Is Sir Michael Parkinson within his rights?

[flaviaritt]

Says men are funnier than women. He says, ‘It's a very contentious statement, but they're much better'.

My view is that, by the age of 85, if you think men are funnier than women, it’s just your opinion based on your experience and nobody should be getting riled up about it.

Reasonable?

Didn’t mean!

Ugh, sorry

That’s alright.

Not so keen for a discussion after all. What a surprise.

I think if he'd said he finds men funnier than women it would be fine, maybe that was what he meant. I don't like listening to women sing, it doesn't mean I have a down on women, I am one, I just prefer male voices generally, I suppose it is pitch? Sopranos singing opera are painful to me, I accept they have a talent and they've worked at it it just happens to hurt my ears.

I think if he'd said he finds men funnier than women it would be fine, maybe that was what he meant.

I think it is the only possible interpretation of his comment. He must know he can only speak for himself.

@flaviaritt

I think if he'd said he finds men funnier than women it would be fine, maybe that was what he meant.

I think it is the only possible interpretation of his comment. He must know he can only speak for himself.

Still sexist though. He’s not saying he prefers Lee Evans over Katherine Ryan. He’s not saying he prefers slapstick over observational. He’s saying men are funnier than women. Which is sexist.

I’ve just realised you’re ignoring me flaviaritt! I’m so slow today!

Why would you ignore me when you are so against censorship and free speech and liberty and so pro- opinions and discussion?! You wouldn’t be looking for an echo chamber now, would you?

I voted now that you are being unreasonable as you are unwilling to consider his purpose in making the statement or really engage in any conversation on the topic beyond a very superficial level.

As we used to say on the playground “it’s a free country”. So yes, he can say what he wants. The question of whether he should is a different, more nuanced matter.

Now with that being said I feel I can admit to this: I prefer male comedians and have met more funny men than I have women. I think there are reasons that do not include humor being a skill women don’t possess. We do. I think I’m damn funny. I know other women that truly funny are also.

But I don’t think most men like it any more than they like women smarter than them. So we don’t always exercise our abilities and we aren’t encouraged in this area very often.

So I believe it’s very difficult for women comedians to find their sweet spot because the point is to entertain and make a living and that’s definitely not as easy a woman in comedy to achieve as it is a man. Believe they often end up up being crass to be shocking. I don’t like crass or loud people (male or female.)

So, like my comments to you OP, I find sir whatever his name is saying what he said publicly without going beyond that to said a waste of time and annoying. Also because it’s just not an original thought.

I voted now that you are being unreasonable as you are unwilling to consider his purpose in making the statement or really engage in any conversation on the topic beyond a very superficial level.

I’m not sure his purpose is particularly relevant. My AIBU wasn’t really about that. And I don’t believe what you are asking me (why I posted etc) is ‘the topic’. It’s just what you want to talk about.

@flaviaritt

Says men are funnier than women. He says, ‘It's a very contentious statement, but they're much better'.

My view is that, by the age of 85, if you think men are funnier than women, it’s just your opinion based on your experience and nobody should be getting riled up about it.

Reasonable?

It’s literally in your OP. You’re a strange one.

So you don’t think “why” someone says what they are saying should has any relevance on how it’s received by others?

So you don’t think “why” someone says what they are saying should has any relevance on how it’s received by others?

I didn’t say that either. I said it isn’t what my AIBU relates to, so isn’t ‘the topic’ to which you refer and isn’t relevant to what I was asking. The topic is as I have defined it - it’s my AIBU!

But in reality we can’t know exactly why he said it. To me, it’s just a subjective observation.

@flaviaritt

So you don’t think “why” someone says what they are saying should has any relevance on how it’s received by others?

I didn’t say that either. I said it isn’t what my AIBU relates to, so isn’t ‘the topic’ to which you refer and isn’t relevant to what I was asking. The topic is as I have defined it - it’s my AIBU!

But in reality we can’t know exactly why he said it. To me, it’s just a subjective observation.

A sexist one.

Ignore that “should” up there.

You don’t think ones purpose in speaking impacts how their content is received?

I think you are being unreasonable.

You don’t think ones purpose in speaking impacts how their content is received?

I didn’t say that either. But it is not what my AIBU is about. It is about whether he has the right (reasonably, morally - we know he does legally) to express his subjective opinion even when some (like you) might be offended by it. I think yes.

Okay!

@flaviaritt

You don’t think ones purpose in speaking impacts how their content is received?

I didn’t say that either. But it is not what my AIBU is about. It is about whether he has the right (reasonably, morally - we know he does legally) to express his subjective opinion even when some (like you) might be offended by it. I think yes.

Of course he does. He also has the right to freedom of religious expression. He can say whatever he likes - not wherever he likes or whenever he likes - but he can say it. He just can’t expect no consequences.

So he’s made a sexist statement. He has that right, although I’d wager he, like you, would think twice about making a racist one or an overtly sexualised one at say, work.

That doesn’t mean that he’s exempt from people getting riled up.

You’ve moved the bar again.

You said you were interested in the reactions. Now you want to gauge if people believe in free speech.

You seem confused!

Except flaviaritt doesn’t seem to know what free speech is.

You said you were interested in the reactions. Now you want to gauge if people believe in free speech.

I’m not confused. I am interested in people’s reactions in terms of his right to free speech. This shouldn’t be confusing at all (it is obvious from all my posts). But if it is confusing you then we can leave it.

@flaviaritt

You said you were interested in the reactions. Now you want to gauge if people believe in free speech.

I’m not confused. I am interested in people’s reactions in terms of his right to free speech. This shouldn’t be confusing at all (it is obvious from all my posts). But if it is confusing you then we can leave it.

But you consider his right to free speech to mean he can say whatever he likes - anything racist, sexist, disablist, and so on - without any consequence. That’s not, and has never been, the case. That’s never, ever been the definition of ‘free speech’.

No, you actually are very confusing. (Not really up for you to decide if you are communicating clearly or not, we get to determine that.)

You said you wanted to understand reactions yet keep trying to volley any reaction away that doesn’t match your own conclusion.

It’s so very 2020.

Actually, it’s not up to you to decide that either. All we can do is admit that you don’t understand what I am saying. Since I think I am being clear, I am, sadly, powerless to change that.

Goodnight.

Good idea. Much easier to flounce - from your own thread - than to admit you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’ve no idea what free speech actually means.