Woman's hour now...!

[WarriorN]

Eerr what now?

They want our views! Go vipers go!!!!

Just reading more.

See this came up.

The women and girls will get sexually attacked anyway and you can't do anything about it 'argument'.

Is.

Appalling.

How is it supposed to make women think ok then by reminding them something we all hear all our lives.

There are plenty of sexually predatory men.
Women are girls are vulnerable to them.
There's nothing anyone can do about it.
So what's the problem. You already carry this risk and fear to a greater or lesser extent through your lives. You're used to it and it's a fact of life. You're powerless to change things. Do shut the fuck up why the fuss about such an inbuilt fundamental part of the lives of women and girls. Rape, flashing, sexual assault, and loads of just this side of legal scary creepiness.

I mean fuck that.

I was browsing through Twitter couple days ago (not got an account). And lil OJ has retweeted something from Douglas m. About how sex offenders will attack women and girls anyway and a sign doesn't stop them.

And there is post after post LAUGHING.. Ha ha. They thing criminals adhere to signage? Hahaha. Fucking stupid. A rapist won't be stopped by a sign! Fucking ridiculous. Hahaha.

That is how they are talking about women and children being preyed on by creepy men, voyeurs, flashers, rapists.

HA FUCKING HA.

I think they know this argument is grossly out of line. And loads of the- let the males in- types are clearly REVELLING. In using this 'argument' and reminding women and girls that we are at risk of sexual crimes from men. And saying SO FUCKING WHAT YOU ARE PREY GET OVER IT.

For many many in favour of the erosion of the protections in law for women and girls this is what they are there for.. misogynists, men's rights activists. No more no less. It's fucking outrageous.

And rest :)

So nice gerbil

How about Scotland

Go listen to what was said on that interview on radio Scotland

We are part of uk.

Nice, I do think that's what's happened.

She's also been v hot on a few other very key feminist points. They're constantly covering Afghanistan and Julia Bradbury's breast cancer piece today was good.

The other presenter is a bit of a wet blanket. Occasionally good bits on proper feminist intersectional stuff but not as bold as Emma.

This was also clearly an unplanned news reaction piece - Emma barged in with her sleeves rolled up, probably saying "we CANT ignore THIS one surely... when the politicians are erasing women... let me at 'em!"

I also think that's why they chopped the play (sorry I don't miss that,always wanted a PROPER HOUR not 45 mins that identified as an hour) so they could allow more time for news debates rather than pre planned stuff.

sorry been listening since I was a young teen in the very early 90s

I didn't know it was a Tw ttlbrowndog

Obviously radio...

To say Jardine made a fool of herself is unkind to fools.

Google Sophie grace chappel

Listen to it. I know it’s not radio 4 💅

buts it’s really important that a TW can say live on radio that it don’t matter if there is a spike in murder rates or crimes against women

I mean wtaf

BlibbyBlobby

'Yes, I’m sure both scenarios happen. My point is don’t ignore the opportunistic model. I’m not saying any abusers were innocent and lovely men who only became abusers because they had an opportunity, I’m saying I think our culture of sexualising women and teenage girls makes many men quite comfortable with committing abusive acts in their minds, and some will go on to act when an opportunity occurs.'

I'm getting really angry now.

Don't ignore the opportunitistic 'model'????

Most women and girls are more than aware of men and boys seeing an opportunity to do or say something to a random woman or girl and taking it. Via multiple personal experiences.

Have I misunderstood? What are you saying.

And the idea that NICE NON VIOLENT MEN AND BOYS will be what. Encouraged? Driven? By what they have seen. On finding themselves in a place without people about. To sexually assault a female child? A schoolgirl? Is that what you're saying?

Because while por online porn is a disaster for us. To think that a man or boy with his head on straight. Will suddenly do this.

If you believe that then given that there can't be many older boys/ men under the age of what 45 who haven't seen it. Then they are ALL a risk?

That's simply not true.

I have zero patience anyway with the diversions.

Porn (always guaranteed to sidetrack feminists and many women who don't see themselves as feminists. And sidetracked for good reason).

Universal credit??!!

This is about the fact that a few things IN LAW are (were sadly) single sex for GOOD REASON.

The need for them is the same as ever.

The vast vast majority of the population knows that. And do NOT think any males should be in single sex things for women. Full stop.

That is a FACT.

The idea that males simply need to say trust me I feel like a woman/ girl to head on in is OBVIOUSLY a massive risk to us. There's no two ways about it. It's totally sodding basic obvious fact.

The fact that it's already happening is an outrage.

Seen my question gerbil

This is what is happening now.

Wouldn’t matter if there was a small spike

Christ's sake.

What is this planned v opportunistic stuff that is suddenly all over the thread.

You are male.
You find girls and women sexually attractive.
Due to a host of factors you see ones you don't know as more objects than people.

You can go into a room where women and girls are taking their clothes off.

If any questions you say well I'm trans you're discriminating.

And in fact many many businesses and organisations have written into policy that it's fine.

Obviously it will be taken advantage of. OBVIOUSLY.

the fact that men would love to get in and see that used to be included in MAINSTREAM COMEDY. That it was NORMAL to want to see that and it was FUNNY if the women got upset.

Fucks sake.

Oh that Sophie.

Yeah that one

You ok nice gerbil ?

Imagine if a GC woman said it 'wouldn't matter' if there was a small spike in trans people being attacked - for any reason whatsoever. They'd be cancelled, crucified and attacked. They'd probably lose their job. So depressing.

@youvegottenminuteslynn

Imagine if a GC woman said it 'wouldn't matter' if there was a small spike in trans people being attacked - for any reason whatsoever. They'd be cancelled, crucified and attacked. They'd probably lose their job. So depressing.

Let's face it, that's what happens when we say women's safety is more important than them being made sad.

Yes. It just shows that - how can I say this? Don’t respect / want to be treated the same as women...

Let's face it, that's what happens when we say women's safety is more important than them being made sad.

Absolutely. Men's feelings always trump women's safety. I veer between numb to the topic out of self protection because it's so upsetting and incandescent with rage about the topic. Mainly the latter.

@littlbrowndog

Wouldn’t matter if there was a small spike

This quote needs to be added to the collection of eye opening quotes from transitioned males.

Along with those from Chu, Lavery and co.

Yeah I'm good.

Just got the bit between my teeth today.

Incidentally just listened to woman's hour in the bath and really enjoyed it! Is it every day? What time?

I've obviously moved into their target audience at some point without realising!

Anyone got any idea what this new line of posting is? I haven't seen it before.

About opportunistic/ planned.

And that ? most men are only what. One moment away from attacking a girl or woman if they happen to be alone with them.

Anyone got any idea what it's all about?

Can the poster/s making this point elaborate?

I have zero idea what it has to do with the matter at hand.

And the arguments contain things that are so extreme I can only assume it's to divert?

Confused.

I now have a very bad automated transcript of the Christine Jardine interview. I can scarcely believe it took that length of time (@ 19mins) to elicit such a scant amount of commentary or information from her.

It was a shitshow.

Apart from bumbling on about whatever to avoid answering a simple question.

She clearly had no idea of policy on children but managed to indicate that it was down to the doctors whether surgery was on the table. At whatever age. I mean surely common sense would tell you that on woman's hour of all places to not even nod to the fact this is huge irreversible risky surgery carried out on a healthy body and so a bit different to having an operation to correct something that is not functioning as it should.. But no minimum age???!!

I mean surely I haven't familiarised myself recently but it's a sound policy taking into account blah with understanding of the risks Vs benefits and age and whatnot.

No surgery- not blockers - if docs agree and she didn't think to give any reassurance.

There was something else she was terrible on as well it might come back to me.

@NiceGerbil

BlibbyBlobby

'Yes, I’m sure both scenarios happen. My point is don’t ignore the opportunistic model. I’m not saying any abusers were innocent and lovely men who only became abusers because they had an opportunity, I’m saying I think our culture of sexualising women and teenage girls makes many men quite comfortable with committing abusive acts in their minds, and some will go on to act when an opportunity occurs.'

I'm getting really angry now.

Don't ignore the opportunitistic 'model'????

Most women and girls are more than aware of men and boys seeing an opportunity to do or say something to a random woman or girl and taking it. Via multiple personal experiences.

Have I misunderstood? What are you saying.

And the idea that NICE NON VIOLENT MEN AND BOYS will be what. Encouraged? Driven? By what they have seen. On finding themselves in a place without people about. To sexually assault a female child? A schoolgirl? Is that what you're saying?

Because while por online porn is a disaster for us. To think that a man or boy with his head on straight. Will suddenly do this.

If you believe that then given that there can't be many older boys/ men under the age of what 45 who haven't seen it. Then they are ALL a risk?

That's simply not true.

I have zero patience anyway with the diversions.

Porn (always guaranteed to sidetrack feminists and many women who don't see themselves as feminists. And sidetracked for good reason).

Universal credit??!!

This is about the fact that a few things IN LAW are (were sadly) single sex for GOOD REASON.

The need for them is the same as ever.

The vast vast majority of the population knows that. And do NOT think any males should be in single sex things for women. Full stop.

That is a FACT.

The idea that males simply need to say trust me I feel like a woman/ girl to head on in is OBVIOUSLY a massive risk to us. There's no two ways about it. It's totally sodding basic obvious fact.

The fact that it's already happening is an outrage.

And the idea that NICE NON VIOLENT MEN AND BOYS will be what. Encouraged? Driven? By what they have seen. On finding themselves in a place without people about. To sexually assault a female child? A schoolgirl? Is that what you're saying?

No Gerbil, I'm saying the opposite. Lots of so called "NICE NON VIOLENT MEN AND BOYS" are not nice at all. They don't see themselves as a Saville or a Weinstein, but if they see an opportunity to abuse or assault a woman without consequence to themselves they will take it because our culture tells them it's ok to do that. They aren't suddenly "Driven By what they have seen", they always had it in them but unlike the predators who plan long term ways to access their victims, many just take opportunities when they arise.

"Most women and girls are more than aware of men and boys seeing an opportunity to do or say something to a random woman or girl and taking it. Via multiple personal experiences."

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Me and the kids are watching the yes minister series at the mo.

One of them then listening to her was extra special :/