To not think my daughter should be made to use a changing room..

[hairnets]

When getting changed after swimming with her Dad?

He told me today that she received a telling off ("major roasting" were his words) for refusing to use her own changing room after he took her swimming. He felt that it wasn't appropriate for her to get changed out in the open because there were other men about in the room.

She's 5.

I obviously think he's BU and I know exactly why I do but interested in what others think before I bang on about why he's BU - If that makes any sense!!

I don't follow, shelley.

Yes, it's misogynistic to read magazines that treat women like that. I doubt anyone thinks to himself 'hmm, I hate women, must buy my copy of Nuts', but he's still being misogynistic by buying those papers.

It's not an assumption at all - just an observation.

is it something to be proud of, something to aspire to, do you think ?

More assumptions.

I don't think for one moment that there's anything meritorious whatsoever about those magazines; I'd wholeheartedly go along with readers being thick as mince.

I just find 'misogynist' rather a strong word to describe the usual sort of knob who reads (if he can) such publications.

It does seem to be a word that gets strong reactions. Personally I think they're justified when you look at the links AF put up.

It is a bit OTT to call a question an 'assumption', btw.

Hags, dogs, whores, bitches. It's amazing how much hate you can pack into a few syllables. How do you spot a woman-hater? By the way they talk about women, treat women, react to women, represent women. Bitching about women, slagging off women ? even the language used to describe such slander comes from misogyny. The ubiquitous verbal violence supports physical violence and nobody, male or female, minds. If I were called a Paki in the street, I would have some hope of it being taken seriously. If I were called a slag ? as I was last summer by a man on a bicycle, in Stepney ? nobody would consider it report-worthy.

Bidisha, the Guardian, July 2010

I posted a link upthread comparing how the language used with reference to in lads mags is comparable to that of sex offenders

Casual sexism is a form of misogyny, a way to reduce women to nothing more than the parts of their body. Which parts ? No prizes for guessing...

It is a bit OTT to call a question an 'assumption', btw.

I think it was justified given that it was a rhetorical question. Although, that's just me assuming it was rhetorical...

Twisting your argument backwards and inside out isn't cutting it, shelly

Twisting your argument backwards and inside out isn't cutting it, shelly

What argument, what twist?

It's quite simple.

There was a statement: "in that pile are some men that hate women...sloshing around in there are also the men who are too stupid to know any different"

Followed by the question: "is it something to be proud of, something to aspire to, do you think ?"

Either you think I'm so fucking stupid/thick that I might reply, "yes it's something to be proud of", or I'm to assume it's a rhetorical question.

Actually, I can't really be bothered with this, so think what you like.

I don't think she means you aspire to it - I think she means, do you think some men are proud of it or aspire to it.

That's how I read it anyway.

I do think there are some circles where certain language and attitudes like those AF describes, are seen as a sign you're a 'real man', something to be proud of.

Perhaps shelly's dad/brother/son/partner reads such stuff

It might explain why she got so upset by someone implying that the men that do have misogynist attitudes towards women

Well, that is why it's upsetting IMO AF. We'd all like to think misogyny is rare, and it's only terrifying strangers who ever do anything misogynistic. The whole shock of lads' mags is that they are so normal in our society, and no-one wants to believe that this can be normal. I don't want to believe it. I know it's true, but I don't want it to be true.