Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Britains Biggest Sexist Programme On BBC iPlayer Is A Complete Joke watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wattsy)
    Was it Stacey Dooley again? I haven't watched it but she is just bad at documentary making/presenting.
    No it was some other girl.

    Shouting at London city workers 'Im on my period' - what kind of crap is this?

    I still don't understand her points because it is a fact of life women have periods, it is a scientific fact that it causes pain and mood swings.

    It is also true, or I hope it is that men know this and accept it and get on with it.

    Unfortunately the best advise given to women is just to get on with it because companies are not going to give you therapy time and all kinds of benefits. In the same way, some males have extreme anger management issues but they will remain quiet and not show their emotions to their bosses. The workplace is a productive place, male or female, emotions are to kept away as much as possible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wattsy)
    Was it Stacey Dooley again? I haven't watched it but she is just bad at documentary making/presenting.
    No, it was a Guardian journalist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Ok? Your point being?
    just joking, I watched the show and it was a load of *******s
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demx9)
    that's a lot of red OP
    So what? Rep is worthless now.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...iggest-sexists

    Having watched this show yesterday, I was disgusted by the content and the approach of the way this programme was constructed. I have never seen such a level of poor journalism, lack of research and all round such poor use of logic and contradictions. Men and women are physically different which is a fact. I believe men and women are of equal worth to society, however I also believe they are different in and some cases they should do different things. For example why would you want equality between men and women in say boxing, I don't want to see men boxing women, I think its distasteful.
    In physical activities of course, but most jobs that matter nowadays aren't hunter-gathering and war and actually involve mental tasks where men and women are thoroughly equal.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    This show was littered with contradictions.

    A woman on the show claimed that girls at universities cannot go to cafes or libraries now which is a load of crap because our libraries and cafes are full of girls. She cited a photo of a girl who had her photo taken because she bent over and her thong was visible. If you are a bending down or reaching for something and your underwear becomes visible then your clothes are too tight.
    Except that was pretty much exactly not what she was said, she was referring to specific cases of women who felt that way because they'd been subjected to creepy or borderline stalkerish behaviour, such as, as you mentioned, having pictures of their thong taken.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    What is infuriating is when it is the other way round its a completely different issue. I'm sure everyone has seen the picture below on Instagram at some point - and I have no problems with it as a male but I don't see where these feminists refute pictures like this. If they believe in equality, then both sexes should not be objectified. Double standards all round. When a male compliments a girl, its objectifying women, when its the other way round - nothing?
    Was that picture taken without his consent, and in an embarrassing situation like the other example? No.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    The programme also briefly mentioned some calendars being banned due to women appearing topless. I don’t understand this point as in one sense women are being told they are not to be objectified yet in another sense women are being told how to dress, how to behave, how to act – I thought the whole premise of their case was women have the choice? Clearly they do not in this scenario.
    Agree in the broad sense, but in this case they were referring to RyanAir which as far as I know doesn't exclusively serve a male clientele.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    I saw a tremendous amount of hate towards these internet YouTube stars known as pick up artists. If they approach a girl and hug her, kiss her, hold her hands, her thighs, her arse and the girl gives the male her number, clearly she doesn't mind this and she is happy and it is all consensual and legal. Again this happens the other way round, I work behind a bar and girls now and then leave me their numbers. I don't have a problem with this - its called meeting people. What are these feminist's problems if a girl gives a guy her number? Who are they to tell her what to do and what not to do.
    The problem is that you're relying on obtaining posthumous consent for what is, until that point, molestation. You have to wonder how many off-camera attempts these ****heads make which result in failure. Also, not sure about those referred to in the program but a lot of youtube videos that involve stunts like that are blatant fakes. I welcome you to try them out in real life and see how many bruises you have by the end of the day.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    I thought the lowest point of the programming was the attack on children’s toys. In general its no secret women enjoy shopping for clothes, shoes, make up and men like gadgets and cars etc. That is being general, it is true in a general sense thats why companies target adds to them. There are exceptions, but I dont see the point they are trying to make. Are they saying men and women should buy the same things, dress the same, look the same? Would a make up company spend billions of pounds advertising to males where the market is limited? No, no and no.
    Really, the attack on children's toys, probably the part of the program exhibiting the most blatant contrasts. And no, the problem is not that girls might like different things, but that the toys being targeted towards them are anti-intellectual ****. No wonder there are so few women in science and mathematics when from a young age we have a dichotomy between 'Brilliant Boys' and 'Beautiful Girls', hilarious.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    I did note the issue raised with pregnant women in the workforce. Whilst I do agree women should not be subjected to any sort of discrimination in the workforce I would like to offer an opinion from the employer’s perspective. Many companies do not discriminate against women, it just financially they take into account cost of paying for her maternity leave, time of cost of training someone else, paying the new person, using more resources and time - that is all that is. Some companies simply cannot afford to pay 2 salaries because they are struggling due to the recession. This is not sexism.
    You're assuming that the only companies which are doing this are financially struggling which is not the case, and even if it is it doesn't change the fact that it's completely illegal. Apparently women spending one year of their life focussing on raising children should ruin the 40+ years of their entire careers. Makes perfect sense. Except it doesn't and the government knows it but employers are just flouting the law and doing whatever they want.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    The pay gap between men and women is also another issue they got wrong. Men and women earn same or very similar amount in the same job roles. Its just that higher payed jobs often require 50-60 hours a week and many women prefer to cut down their hours or work part time and concentrate on their children - This is their choice, who is anyone to tell any woman to work 50-60 hours if she doesn't want to - its her choice.
    Highlighted everything which is simply unsubstantiated, ie. nearly all of that paragraph.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    The journalism, if it can be called that, in this programme has to be one of the worst cases ever witnessed. A woman shouting obscene sexist remarks at innocent London City workers is not the quality of television that tax payers should be expecting. Distasteful language all round, "comedians" making "jokes" which have very little humor.
    I do agree though, the program is pretty bad but this is the only paragraph you've highlighted actual criticism of the program. The rest of the post is just you whining about society trying to help women get
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    In physical activities of course, but most jobs that matter nowadays aren't hunter-gathering and war and actually involve mental tasks where men and women are thoroughly equal.



    Except that was pretty much exactly not what she was said, she was referring to specific cases of women who felt that way because they'd been subjected to creepy or borderline stalkerish behaviour, such as, as you mentioned, having pictures of their thong taken.



    Was that picture taken without his consent, and in an embarrassing situation like the other example? No.



    Agree in the broad sense, but in this case they were referring to RyanAir which as far as I know doesn't exclusively serve a male clientele.



    The problem is that you're relying on obtaining posthumous consent for what is, until that point, molestation. You have to wonder how many off-camera attempts these ****heads make which result in failure. Also, not sure about those referred to in the program but a lot of youtube videos that involve stunts like that are blatant fakes. I welcome you to try them out in real life and see how many bruises you have by the end of the day.



    Really, the attack on children's toys, probably the part of the program exhibiting the most blatant contrasts. And no, the problem is not that girls might like different things, but that the toys being targeted towards them are anti-intellectual ****. No wonder there are so few women in science and mathematics when from a young age we have a dichotomy between 'Brilliant Boys' and 'Beautiful Girls', hilarious.



    You're assuming that the only companies which are doing this are financially struggling which is not the case, and even if it is it doesn't change the fact that it's completely illegal. Apparently women spending one year of their life focussing on raising children should ruin the 40+ years of their entire careers. Makes perfect sense. Except it doesn't and the government knows it but employers are just flouting the law and doing whatever they want.



    Highlighted everything which is simply unsubstantiated, ie. nearly all of that paragraph.


    I do agree though, the program is pretty bad but this is the only paragraph you've highlighted actual criticism of the program. The rest of the post is just you whining about society trying to help women get

    You didn't respond to the contradictions I raised and you also started talking about different things that the point I was making.

    I said most of us, if not all of us, would not want to see men and women equal in every walk of life. I gave an example where I said we would find it distasteful if men and women were boxing together.

    You went on to say most jobs that matter are mental based. Most jobs that matter. Are you this incredibly shallow, please do tell me how you define as a job that matters - and please give me examples a jobs that don't matter. Clearly you don't know a thing about economy, production, labor if you are making these comments.

    So your point can be disregarded. Don't deviate points to suit you. You tell me, should we have equality with men and women with boxing? Yes or No, simple question.

    Again you failed addressing my points. It was explained many times in the programme they they have a problem with women being objectified. Judged and commented on their looks. I then showed you an example of a man being objectified.

    Why did you ignore that? Please explain to me why its wrong to say 'dam she's got one sexy body' about a woman, but not wrong when women talk about men in that way? Furthermore, is it now wrong to compliment women on their beauty because it means we are objectifying them? Please do tell.

    I still don't understand your point about children's toys and marketing. So let me get this straight, its wrong that girl's toys should be pink and boys toys should be blue.

    So extending on from that, you are suggesting that it is sexual discrimination to market different products to different genders?

    So according to you all the millions of fashion companies should remove the male and female section of their website and market every piece of make up, clothing, accessories to male and females? Because *clearly* this is now sexism according to people with your beliefs.

    I don't understand your point about pay. It is no secret that some women at a certain age lower their hours or work part time - you can't expect a part time staff to be on the same salary as a full time staff. Jobs are not advertised as 'we are looking for a male etc. Men and women in the same positions earn the same or similar.

    Your point about men and women target market is complete nonsense. There are adverts on tv which market razers for women. Only women appear on the advert, it is targeted to women. However you must know men also have hair. Please again do tell, is this sexual discrimination towards men?

    Please address all points raised here without twisting my words, otherwise please do not respond at all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    You didn't respond to the contradictions I raised and you also started talking about different things that the point I was making.

    I said most of us, if not all of us, would not want to see men and women equal in every walk of life. I gave an example where I said we would find it distasteful if men and women were boxing together.

    You went on to say most jobs that matter are mental based. Most jobs that matter. Are you this incredibly shallow, please do tell me how you define as a job that matters - and please give me examples a jobs that don't matter. Clearly you don't know a thing about economy, production, labor if you are making these comments.

    So your point can be disregarded. Don't deviate points to suit you. You tell me, should we have equality with men and women with boxing? Yes or No, simple question.

    Again you failed addressing my points. It was explained many times in the programme they they have a problem with women being objectified. Judged and commented on their looks. I then showed you an example of a man being objectified.

    Why did you ignore that? Please explain to me why its wrong to say 'dam she's got one sexy body' about a woman, but not wrong when women talk about men in that way? Furthermore, is it now wrong to compliment women on their beauty because it means we are objectifying them? Please do tell.

    I still don't understand your point about children's toys and marketing. So let me get this straight, its wrong that girl's toys should be pink and boys toys should be blue.

    So extending on from that, you are suggesting that it is sexual discrimination to market different products to different genders?

    So according to you all the millions of fashion companies should remove the male and female section of their website and market every piece of make up, clothing, accessories to male and females? Because *clearly* this is now sexism according to people with your beliefs.

    I don't understand your point about pay. It is no secret that some women at a certain age lower their hours or work part time - you can't expect a part time staff to be on the same salary as a full time staff. Jobs are not advertised as 'we are looking for a male etc. Men and women in the same positions earn the same or similar.

    Your point about men and women target market is complete nonsense. There are adverts on tv which market razers for women. Only women appear on the advert, it is targeted to women. However you must know men also have hair. Please again do tell, is this sexual discrimination towards men?

    Please address all points raised here without twisting my words, otherwise please do not respond at all.
    You're expecting far too much from one of the pinkos on here.

    The programme sounds like typical bbc kids TV, meant only to appeal to unthinking mouth-breathers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    The problem is that you're relying on obtaining posthumous consent for what is, until that point, molestation. You have to wonder how many off-camera attempts these ****heads make which result in failure. Also, not sure about those referred to in the program but a lot of youtube videos that involve stunts like that are blatant fakes. I welcome you to try them out in real life and see how many bruises you have by the end of the day.
    Well then Mr. White Knight tell me how should men meet women that they fancy? Just like the idiot journalist who presented the programme I see yet more complete ignorance about the "pick-up" thing, and to be honest most people that have some association with this daygame thing really resent that term "PUA", it is so ten years ago and a sign of egotistical insecurity.

    "I welcome you to try them out in real life and see how many bruises you have by the end of the day", I hear you say. Really? Do you even know what you are talking about? Ever tried it? Then if not I would refrain from making such ignorant statements. I have done the "pick-up" thing on hundreds of occasions and never ever got close to a bruise, so what on earth a pile of tripe are you talking about? Perhaps you are too scared to try? The worst reaction just a response of "go away, leave me alone".

    The lowest pisstake was having some idiot attempt really crude and vulgar pick-up lines outside a train station that absoultely NONE of these pick-up guys advocate and watching that "Joe" or whatever his name was I really wanted to smack his head in against a brick wall multiple times.

    If a guy goes up to a girl, approaches her POLITELY, with respect and talks to her like a human being and not like a piece of meat (unlike the SUBHUMAN SCUM who leer and catcall and I wish would get pounded repeatedly with a shovel till they are comatose), gives a compliment and they get talking and click and get on really well then what the bloody hell is the problem? She engages in conversation, she is totally consensual and even hugs him and kisses him (yes, SHE is initiating the physical contact, and not him) which has happened to me on plenty of occasions then can't you realize it is totally consensual. How is starting a random conversation with a stranger of the opposite sex molestation?

    In fact some of the so-called sexists and others have responded quite eloquently and even asked women what they think and how OK they are with being daygamed or whatever you call it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QCED3A5ui8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDR0sHoBFS8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p81x8RcffVs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OZnGsGVsbk

    Now, plenty of females admit THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL WRONG with being approached in the day by a guy giving a polite compliment as long as he is being respectful. Doesn't that tell you something?

    And before you assume those youtube videos are fakes - ever tried it yourself or are you too much of a wimp who thinks bars and clubs are the only places to hit on women? Under no circumstances do any of those youtube guys advocate slapping a girl's ass or forcing a kiss or inappropriate touching at all and unless you can provide any links to videos that are evidence to the contrary then you can keep such retarded opinions to yourself. Oh, and don't bother bringing up Julien Blanc, he is more of a night-game person and NONE of these guys (some who I have met in person) are like that.

    As for that "token male" complete mangina on the show. Yes I would like to see how he talks to women he fancies but then again he rates Tracey Emin in the same league as Van Gogh so that says it all.

    Although I have to agree the discrimination by companies against pregnant women it bang out of order.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "Two of Britain's funniest women"... they were woeful, I didn't even grin.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.