Christ, see you in there then
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
Christ, see you in there then
There is plenty of reasoning in the articles, it's absurd to call them "character assassinations" purely because they dare to call him out on a crap idea. Ditto there are plenty of convincing arguments given by all sides not to elect Corbyn leader, but they get called smears as well, part of the apparent media conspiracy against him (lead by the Guardian, naturally). People can obviously disagree with the arguments and believe otherwise, as is their right, but let's not pretend the arguments don't exist, we've been going round in circles with them in this thread for a good couple of months for starters.
The 'women only' carriage idea seems a reasonable, practical and workable response to a problem which must confront many women. Apart from vague, last resort epithets like 'sexist' and 'patronizing', what's wrong with it?
I accept that there are debates to be had, and I'm all in favour of that. I think the debate we've had in here about Corbyn has been pretty good, for what its worth. Off the top of my head I can't recall any members making personal attacks on Corbyn themselves and I can't remember anyone screaming 'SMEAR' whenever someone has asked how Corbyn intends to fund a policy. Policy-related stuff is all well and good.
What I'm not in favour of though is some of the media articles people post which saturate the point they're trying to put across with digs at Corbyn's character intended to undermine his credibility, as in that Perkins article. I'm also not in favour of the condescending tone with which many of the same articles refer to his supporters as naive or idealistic or blokey or out-of-touch or whatever, in the same way that I don't think it's particularly fair for some of the more aggressive Corbyn supporters to call Kendall's supporters Tories. The chip on my shoulder, and that of many Corbyn supporters, is you can't move for op-ed pieces having a go at Corbyn or those voting for him whereas, with the notable exception of that disgusting interview with Kendall in the Mail I can't think of an example of another candidate taking any such flak.
Immigration is gonna be a bugger of a weapon the press will use against Corbyn. He is handling the questions rather well in the Guardian hustings right now though.
http://www.theguardian.com/membersh...n-live-labour-leadership-hustings-live-stream
http://www.theguardian.com/membersh...n-live-labour-leadership-hustings-live-stream
Watching the debate now...I fail to see how anyone gets remotely inspired by Liz Kendall - "I think, erm, Scotland very difficult, erm, need to work hard to campaign, erm "she literally offers nothing in semblance to policy.
I agree with you. He's trying to propose a simple workable solution to a real problem. I know this sounds a bit corny, but St Augustine (who died in 430 AD) said this, and it's still true:
Bad times, hard times- this is what people keep saying:
but let us live well and times shall be good.
We are the times.
Such as we are, such are the times.
We can't ignore things because we don't want to acknowledge that the UK still has these problems. When you're trying to change the way people think, it often takes a long time to see the results in action.
It isn't that the idea that is just retrograde, it is regressive too. What are kids to make of men only carriages? 'Why can't Daddy go in that carriage'. What are you supposed to tell a child in that instance? I just find the whole idea odd and I get the feeling that Corbyn's supporters are reaching to justify a terrible idea just because it is Ol'Jezza. I haven't spoke to a woman IRL yet who thinks this is a good idea. Maybe it is a London thing.
I think it's a good idea and I can guarantee that all the women I know would like the idea, too. I am not in London, of course!
I'm not a woman, despite my tag line. I have a new intern working for me, we had a general catch up today, got onto this topic, and she was appalled at the idea, thought it patronising, and said if the harassment was so much of a problem then it warrants police action not segregation. I'm inclined to agree, it seems to go against an equal society.
How is it any different to solving racist abuse on a train by having all ethnic minorities sit in separate carriages.
Focus on the cause and the guilty not the symptom and the victim
This is just proof of ignorance and a dogged determination to ignore all the evidence that polls have produced.
Corbyn's support within Labour has staggering breadth. He has huge leads with every age group from 18-60+, every region of the UK, every social class, among full members, trade unionists and one-off supporters, and both genders. 'Blokey' is a complete joke. He has significantly more female supporters than male, a much bigger female-to-male lead than any of the others.
The sheer demographic breadth makes it impossible to generalise Corbyn's support, unless you are a calculated liar or a f*cking idiot.
Because it's an option, it's not enforced. Women don't have to sit in those carriages, just as they don't have to get a woman taxi driver. Yes, focus on the cause and the guilty - but in the meantime, there's a time lag before reality catches up.
It's funny, I don't find this idea sexist at all and have no idea why any other woman would see it that way, but I suppose we're all different. It would be great if we could be confident that we could travel home at night in complete safety, but unfortunately some women will experience abuse and most women feel anxious when alone at night.
My view (as a pragmatic woman) is of course just as valid as that of an outraged woman.
So ethnic only carriages for people that want to sit in them then...
But we're not talking about ethnic minorities, we're talking about women from every ethnic group, aren't we? I personally don't see the logic in your comparison, although I know what you're trying to suggest.
If members of an ethnic minority group were being verbally abused on public transport at night just because of their ethnicity, I'd expect the police to deal with that very swiftly - and the laws exist to enable them to do that. Unfortunately, there aren't any specific laws (AFAIK) to use against men who feel like making vulgar, sexualised comments to perfect strangers who happen to be women.
Great point. Also there isnt culture of taboo or victim-blaming around racial abuse in the same way there is around sexual abuse. I doubt in 2015 a black man could be told that he was 'asking for it' if he reported being racially abused or that it was his fault for 'leading his abuser on'. The reason report rates and conviction rates are so low for sexual crime is that women are often too scared to report them for fear of being laughed off or shamed by people they shouldn't be able to trust.
Different forms of discrimination are all awful, but they rear their heads in different forms and you can't pretend that they are like-for-like experiences with like-for-like solutions.
Well said - that's what I was trying to say, really!
The purpose of racial segregation on public transport is to reflect and enforce an existing racial inequality in society.
A 'women only' carriage on a train is a practical response to the anxieties of women traveling alone on public transport particularly at night. It's obviously not designed to 'segregate' women, but to provide them with a more comfortable travel experience should they wish to avail of it.
Clearly an armed guard in every carriage instructed to shoot any male who makes an objectionable remark would be a superior solution, but we in the feminist vanguard can yet only dream of this glorious day!
A lot (maybe most) of this harassment and abuse towards women on public transport is very subtle as well. Stuff that people standing nearby might not even notice.
Generally less so with the racist stuff.
Generally less so with the racist stuff.
So what happens when women who elected not to sit in the segregated carriage get sexually abused? You reckon the cries of "she was asking for it" will be quieter, rather than far louder? "Nothing would've happened if she'd known where she should be sitting." Saying that women aren't safe in the real world, let's give them their own little areas, isn't the answer. Female taxi drivers are a bit different because it's an inherently isolated environment where the person driving has all the power. Trains are essentially public space and should be treated as such, you can secure them and oversee what happens on them, anyone that goes on them should feel safe and know that anyone breaking the law will feel the full force of it (and that includes feeling confident you won't be getting stabbed, also a big problem). You don't get into the habit of saying that one gender is such a threat to the other that they need to be allocated their own space "for their own safety".
Not sure which UK police force in 2015 would dare to tell a woman that 'she was asking for it' if she reported being sexually harassed.
The purpose of racial segregation on public transport is to reflect and enforce an existing racial inequality in society.
A 'women only' carriage on a train is a practical response to the anxieties of women traveling alone on public transport particularly at night. It's obviously not designed to 'segregate' women, but to provide them with a more comfortable travel experience should they wish to avail of it.
Clearly an armed guard in every carriage instructed to shoot any male who makes an objectionable remark would be a superior solution, but we in the feminist vanguard can yet only dream of this glorious day!
We can only dream of a male
You need
You need to up your game. Obviously joking
If we are going to be paying for one, possibly two police officers to travel aboard the majority of trains in the country (presumably for the security of the women-only coach), i think they can be more effectively used by providing a visible deterrent in all carriages.
Well, I don't know about you, but any kind of talk of segregation on public transport makes me feel a little uncomfortable.
And that's not just because I'll have to tug off in front of blokes instead if it goes ahead either.
Men and women separated on public transport, just incredibly backwards thinking.
What's next?
Having them cover up in public? Segregated searing in all public venues? Segregated work places?
And that's not just because I'll have to tug off in front of blokes instead if it goes ahead either.
Men and women separated on public transport, just incredibly backwards thinking.
What's next?
Having them cover up in public? Segregated searing in all public venues? Segregated work places?
We do have segregated schools and public toilets, amongst other things, already, so I'm finding the horror at the idea of segregation a little odd.
I'm not sure I'm in favour of it (or the other things I mentioned above) but some of the reaction seems very OTT, given it seems to stem merely from a bloke saying "this is a thing that's been suggested to me and I think it's worthy of discussion".
I'm not sure I'm in favour of it (or the other things I mentioned above) but some of the reaction seems very OTT, given it seems to stem merely from a bloke saying "this is a thing that's been suggested to me and I think it's worthy of discussion".
Well I don't like segregated schools either, and I don't think one of ours aims for public transport should be for it to be even more like public toilets.
How subtle? I generally find I get away with casual tenting. At least within a 20 yard radius.
Maybe we should have a separate cis-female carriage. Where's Alex99 when you need him?
A good line, I can't deny.
I'm sure womyn born womyn folks would be adamant that there must be such. Not entirely sure Alex is of their mind, though!
That's a very generous view of the police force, they don't exist in a vacuum where toxic societal attitudes towards women don't exist. Last year a friend of mine once got harassed in the street about 20 yards from a police officer, went to that officer to complain and was told something to the effect of 'well it wouldn't happen if you were wearing less revealing clothing'. Granted this would have been in 2014, not the enlightened glory days of 2015.
If she had reported him then he would have been in a lot of trouble. It would even be newsworthy to a number of newspapers. Besides I mentioned police forces. Unprofessional individuals cannot eradicated entirely from any industry.
I think there is a world of difference between separate toilets for men and women than there is actual segregation.
It's a lunatic idea.
The former is 'actual segregation'. It's not imagined.
I was clearly using the term to mean general and sweeping segregation for activities across the population at large.
But go ahead, if that's the level you want to debate at knock yourself out.
No, you just exaggerated in a silly fashion.
Wider segregation of the population at large, someone who is prepared to legislate for same sex carrages for the reasons proposed could very well be likely to do the same for other things.
Or does sexual harassment not occur in any other aspect of life?
Is sexual harrasment more of a problem for women on the train than it is in the work place? Pubs and clubs?
If the best solution you can come up with to protecting women is to separate them from men in one instance, then surely it's the best solution for other situations, certainly where alcohol and potential abuses of power could be involved?
Ignoring the paranoid fantasies of a totalitarian gender separated world, what has this to do with anything I've said?
Islam they call it.
Saudi Arabia, perhaps, indeed.
I'd say we're a fair few steps from that, even if we decide to have optional female only train carriages...
On a train at night, you might be the only woman in a closed carriage (whatever happened to corridor trains?). That doesn't apply on a bus (you can go to the door and speak to the driver) or a club/pub (lots of other people around).