern here of one party trying to escalate tensions and it's not KJK.

Hmmm, an addition to my list of beings not to invite across my threshold:

Vampires
Bailiffs
Supermarket delivery drivers

To paraphrase for my convenience & entertainment, an English woman’s home is her castle & anyone who tries to verbally or ideologically park their tanks on her lawn is out of order. This is the thin edge of trespass.

When told to leave a property by the owner, the correct response is go quickly out the door.

For a customer service delivery agent when told to leave to not go immediately & without comment is unacceptable & reflects very badly on the company, company training & values.

Anybody, anywhere, any company.

@Hoppinggreen

The man wanted to be told how wrong he was and have a woman stand up to him? I am not sure that is what he wanted.

I do not think it made KJK happy and I don;t think she needs to be manufacturing incidents on her own home so she has something to say on her podcast. I think you are being quite insulting thinking that she is unable to find material any other way.

Yes, you are entitled to disagree with how a woman confronts a misogynist in her own home, and I am entitled to suggest that you are wrong to do so.

I am not trying to intimidate you - sorry if I came across like that.

I might be facing attempted intimidation with big words

You plonker! You weren't being intimidated by @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus, and I was joking with my last response. Should I have added the obvious emoji?

But yes, the high ground is ours, not because we are GC, but that pesky female socialisation makes a woman telling someone to fuck off that much more objectionable - so many of us don't do it. Having been a teacher for decades I now swear like a trooper - and very therapeutic it is too. When not at work obviously

You are certainly missing the part where I said she should be polite and kind
Because I didn’t.
My opinion is that she gave this person exactly what they wanted. Maybe it made K happy and it certainly gave her material for her podcast but all it achieved was another win for the TRAs.
However, she is entitled to behave how she sees fit in these situations and on her own property and I am entitled to disagree.
I might be facing attempted intimidation with big words but at least nobody thinks I should be set alight and my corpse raped so perhaps GC Feminists do still have the moral high ground here.

Oh you used all the big words again. Such sesquipedalian loquaciousness, you naughty megaltast you!

Disclaimer: not sure megaltastic can be made into a noun like that!

I agree.

Your attempt to belittle me and my opinion shows that in fact it’s not just TRAs who only want people commenting when they toe the party line.

Asking a question that clarifies somebody's thinking might expose more about a process of thinking than someone cares to explore but it's surprising that it's interpreted as an intention to belittle.

It's an unhelpful or plausibly sclerotic process of reasoning to characterise this as dissenting from a party line. It feels quite strongly pluralistic because, at its heart, is KJK who roundly declares that she is not a feminist.

Yes because the only thing that was correct in the post above is that Kelly Jay does derail herself a few times. But as she makes quite plain at the beginning that's because she had intended to talk about something else entirely and some of that keeps popping into her head as she is speaking. She does always pick up exactly where she left off.

People used to pay bloody good money to see Billy Connolly do the same thing!

Can I just recommend anyone new to this thread, to watch the video or use the aforementioned facility & get a transcipt to read?

Maybe I'm missing something.

If you are typical of the majority of posters here then yes you are missing something - the entitlement that often accompanies male gonads!

You said -

"Posie was probably spoiling for a fight". You are suggesting (with no evidence) that KJK was significantly responsible for the conversation about politics that the driver inappropriately started.

"This person did not need to be told about women’s spaces". No, and he wouldn't have been told had he not started the chat. You are suggesting that KJK should not voice her opinion even though someone else has voiced theirs, and opinion which KJK thinks is deeply offensive and dangerous,

"I am sure they [the driver] knew and were also looking for a reaction". You are telling KJK that she has an obligation to take the moral high ground in her own home when deliberately provoked. I do not think that she has any such obligation.

"Posie inflamed a situation unnecessarily". You are saying that she should have prioritised de-escalation over disputing the nonsense someone was inappropriately saying. (This may be true, but only for reasons of her personal safety).

"A simple “I don’t agree with you and I would like you to drop the food off and leave as soon as possible “ would have been adequate. Still, it gave her material for her podcast didn’t it?" You are telling her how to frame her own opinion in her own home despite the fact that the conversation was only happening because a TRA was starting a political argument on his bosses time!

Sorry, I get the distinct impression that you are both unfair in your assessment and massively wrong to be telling KJK how she should behave. I think that me telling you not to tell KJK what to do is very different from you telling KJK what to do.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Typical transactivism playing out here.

Discovereads said "KJK is pushing Waitrose to have the delivery driver sacked over the incident"

Another Poster said "Seriously... do you have access to the inner thoughts of KJ?? How the heck do you know that she wants the driver sacked??"

Discovereads: I watched her video. That’s how I know.

Also (to me when I asked if Posie actually said it) "Are you seriously arguing she is not trying to get her sacked?"

Another poster who has read a transcription of the podcast:

"At no point does she say she wants the driver sacked, or even disciplined. She in fact states she understands that Waitrose may not want to deliver to her any more"

Which in Discovereads world means "KJK is pushing Waitrose to have the delivery driver sacked".

No wonder No Debate was the only tactic allowed.

At no point have I suggested that KJK should have been either kind or polite.

Ah, but we also read the surveys that came later, with the terminology clearly explained. The Pink News survey was quite opaque with regards to what meant who. Can you guess what the results were?

Similar happened in Scotland. And again in a major tabloid.

But no trans ally has ever heard of those, it seems.

Hoppinggreen · Today 11:57

My opinion is that there seems to have been 2 people spoiling for a fight here. Calmly and firmly asserting your boundaries is good, we should all do it and encourage our daughters to as well. Delivering a GC lecture followed by swearing was over the top in my opinion and probably done to create drama where none was needed.

There was a post on here earlier this week asking whether we had to be completely sure about everything and most people assured the poster that it was ok to question and consider. Your attempt to belittle me and my opinion shows that in fact it’s not just TRAs who only want people commenting when they toe the party line.

(1) I am absolutely certain that if KJK was "spoiling for a fight" it was not as she walked to the door to see who had rung the bell, it was only after she had been provoked by an entirely inappropriate delivery driver.

(2) If he (a worker) starts a conversation (with a customer) she is well within her rights to give her opinion in return. I do not think women should never swear and think that this is an example of where swearing is proportionate.

(3) Why is it KJKs job to avoid the drama that the driver wanted?

You are welcome to your opinion, just like I am welcome to my opinion that KJK was not spoiling for a fight and did nothing wrong.

Most importantly there is a fudnemental difference between my opinion and yours. I have a problem with you stating that KJK needs to be more polite to her opponents in her own home even though they started it. That is you telling other women what they should do and not do. I don't think you should be telling women to be polite and not give their opinion. I object to your opinion when your opinion stops being about what you think and starts being about telling KJK to be kinder to people who want to destroy women's rights.

Was there any need for "I am a woman" at all, though?

That was both inflammatory and unnecessary. They were there to deliver shopping, it wasn't a social get together.

Perhaps this is one for a new thread, but I honestly think that calling out TRA misogynists and homophobes and bullies and trying to get them sacked for their overt bigotry is the morally correct thing to do. Even more so given that the other side have been doing the reverse for years. Maybe I am wrong. And I know I am in a fortunate position (not afraid of being sacked by a Stonewalled boss). But I do think that it needs to be made clear to normal society that campaigning to destroy womens rights - or claiming that they already have been lost - is no better than going round using the n-word to describe your black customers. TRAs behaviour is utterly outrageous and not compatible with civilised companies who welcome women as customers.

No you don’t understand me correctly and I really don’t need any more information on misogyny thank you.
My opinion (and please let’s not be the ones saying women aren’t entitled to one) is that there seems to have been 2 people spoiling for a fight here. Calmly and firmly asserting your boundaries is good, we should all do it and encourage our daughters to as well. Delivering a GC lecture followed by swearing was over the top in my opinion and probably done to create drama where none was needed.

There was a post on here earlier this week asking whether we had to be completely sure about everything and most people assured the poster that it was ok to question and consider. Your attempt to belittle me and my opinion shows that in fact it’s not just TRAs who only want people commenting when they toe the party line.

@Hoppinggreen Sorry, but you are saying that a woman in her own home, being massively offended by a man who has completely inappropriately started a chat about politics and has disregard for KJK's underaged daughter's boundaries, should ensure that she is 100% polite? That might be incredibly good advice in order to minimies the chances of KJK being a victim of assault, but as far as a moral position it is appalling!

However, Posie inflamed a situation unnecessarily. A simple “I don’t agree with you and I would like you to drop the food off and leave as soon as possible “ would have been adequate
Still, it gave her material for her podcast didn’t it?

Did she? A woman asserting her boundaries is, de facto, inflaming a situation?

I admire the level of equanimity that would be required to frame it that way after the exchange and am confident that you must model that at all times in comparable situations in life.

At some point after the incident when she'd received a letter from Waitrose? If I understand you correctly, KJK ought to have continued her silence about this sequence of events about a cascade of happenings that are in line with her wider stance on standing for women? That's certainly the perspective favoured by those who promote the Rules of Misogyny.

4w.pub/the-rules-of-misogyny/