to find pistonheads view of mumsnet funny!

[Beaverfeaver]

So it seems that the guys over on pistonheads are laughing at mumsnetters:

Feel free to see what they are saying here:

www.pistonheads.co.uk/GASSING/topic.asp?h=0&f=210&t=1069058&mid=0&nmt=Mumsnet

< closes door quietly >

I think that a lot of people get very offended about the slightest little thing.

[hgrin]

I find it really telling, that people who put forward this argument, invariably refuse to engage with the substance of it, viz the difference between telling an individual that they are a potential murderer/ rapist/ child abuser/ drunk driver/ insert undesirable character here and telling groups that they ought not to be. Straw polls at work are just a load of wank. Of course people on an individual basis, get annoyed when it is implied that they are child abusers. But if you ask them if a nurse at A&E should bear in mind the possibility of child abuse when you take your kid in after he's fallen off a wall and bashed his head, all of them accept that because some parents do abuse their children, it's absolutely necessary that medical professionals examine a child with the potential of abuse having been committed, in mind. For the protection of other children, because the world doesn't revolve around them and their innocence and their non-abused child.

Except out and out egotists of course, who fiercely argue that the possibility of child abuse should never be examined unless it's really obvious (though no-one says how you tell it's obvious) because most parents aren't child abusers and there's no point putting them all through the outrage of treating them as if they are,

oops, got bored of my argument half the way through there... you get the gist

'feminist thumping match'
how fucking offensive - seeing that's the game we are playing here.

when clearly it's a pedants' thumping match, if anything.

dictionary.

I think it just means our arguments are winning SS [hwink]

And by winning you mean four of you failing to convince one person over the course of two days. Good luck with that.

oh you're a stubborn one MrGin

Can I sit on the fence and say I see both sides of the arguement?

If someone told me I was a potential rapist I'd be pissed off but I'd also see that they were technically correct.

Its not just men that can be rapists.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/woman-found-guilty-of-rape-687668.html

I'm not interested in convincing men who aren't really interested in the arguments MrG.

The fact is, you haven't actually engaged with most of the arguments here. You've pretended they're something else. Anyone reading can see your lack of engagement. And if they're interested and agree with you, they will jump in and engage.

Like for example, telling me why I'm wrong to believe that there's a massive difference between telling an individual apropos of nothing, in an inappropriate setting, that they're a potential rapist/ murderer/ drunk driver/ etc. versus acknowledging that as a group, certain groups are potential rapists/ murderes/ drunk drivers etc.

afaik vivalebeaver UK law says rape is with penis.

Thing is, it's a general point, not a vendetta against one man personally, he's not a rapist himself so all he's got in common with one is possession of a penis. There are 3.5bn other men with penises too, they're clearly not all rapists.

But hey if he wants to take personal umbridge he is of course at liberty to do so

Well that woman was found guilty of rape and the article doesn't mention her having a penis.

hmm, the article is a bit short, and ten years old. It's of course terrible whoever is the perpetrator, sadly rapes are not uncommon.

I think there's that principle of being part of the cohort of people who commit the crime - the same principle that led to that man in the fifties being hanged for the murder of a policeman because he was with the boy who did actually murder the policeman - the murderer was underage, so they couldn't hang him, so they hung his companion instead.

I'm not sure if there's a principle that says if you are with someone who commits a crime and it can be established tht you were in on it, but you happened not to be the one that pulled the trigger/ stabbed the knife in/ did the rape, you can be tried for that crime - it's sort of like being an accomplice, but not, in that you are actually considered guilty of the crime itself. Someone who knows more about law might be along soon to explain it better.

I think it just means our arguments are winning SS

It is, sadly, self-evidently the case that all Feminists are capable of irrational man-hatred. They are raised into a culture where irrational man-hatred is fairly commonplace and is carried out by normal, average Feminists.

The question is whether or not any individual Feminist chooses to be an irrational man-hater. There is no logical difference between saying this and saying that all men are potential petrol-heads. There is a big political difference though, which is why people get upset by it.

?

Can anyone be bothered to try and work out what that means? I can't.

I'm 55.
I was there when feminism was women's lib, I never burned my bra but then I never wore one.
I hate how Feminism has become just a site for hating every man (excepting your own husbands/partners) of course.
I don't have a man in my life, but I do have a 16 year old son.
Feminism is not about hating men, but bloody Hell, that's all I seem to read these days.
And a decent, reasonable bloke like MrGin can never win against your arguments, it's just a gang mentality.
Right, I've got that off my chest (shit, I just said chest
Just chill people, we're all struggling at the moment.

Just chill?

You come on here and accuse people of hating a subsection of society and then say chill?

Oh... kay.

Sorry but anyone who declares that feminists just hate men, doesn't deserve to be seriously engaged with. Can't be arsed.

Another person who fails at life!

Do you need a hug, ladyevileyes?

Sorry but anyone who declares that feminists just hate men, doesn't deserve to be seriously engaged with

Whooops - I take it you can't see the irony in that :o

There is no irony.

People who think feminists hate men, are just not very well informed about feminism.

Anyone who is more worried about the imaginary hatred feminists are supposed to have for men, than the real hatred so many men have for women, has their priorities all wrong. (1 in 4 of us are sexually assaulted or raped, 2 of us a week are murdered by our male partners or exes, 1 in 4 of us are victims of domestic violence, 90% of us don't bother to report rape because the legal system has been set up to ensure that most rapists get off and of the ones who do report, only 6% see justice, masses of men go and pay money to rape trafficked women who are forced to be prostitutes, and you're worried about feminists hating men? When women are doing that to men on that scale, then I'll be really concerned for my son.

But hey, you keep harping on about imaginary man-hatred, and ignore the woman-hatred that's all around you.

Shout me down, but how did a jokey poke at a bunch of motoring geeks turn into an all men are potential rapists v. feminists are man-haters rantfest? Haven't the Jeremys on piston heads had their prophecies fulfilled? Come on all we are better than that . . .

I'm just at an age when I think been there, done that,
In the seventies when I was supporting woman's lib (sorry girls for such an old fashioned term) there was truly a cause.
Ok the battle isn't won, particularly with the rape laws, but anybody that thinks that things haven't changed big time, try being a young woman in the 70's.
Otherwise it's just a load of crap rhetoric,

There is no irony.

Allow me - from aliceliddell Wed 26-Oct-11 18:23:48

It is, sadly, self-evidently the case that all men are capable of rape. They are raised in a culture where rape is fairly commonplace and is carried out by normal, average men. The question is whether or not any individual man chooses to rape. There is no logical difference between saying this and saying that all women are potential shoplifters. There is a big political difference though, which is why people get upset by it

I merely replaced "Men" with "Women" and "Rape" with "Irrational Man Haters" in the that post and then reposted it (its about 8 posts above this one), to which your reply was:

"Can anyone be bothered to try and work out what that means? I can't."

And then you respond with:

Sorry but anyone who declares that feminists just hate men, doesn't deserve to be seriously engaged with

So, after 150-odd posts telling people that there is nothing to be offended about when you say "All Men are capable of being Rapists" you go postal after 2 posts put the boot on the other foot....

And you can't see the hypocisy and contradiction?

Oh, the irony :o

My work here is done I think :)

Yy to Fiercely.
I think I love you.