The plural dative and ablative form of mensa - table - is indeed mensis.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Well there you go. Women on the blob in ancient Rome probably had special tables to sit on while they sorted themselves out. It all makes sense.
I don't think the source I heard that from was meant to be taken seriously anyways.
I love the caf, come for the political arguments, stay for the Latin lesson.
I feel like we've gotten to the point where complaining about political correctness has gone way further than political correctness itself. Seems some people will moan at even the slightest hint of acceptance or inclusiveness.
In those societies, gender wasn't defined by what you had between your legs, gender defined what you were allowed to do. Being a woman meant giving birth to kids, raising them and cooking and whatever else, while being a man meant drinking and smoking tobacco, apparently.
Historically, there have been many societies in which women could become men, or vice versa. In the Balkans, you had sworn virgins. They'd be women who took an irrevocable oath to live in celibacy, and would after that be allowed to live as a man and do manstuff, like smoking pipes, getting sloshed, talking to other men, owning a gun or being the head of a household.
In those societies, gender wasn't defined by what you had between your legs, gender defined what you were allowed to do. Being a woman meant giving birth to kids, raising them and cooking and whatever else, while being a man meant drinking and smoking tobacco, apparently.
I was recently told that all movies with male lead actors should be remade with the women in those roles, and only then can we truly say women are equal. I'm not good at holding my tongue, nor did I particularly want to, and said how stupid it was.
Brokeback Mountain should be first.
JUST KIDDING
I am assuming the person who said this also wanted to see the female actors in all those original movies replaced by male actors. Otherwise what you are talking about is a bunch of movies that are just all female casts which would be a bit odd in many cases.
It would be weird for any film based on a real historical figure. I mean Abe Lincoln was a male so not sure what would be the point of having it be Abby Lincoln instead.
Brokeback Mountain should be first.
JUST KIDDING
I am assuming the person who said this also wanted to see the female actors in all those original movies replaced by male actors. Otherwise what you are talking about is a bunch of movies that are just all female casts which would be a bit odd in many cases.
It would be weird for any film based on a real historical figure. I mean Abe Lincoln was a male so not sure what would be the point of having it be Abby Lincoln instead.
You're being logical, so that'd be wrong. The internet is coming to life, and I've met more self-described feminists this year than ever before. It wouldn't bother me much if the opinions weren't so consistently stupid.
Feminists, United fans... with most groups of people the loudest opinions are consistently stupid.
Yeah, Rambo III with a female lead should be a huge step towards emancipation.
So basically they want every movie that had a sex scene in it to become a movie with a lesbian sex scene in it. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Some of the sport movies could be fun. North Dallas Forty, Any Given Sunday for example, entire NFL teams of women players. Nothing wrong with that either.
I'd be up for seeing an all female Saving Private Ryan.
Julia Caesar and The Last Temptation of Christine would also be pretty good. Possibliities are endless.
Julia Caesar and The Last Temptation of Christine would also be pretty good. Possibliities are endless.
*Saving Private Rian.
Sounds like the porn version.
Those benign colonists with their well paid 'agricultural jobs' offers.
I also love "began arriving."
With those first class one way tickets.
When did the word 'slave' become bad?
Sounds more like a whitewashing of history than being PC tbh.
Yeah I agree.
I thought of putting it here because that question seems to go out of its way to avoid using "trigger" words like slave, captive...
I think if you see the actual replies you'll be quite low down the list.
I also don't understand how looking at tweets = thought police - once you've typed and shared your thoughts, that defence is meaningless.
Is that genuine or satirical (and if genuine, which paper)? They even misspelled Conchita Wurst.
Richard Littlejohn in the DM. Scroll down past the Diana article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4726870/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Lady-Di-lived-d-Twitter.html
I can't even make sense of that article...it reads like the transcript of some drunk old man muttering gibberish to himself just before he falls asleep in his armchair
https://pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/beta-going-blind-to-see-more-clearly.pdf
Be careful what you wish for. Aussie trial about blind hiring finds that women and minorities are actually worse off once their privilege(
) goes out of the window.
I am not entirely serious but that is very funny
Be careful what you wish for. Aussie trial about blind hiring finds that women and minorities are actually worse off once their privilege(
) goes out of the window.I am not entirely serious but that is very funny
Yeah, not sure that was the result they were looking for. Discrepancy is massive for female indigenous candidates.https://pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/beta-going-blind-to-see-more-clearly.pdf
Be careful what you wish for. Aussie trial about blind hiring finds that women and minorities are actually worse off once their privilege(
I am not entirely serious but that is very funny
Yeah...
Wouldn't reactivity or scrutiny bias skew the results in the opposite direction? If you're conscious that your behaviour is being observed/analysed I'd have thought you'd be even more careful/rigorous than usual.
I wouldn't have thought so, no. I suspect it results in a desire to appear more progressive.
Hard to know, though. Would take some rather better conducted social science research than that to tell us.
That's what I mean. They'll be more likely to choose the minority candidate, despite being blinded. Which would skew the results in the opposite direction to what was found
EDIT: Nope. Got that completely wrong. That would skew the results exactly in the way they were presented. Mind you, isn't that the whole point? People are biased in favour of selecting minorities. Whether that be a desire to be progressive or to be seen as progressive the end result is the same.
Last edited:
I think I've gone wrong here...
No. You were right. I was wrong! See edit above.
If you say so. I'm tired!
Only if sufficient scrutiny is applied to make those who desire to be seen to be progressive have to actually be so, to achieve that desire.
And then there's the "In particular, as participation in this study was voluntary, it is possible that it attracted participants who are more likely to support diversity and gender equality." part.
It does contradict the experiment which showed that all other things being equal, black-sounding names on CVs got worse outcomes than white-sounding names. I have no idea of the methodology of that study, sample size, or anything, so hooray for a rigorous internet debate.