The Student Room Group

'Bag a Slag' Event Canceled

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/complaints-force-pub-to-cancel-bag-a-slag-valentines-day-event-9114787.html

In dozens of countries around the world women face inexplicable inequality and injustice. Just a single day after 'Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation Day', it's nice to see neo-feminists are certainly tackling the big issues. Bravo.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by StretfordEnd
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/complaints-force-pub-to-cancel-bag-a-slag-valentines-day-event-9114787.html

In dozens of countries around the world women face inexplicable inequality and injustice. Just a single day after 'Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation Day', it's nice to see neo-feminists are certainly tackling the big issues. Bravo.


You need to win the battles before you can win the war.
I was planning on going to be honest. Cannot wait for the next one.

Every hole is a goal lad!
Reply 3
Ridiculous comments.
Just because there are these big-picture issues doesn't mean you can't complain about injustices and issues at home. The two things are not related, dealing with the latter hardly demeans anything about the former.
The issue has been taken massively away from Nottingham, much to the pub's amazement, for some reason the media has picked it up far beyond their expectations. It's good it was taken down and banned, it's bad that the pub don't seem to understand anything about the problem and put a 'sorry not sorry' statement on their Facebook page, it's irritating that everyone thinks there is something bad about speaking up at something that offends them. The poster was stupid. The pub's responses were stupid. It's over now and they can continue being a good, alt pub that 'made a mistake'. Why bring FGM into it.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 4
Original post by ktwoodwards
You need to win the battles before you can win the war.


Original post by awe
Ridiculous comments.
Just because there are these big-picture issues doesn't mean you can't complain about injustices and issues at home. The two things are not related, dealing with the latter hardly demeans anything about the former.
The issue has been taken massively away from Nottingham, much to the pub's amazement, for some reason the media has picked it up far beyond their expectations. It's good it was taken down and banned, it's bad that the pub don't seem to understand anything about the problem and put a 'sorry not sorry' statement on their Facebook page, it's irritating that everyone thinks there is something bad about speaking up at something that offends them. The poster was stupid. The pub's responses were stupid. It's over now and they can continue being a good, alt pub that 'made a mistake'. Why bring FGM into it.


The woman who is quoted banging her pan about this in the independent and several other media outlets is Ruth Greenburg of the Nottingham Feminist Action Network. Googling either her name or her organisation only reveals:

- A reading group which discusses various forms of media from a 'feminist perspective'
- A Conference held over 4 months ago which cost Ā£10 to attend. It's not made clear exactly where their proceeds went, and as much as they claim that "The three main themes of the conference are the objectification of women, violence against women and girls, and women, poverty and power" , there are no minutes available and zero mention of what action they have arrived at to challenge these issues they've outlined

As far as I'm concerned, 'feminists' like this tend to only do the easy stuff. Tip up for a nice soundbite, take a potshot against a stationary target (A Pub has revised a promotion in your local area; a hammer blow for regional feminism!) and it's job done. 'Feminists' like this take the cause backwards; it makes people take feminism less seriously. Equality is a serious issue, it is an ongoing fight, and too many morons just jump on board for awful reasons.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 5
I think it was just a promotion done in poor taste really. I don't know why everyone is talking about feminism and injustices and freedom of speech and all that nonsense. So they got it wrong? Big deal, they'll move on and do another one. They tried to be edgy and went too far. It's not really a battle in some great war.

Talk about blowing things out of proportion. :rolleyes:
If you're not a slag or you don't like being called a slag then don't go to bag a slag night. I don't see the issue.
Original post by DaveSmith99
If you're not a slag or you don't like being called a slag then don't go to bag a slag night. I don't see the issue.


The issue is the idea of a woman being a slag if she sleeps around or wears revealing clothing. It's about double standards.
Reply 8
I haven't really decided whether I think it from a feminism point of view. The barmaid who came up with it talked about being empowered to reclaim the word, whereas local feminist campaigners made good points around the term being derogatory in almost all contexts, and some of the specific other phrases used in the marketing being taken from abusive situations.

Generally though, I think the council made the right decision partly on the basis that it's just not appropriate. There are infinite ways of describing a speed dating event with a variety of themes and implicit contexts, but 'bag a slag' is just ridiculous. I wouldn't expect them to be allowed 'pick a dick', 'gimp a pimp', 'show a hoe' or anything else to be allowed; it's a licensed venue with a responsibility to the local community, which is a very diverse one in Nottingham.
I think a "tour in a whore" or "put your dipper in a stripper" night would be a perfectly appropiate alternative.
Original post by ktwoodwards
The issue is the idea of a woman being a slag if she sleeps around or wears revealing clothing. It's about double standards.


What, like 'Manwhores'? Men get judged for their standards as well.

Yeah, pretty much double standards towards women this.
Original post by Snagprophet
What, like 'Manwhores'? Men get judged for their standards as well.

Yeah, pretty much double standards towards women this.


Interesting that "man" acts as a prefix so that's it's clear that you're taking about a male and not a female, suggesting that the norm is female.
Original post by ktwoodwards
Interesting that "man" acts as a prefix so that's it's clear that you're taking about a male and not a female, suggesting that the norm is female.


There's lots of 'negative' words which the default is male, like bastard and ****er.
Original post by Snagprophet
There's lots of 'negative' words which the default is male, like bastard and ****er.


None relating to sex though.
Reply 14
It's not offensive to ALL women. Silly cow. Get outta here
Reply 15
Original post by ktwoodwards
The issue is the idea of a woman being a slag if she sleeps around or wears revealing clothing. It's about double standards.


Like the double standard where female virgins are virtuous but male virgins are socially inept losers? I never hear anyone complaining about that one. How about the way women are encourage to expect males to pay for them but men are attacked for being entitled? Need I continue?

Unless your going to fight all double standards stop complaining, because you become a double standard yourself - current feminism is fine with inequality that helps women but goes insane at the first hint of minor inequality against them, and then it thinks it can claim to be pro equality.
Original post by ktwoodwards
None relating to sex though.


Oh well. I guess a lock that gets opened by many keys isn't a good lock, but a key that opens many locks is a good key.
cancelled by whom? the government should have no right to do this, nor should councils
and in terms of the "zero tolerance for female genital mutilation", what about male genital mutilation in the UK?
Original post by Aoide
Like the double standard where female virgins are virtuous but male virgins are socially inept losers? I never hear anyone complaining about that one. How about the way women are encourage to expect males to pay for them but men are attacked for being entitled? Need I continue?
.


Who is it who says that female virgins are virtuous? Is this not an idea originally perpetuated by men who wished to prevent women from having sex before marriage so that they could marry virgins and repress female sexuality that they saw as threatening. This idea does not benefit women!

Where does the idea of men paying come from? Could it be from times when men wanted to see themselves as breadwinners (and often were because women were expected to stay home and do domestic chores, or were earning far less than men in the jobs they did have) and saw paying for things as an expression of their masculinity. Again, this idea does not benefit women!

Please, put some more thought into things before posting, none of these examples actually support your claims.

Re. the pub, i'm glad it was cancelled, it is quite obviously incredibly sexist and it shocks me that anyone could defend it as 'just a joke' when the ramifications of this sexual double standard are far from funny.
Reply 19
Original post by Antifazian
Who is it who says that female virgins are virtuous? Is this not an idea originally perpetuated by men who wished to prevent women from having sex before marriage so that they could marry virgins and repress female sexuality that they saw as threatening. This idea does not benefit women!

Where does the idea of men paying come from? Could it be from times when men wanted to see themselves as breadwinners (and often were because women were expected to stay home and do domestic chores, or were earning far less than men in the jobs they did have) and saw paying for things as an expression of their masculinity. Again, this idea does not benefit women!

Please, put some more thought into things before posting, none of these examples actually support your claims.

Re. the pub, i'm glad it was cancelled, it is quite obviously incredibly sexist and it shocks me that anyone could defend it as 'just a joke' when the ramifications of this sexual double standard are far from funny.


Really that's all you've got, the typical feminist BS of trying make women's benefit into a negative? It is laughable how you turn even the most clearly anti male expectations into support for feminism. The fact you really believe this shows how blind you are to anything but the supposed suffering of women. It is reminiscent of racists who claim that only whites can be racist while making racist remarks themselves. Past society may have been predominantly run by men however this doesn't mean every thing from that time was about supressing women. Men may have been more in control but we also had far more far more responsibility placed upon us, something which still exists today but that you seem unwilling to see. Men were already social and politically in control, what possible purpose could paying for women have achieved? Men were expected to pay for women because women couldn't pay for themselves, now this is no longer the case the expectation should be gone- it isn't. Feminism was more than happy to expect women be paid equal but conveniently left behind the women supporting social expectations which balanced out this inequality in the past. It may have originated from men, it may not have but in todays society women hold this view as much as men.

Regardless of its origins the fact men are expected to pay for women today when they have the means to pay for themselves (therefore men gain no control) is purely detrimental to men. Only someone blinded by clearly biased interests could think that being emotionally pressured into paying for someone else could be in my interests. It is as sexist as any issue faced by women but of course feminism isn't interested because only women matter.

Again the expectation of women be virgins until marriage (as much as you may wish it be in order to suit your clear pro feminist motive, this wasn't as a means of controlling women for the benefit of men- it was because at the time sex= children which was a bad idea outside of a stable marriage) came from a previous time so blaming modern day men for it is ridiculous. Our society developed from patriarchal society but that doesn't mean all our issues still only damage women. While not so bold women have had an effect on our society before equality came and in the long time since then have had a drastic place in moulding social views. Society and its expectations has developed a long way since then and there has been plenty of room for anti male behaviours to develop.

The repression of female sexuality is wrong but that doesn't change the fact that men are seen as inferior for being virgins while it is perfectly acceptable for women. You support women having as much sex as they wish without any condemnation with the argument that people should be able to have as much sex as they like, but as I would expect of someone so clearly blinded by an agenda you ignore the fact men are also stigmatised for their sexual behaviour. The fight against women being pressured not to have sex constantly makes the news, have you ever seen anyone complaining that men are seen as inferior if they don't have sex?
(edited 10 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest