Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Have you heard about David Osborne's blog?

94 replies

LillyEvans · 07/02/2015 21:58

David is a barrister who cares deeply for "red blooded males" and the blog that's made the news is called "She's gagging for it".

You can probably guess what it's about. He also manages to throw in a bit about why he thinks the title Ms is insulting.

It looks like he has a few other interesting posts on there too.

OP posts:

StillLostAtTheStation · 10/02/2015 19:52

I was sure he was being a buffoon about talking about the male based property qualification to sit on a jury. I'd have put money on that going in either 1919 or 1946.

Really surprised to find out that women could be jurors from 1919 but the property qualification was only abolished in 1974.

He's still a deeply unpleasant man. Given his age he would have been called to the Bar in the late 60s so most of his working life must have been spent under the current system.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 10/02/2015 20:16

Marital rape was only made a crime in 1991 in England, so anti woman laws aren't all that surprising.

He is not publishing any anti comments on his blog post, which is his right, of course, but surely, even a complete jerk like him must know that the rapist Goggins is not someone you want on your side? Even his fellow rapist, Ched Evans has distanced himself from him.

It does make you wonder about Osbourne's sexual history, as it does when any man comes along and tells you that something, which is undeniably rape in law, isn't actually rape, because all 'red-blooded males' do it. Or are we thinking that they don't class themselves as red blooded males when they say these things?

StillLostAtTheStation · 10/02/2015 20:46

Oh and in the course of googling jury history I found an article by one of the Hitchens in 2009 suggesting the property qualification should be reinstated.

I know this is utterly wrong of me but I'm mildly taken by the idea that between 1919 to 1974 a property owning woman was better suited to sit on a jury than a non property owning man. Sorry.

scallopsrgreat · 10/02/2015 20:48

It really is a case of when a man tells you what he's like, believe him.

PuffinsAreFictitious · 10/02/2015 20:57

Couldn't agree more scallops.

Anonynonny · 10/02/2015 21:55

I've always thought that if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it really has no cause to be offended if people assume it's a duck

SabrinaMulhollandJjones1984 · 10/02/2015 22:08

He's a man talking from the safety of his ivory tower. You know, the one that protects rich, educated, professional white men. With the fragrant Mrs Osborne, who is proud to take his name and his daughter who ("thankfully") doesn't do such vulgar things as getting drunk and wearing short skirts.

This 'raped while drunk' thing happens to other women than those in his family/social sphere - women who deserve it, "slutty" women with their tits and arse hanging out -who are gagging for it and regret the next day (are we really still saying that in this day and age??). Redblooded men can't help themselves from raping incapacitated females, you see.

I'm betting he also hasn't signed the No More Page 3 petition

Original poster

LillyEvans · 11/02/2015 16:01

PuffinsAreFictitious

Marital rape was only made a crime in 1991 in England, so anti woman laws aren't all that surprising.

I've heard this quite a few times but it never fails to shock me. I was born in 1987. Can this really have only been made illegal in my life time?

I've been told by a family friend that my dad did rape my mum throughout their marriage. My dad is a disgusting piece of scum who has done a lot of horrible things. The fact he could rape my mum and that the law saw no issue with that makes it worse to me. No wonder she stayed with him for so long.

OP posts:

PuffinsAreFictitious · 11/02/2015 16:06

Lilly, I was born even before you, and I am constantly shocked when I fact check it. Yes, until 1991 a man could not be prosecuted for raping his wife. It was specifically excluded in the sexual offences act. Sadly, in a lot of the world, women are still in this position.

scallopsrgreat · 11/02/2015 16:12

Tbh Puffins I think many women in this country are still in that position. There haven't been many successful prosecutions of marital rape .

PuffinsAreFictitious · 11/02/2015 16:19

Yeah, I know, but at least now, if a woman went to the police, they would have to at least investigate. Pre 1991, it wasn't a crime (according to the law statutes).

PetulaGordino · 11/02/2015 16:33

presumably it wasn't even considered rape

PuffinsAreFictitious · 11/02/2015 17:09

No, it wasn't. Well, it probably was for the women suffering it, it almost certainly was by the men doing it, but according to law, nope.

MehsMum · 11/02/2015 17:34

Re marital rape
I've heard this quite a few times but it never fails to shock me. I was born in 1987. Can this really have only been made illegal in my life time?
Yup, that's right. I remember all the arguing in the papers about it, those who wanted to keep it on the statute books saying that once a woman was married she had essentially signed up to be shagged whenever her husband wanted it, even if she had said no/changed the locks/left him.

Women didn't get the right to vote on the same basis as men until the year my DM was born (1928), so that feels very recent to me. That's why I preach to my children.

Sorry... off-topic.

Original poster

LillyEvans · 11/02/2015 17:45

MehsMum, if marital rape were being debated now I can imagine what side this barrister would be taking.

Out of interest, what conditions for the right to vote did women need to have before 1928? Did they have to be older than the legal age for men?

OP posts:

MehsMum · 11/02/2015 18:20

Lilly, they had to be over 30, whereas men had to be 21; otherwise I think whatever restrictions applied were the same as for men.

We did women's suffrage at school, iirc. Or it might just have been DM banging on at me about it. She wasn't a feminist, but she turned me into one...

grimbletart · 11/02/2015 18:20

Lily *in 1918 the Representation of the People Act was passed which allowed women over the age of 30 who met a property qualification to vote. Although 8.5 million women met this criteria, it only represented 40 per cent of the total population of women in the UK.

The same act abolished property and other restrictions for men, and extended the vote to all men over the age of 21. Additionally, men in the armed forces could vote from the age of 19. The electorate increased from eight to 21 million, but there was still huge inequality between women and men.

It was not until the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that women over 21 were able to vote and women finally achieved the same voting rights as men. This act increased the number of women eligible to vote to 15 million.*

Source: Living heritage

grimbletart · 11/02/2015 18:21

Sorry Mehsmum - X post.

Original poster

LillyEvans · 11/02/2015 18:36

Thanks grimbletart and mehsMum.

I've found a great resource online called The Women's Timeline. <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=VaDbVL2OI4bX7QaFrIHgAw&url=www.mmu.ac.uk/equality-and-diversity/doc/gender-equality-timeline.pdf&ved=0CCIQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNETyIjHZy1a336WxBnibyb4RuJ_jA&sig2=8oZ6CDENFYFMFGxPgdj40A" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Here it is if anyone is interested. It's a PDF.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3 4