Tell me this aint mental

Quite a lot to unpick here:

- Telling the way it’s written makes Simon Bailey to be the victim

- Even the report mentions there were other instances of sexist language

- Requests to use appropriate language were met with a smile or a groan (of course, nothing patronising about that in some minds)

The other thing to bear in mind is whether anyone defending it, would be happy for their mothers, daughters, sisters, to have to put up with this.
 
Mistryman said:
The other thing to bear in mind is whether anyone defending it, would be happy for their mothers, daughters, sisters, to have to put up with this
Click to expand...
If you are offended by this sort of stuff do not enter a male dominated "tough guy" arena. These are men who deal with shit the rest of us would run from on a regular basis so if they're "inappropriate" occasionally it is totally understandable . It's called black humour and it is a way of dealing with the horrors they encounter
 
What? said:
If you are offended by this sort of stuff do not enter a male dominated "tough guy" arena. These are men who deal with shit the rest of us would run from on a regular basis so if they're "inappropriate" occasionally it is totally understandable . It's called black humour and it is a way of dealing with the horrors they encounter
Click to expand...
No one is denying that. But black humour at the expense of one person or a certain group of people is a slippery slope. Nothing is off-limits in that instance, unless you’re the person at the receiving end.

But evidently it takes some a lot of effort to treat someone with respect. Especially if they’re doing the same job as them.

And in any case, this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with dealing with the horrors - it’s just sexist & misogynistic.
 
Mistryman said:
And in any case, this doesn’t seem to have anything to do with dealing with the horrors - it’s just sexist & misogynistic.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with dealing with the horrors, this woman sounds like she was simply in the wrong job
 
What? said:
It has everything to do with dealing with the horrors, this woman sounds like she was simply in the wrong job
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree.

If anything, she would’ve probably had to try twice as hard to get the same role.

Like I said…
Mistryman said:
The other thing to bear in mind is whether anyone defending it, would be happy for their mothers, daughters, sisters, to have to put up with this.
Click to expand...
 
This is typical of the UK, people join an organisation and instead of accepting it for the way it is they try to change it. If you don't like it try another job.
That is exactly the advice I would give to any member of my family
 
What? said:
This is typical of the UK, people join an organisation and instead of accepting it for the way it is they try to change it. If you don't like it try another job.
That is exactly the advice I would give to any member of my family
Click to expand...
I’m sure your ‘support’ would be welcomed.

In any case, it’s not a change-thing - just acknowledging, supporting & respecting your co-worker. Doesn’t take a lot of effort.
 
If it ain't broke don't fix it, the majority changing to suit a minority when they don't want to isn't progress
 
Allowing women into the Fire Service, Police and front line Military is a big mistake

It dilutes quality and standards across the board
 
Pen4 said:
Allowing women into the Fire Service, Police and front line Military is a big mistake

It dilutes quality and standards across the board
Click to expand...
No doubt should you ever require those services & it’s a woman at your assistance, you’ll decline their offer.
 
A strawman argument is a logical fallacy where someone misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it a weaker, distorted version that is easier to attack. Instead of refuting the original point, they knock down the "straw man" version to create the illusion of having won the debate.

How it works
  • Oversimplifying or exaggerating:
    The arguer takes the opponent's position and makes it sound more extreme or simple than it actually is.

  • Creating a caricature:
    The opponent's argument is stripped of its nuance and presented as a ridiculous or easily refutable "caricature" of the original position.

  • Attacking the distortion:
    The arguer then attacks this new, weakened argument (the straw man) as if it were the opponent's actual stance.
 
Pen4 said:
A strawman argument is a logical fallacy where someone misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it a weaker, distorted version that is easier to attack. Instead of refuting the original point, they knock down the "straw man" version to create the illusion of having won the debate.

How it works
  • Oversimplifying or exaggerating:
    The arguer takes the opponent's position and makes it sound more extreme or simple than it actually is.

  • Creating a caricature:
    The opponent's argument is stripped of its nuance and presented as a ridiculous or easily refutable "caricature" of the original position.

  • Attacking the distortion:
    The arguer then attacks this new, weakened argument (the straw man) as if it were the opponent's actual stance.
Click to expand...
No misrepresentation at all - given many women do still work for those services, I’d probably stay schtum about their “quality & standards” if & when you do need them.
 
Well if I needed to be carried down a flight of stairs out of a burning building I hope it will be a 16 stone fireman not an 8 stone wet through fire person
 
Mistryman said:
No misrepresentation at all - given many women do still work for those services, I’d probably stay schtum about their “quality & standards” if & when you do need them.
Click to expand...
Come on lad, picture the scene. Youre in the Weller Lounge, the stadium, lime the club, is going down in flames. You are choking to death on the smoke, from burning cuddly foxes, resigned to your demise. When, two Leics fire servivce fire FIGHTERS appear through the smoke. One is a big old unit of a bloke, with 20 odd years experience, the other is a 9 stone, wet through woman. Both reach out for you. Which one you going with?
 
astleyfox said:
Come on lad, picture the scene. Youre in the Weller Lounge, the stadium, lime the club, is going down in flames. You are choking to death on the smoke, from burning cuddly foxes, resigned to your demise. When, two Leics fire servivce fire FIGHTERS appear through the smoke. One is a big old unit of a bloke, with 20 odd years experience, the other is a 9 stone, wet through woman. Both reach out for you. Which one you going with?
Click to expand...
That’s some scenario you’ve imagined there…!

My understanding is that women have to meet the same standards as the men.

And even outside of that, the fire service ain’t exactly like a pizza service is it?

“Yeah, I’m in a burning building - I reckon I’m around 5 minutes from certain death but could you send over a man that weighs 16 stone or more please? Not a woman under any circumstances”.

BTW, here’s a pic of the ex-rugby player mentioned in the original story. Anything but a “9 stone wet through woman”.

www.gettyimages.co.uk

Sasha Acheson of England poses for a portrait during the England...

Sasha Acheson of England poses for a portrait during the England Women's Squad photo call at Loughborough University on October 6, 2018 in Loughborough, England.
www.gettyimages.co.uk www.gettyimages.co.uk
 
astleyfox said:
Come on lad, picture the scene. Youre in the Weller Lounge, the stadium, lime the club, is going down in flames. You are choking to death on the smoke, from burning cuddly foxes, resigned to your demise. When, two Leics fire servivce fire FIGHTERS appear through the smoke. One is a big old unit of a bloke, with 20 odd years experience, the other is a 9 stone, wet through woman. Both reach out for you. Which one you going with?
Click to expand...
A
strawman argument is a logical fallacy where someone misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it a weaker, distorted version that is easier to attack. Instead of refuting the original point, they knock down the "straw man" version to create the illusion of having won the debate.

How it works

  • Oversimplifying or exaggerating:
    The arguer takes the opponent's position and makes it sound more extreme or simple than it actually is.

  • Creating a caricature:
    The opponent's argument is stripped of its nuance and presented as a ridiculous or easily refutable "caricature" of the original position.

  • Attacking the distortion:
    The arguer then attacks this new, weakened argument (the straw man) as if it were the opponent's actual stance.
What? said:
If it ain't broke don't fix it, the majority changing to suit a minority when they don't want to isn't progress
Click to expand...
So don't allow any changes to enable other people to apply for a job because that's how it's always been? seems like you're stuck in the 1960s.
 
Trying to blur the lines between the sexes is absurd, it is quite clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense that the physical attributes of a male are almost always greater than a woman, it is not changed by woke equality wish lists. But in this case it is someone joining an existing organisation and trying to change it because the existing members use words they didn’t like. Of course women should be able to enter male dominated jobs and the majority do their best to fit in with their colleagues. Once again those that make the most noise get the most attention
Change for change sake is pointless
 
astleyfox said:
Come on lad, picture the scene. Youre in the Weller Lounge, the stadium, lime the club, is going down in flames. You are choking to death on the smoke, from burning cuddly foxes, resigned to your demise. When, two Leics fire servivce fire FIGHTERS appear through the smoke. One is a big old unit of a bloke, with 20 odd years experience, the other is a 9 stone, wet through woman. Both reach out for you. Which one you going with?
Click to expand...
I like that both the hypothetical scenarios mention the woman as being wet through, while the fellow is apparently bone dry.
 
Pen4 said:
A strawman argument is a logical fallacy where someone misrepresents an opponent's argument to make it a weaker, distorted version that is easier to attack. Instead of refuting the original point, they knock down the "straw man" version to create the illusion of having won the debate.

How it works
  • Oversimplifying or exaggerating:
    The arguer takes the opponent's position and makes it sound more extreme or simple than it actually is.

  • Creating a caricature:
    The opponent's argument is stripped of its nuance and presented as a ridiculous or easily refutable "caricature" of the original position.

  • Attacking the distortion:
    The arguer then attacks this new, weakened argument (the straw man) as if it were the opponent's actual stance.
Click to expand...
That happens quite a lot here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top