S
server
Guest
message unavailable
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
D
David Brown
Guest
On 05/12/2020 22:52, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
Some people are more sociable, or have jobs that involve more social
interaction - politics is one such job. A politician spends a lot of
time in meetings, talking to people and travelling - working lunches and
dinners are common. Most of these are likely to be with multiple
people, of course. But should the guy refuse to have dinner with
someone just because she is a woman? Either he has seriously screwed-up
values or he has a history of cheating on his wife as his reason to be
reluctant. Either way, it is insulting to woman, and shows an attitude
that is - at best - outdated a generation ago.
Like most of us in this group (since most of us have similar kinds of
jobs - and we are all the kind of people who converse in Usenet groups),
I am not particularly social and my job involves interacting with
computers far more than other people. But even in this branch it can
occasionally happen that you might be travelling with a colleague to a
workshop, conference, sales meeting, etc. Would anyone think it is
normal behaviour to refuse to eat a meal with that colleague just
because she happens to be female? In my mind, that\'s as unprofessional,
inhumane and insulting as suggesting that you share more than just the meal.
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife? I
can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my wife.
At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I
certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
Dan
Some people are more sociable, or have jobs that involve more social
interaction - politics is one such job. A politician spends a lot of
time in meetings, talking to people and travelling - working lunches and
dinners are common. Most of these are likely to be with multiple
people, of course. But should the guy refuse to have dinner with
someone just because she is a woman? Either he has seriously screwed-up
values or he has a history of cheating on his wife as his reason to be
reluctant. Either way, it is insulting to woman, and shows an attitude
that is - at best - outdated a generation ago.
Like most of us in this group (since most of us have similar kinds of
jobs - and we are all the kind of people who converse in Usenet groups),
I am not particularly social and my job involves interacting with
computers far more than other people. But even in this branch it can
occasionally happen that you might be travelling with a colleague to a
workshop, conference, sales meeting, etc. Would anyone think it is
normal behaviour to refuse to eat a meal with that colleague just
because she happens to be female? In my mind, that\'s as unprofessional,
inhumane and insulting as suggesting that you share more than just the meal.
D
dcaster@krl.org
Guest
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
I think you are very narrow minded on this subject. Why is it unprofessional , inhumane , and insulting. It is not as if someone refused to eat with some women and not with others. You are not very tolerant if you are upset by someone having
different ideas of propriety than you.
Dan
On 05/12/2020 22:52, dca...@krl.org wrote:
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife? I
can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my wife.
At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I
certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
Dan
Some people are more sociable, or have jobs that involve more social
interaction - politics is one such job. A politician spends a lot of
time in meetings, talking to people and travelling - working lunches and
dinners are common. Most of these are likely to be with multiple
people, of course. But should the guy refuse to have dinner with
someone just because she is a woman? Either he has seriously screwed-up
values or he has a history of cheating on his wife as his reason to be
reluctant. Either way, it is insulting to woman, and shows an attitude
that is - at best - outdated a generation ago.
Like most of us in this group (since most of us have similar kinds of
jobs - and we are all the kind of people who converse in Usenet groups),
I am not particularly social and my job involves interacting with
computers far more than other people. But even in this branch it can
occasionally happen that you might be travelling with a colleague to a
workshop, conference, sales meeting, etc. Would anyone think it is
normal behaviour to refuse to eat a meal with that colleague just
because she happens to be female? In my mind, that\'s as unprofessional,
inhumane and insulting as suggesting that you share more than just the meal.
I think you are very narrow minded on this subject. Why is it unprofessional , inhumane , and insulting. It is not as if someone refused to eat with some women and not with others. You are not very tolerant if you are upset by someone having
different ideas of propriety than you.
Dan
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 12:25:25 AM UTC+11, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
Mike Pence\'s ideas about propriety lead to an HIV epidemic in Indiana.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/02/how-mike-pence-made-indianas-hiv-outbreak-worse-118648
The creep used up all the tolerance he might ever have been granted back then. He\'s just shamelessly pandering to the religious right in a way that is rather less than charitable to the rest of the population.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 05/12/2020 22:52, dca...@krl.org wrote:
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife? I
can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my wife.
At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I
certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
Dan
Some people are more sociable, or have jobs that involve more social
interaction - politics is one such job. A politician spends a lot of
time in meetings, talking to people and travelling - working lunches and
dinners are common. Most of these are likely to be with multiple
people, of course. But should the guy refuse to have dinner with
someone just because she is a woman? Either he has seriously screwed-up
values or he has a history of cheating on his wife as his reason to be
reluctant. Either way, it is insulting to woman, and shows an attitude
that is - at best - outdated a generation ago.
Like most of us in this group (since most of us have similar kinds of
jobs - and we are all the kind of people who converse in Usenet groups),
I am not particularly social and my job involves interacting with
computers far more than other people. But even in this branch it can
occasionally happen that you might be travelling with a colleague to a
workshop, conference, sales meeting, etc. Would anyone think it is
normal behaviour to refuse to eat a meal with that colleague just
because she happens to be female? In my mind, that\'s as unprofessional,
inhumane and insulting as suggesting that you share more than just the meal.
I think you are very narrow minded on this subject. Why is it unprofessional , inhumane , and insulting. It is not as if someone refused to eat with some women and not with others. You are not very tolerant if you are upset by someone having different ideas of propriety than you.
Mike Pence\'s ideas about propriety lead to an HIV epidemic in Indiana.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/02/how-mike-pence-made-indianas-hiv-outbreak-worse-118648
The creep used up all the tolerance he might ever have been granted back then. He\'s just shamelessly pandering to the religious right in a way that is rather less than charitable to the rest of the population.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
D
David Brown
Guest
On 06/12/2020 14:25, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
Imagine someone refused to eat dinner with you because they thought
people might think you were sleeping together. This means that the
other person thinks of you in terms of sex - whether you\'d be having
sex, and whether other people would think you\'re having sex. This
person isn\'t concerned with you, or your thoughts or feelings, or the
interesting conversation with you, or treating you as a friend, or as a
professional colleague - they are concerned primarily about sex, and
about their own image. /You/ are reduced to a potential sex object -
with the assumption that you\'d sleep with them given half a chance, and
only that other person\'s \"high moral standards\" are preventing it.
How is that /not/ insulting?
I am tolerant of most people, most things, and most ideas. But there
are a few things I am severely intolerant of:
1. Bigotry. That includes misogyny, racism, homophobia, and other bigotry.
2. People who think their religious beliefs make them superior, and
gives them a right to judge others or impose their will on others.
(Actually, this applies to other kinds of beliefs too - such as
self-righteous vegetarians who won\'t let others make their own choices.
There\'s nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, or a Christian, Muslim,
Buddhist, or whatever - it\'s your attitude to other people that can be
wrong.)
3. People who pander to bigots or self-righteous religious fanatics in
order to gain personal power or wealth.
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 05/12/2020 22:52, dca...@krl.org wrote:
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife?
I can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my
wife. At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I
certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
Dan
Some people are more sociable, or have jobs that involve more
social interaction - politics is one such job. A politician spends
a lot of time in meetings, talking to people and travelling -
working lunches and dinners are common. Most of these are likely to
be with multiple people, of course. But should the guy refuse to
have dinner with someone just because she is a woman? Either he has
seriously screwed-up values or he has a history of cheating on his
wife as his reason to be reluctant. Either way, it is insulting to
woman, and shows an attitude that is - at best - outdated a
generation ago.
Like most of us in this group (since most of us have similar kinds
of jobs - and we are all the kind of people who converse in Usenet
groups), I am not particularly social and my job involves
interacting with computers far more than other people. But even in
this branch it can occasionally happen that you might be travelling
with a colleague to a workshop, conference, sales meeting, etc.
Would anyone think it is normal behaviour to refuse to eat a meal
with that colleague just because she happens to be female? In my
mind, that\'s as unprofessional, inhumane and insulting as
suggesting that you share more than just the meal.
I think you are very narrow minded on this subject. Why is it
unprofessional , inhumane , and insulting.
Imagine someone refused to eat dinner with you because they thought
people might think you were sleeping together. This means that the
other person thinks of you in terms of sex - whether you\'d be having
sex, and whether other people would think you\'re having sex. This
person isn\'t concerned with you, or your thoughts or feelings, or the
interesting conversation with you, or treating you as a friend, or as a
professional colleague - they are concerned primarily about sex, and
about their own image. /You/ are reduced to a potential sex object -
with the assumption that you\'d sleep with them given half a chance, and
only that other person\'s \"high moral standards\" are preventing it.
How is that /not/ insulting?
It is not as if someone
refused to eat with some women and not with others. You are not very
tolerant if you are upset by someone having different ideas of
propriety than you.
I am tolerant of most people, most things, and most ideas. But there
are a few things I am severely intolerant of:
1. Bigotry. That includes misogyny, racism, homophobia, and other bigotry.
2. People who think their religious beliefs make them superior, and
gives them a right to judge others or impose their will on others.
(Actually, this applies to other kinds of beliefs too - such as
self-righteous vegetarians who won\'t let others make their own choices.
There\'s nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, or a Christian, Muslim,
Buddhist, or whatever - it\'s your attitude to other people that can be
wrong.)
3. People who pander to bigots or self-righteous religious fanatics in
order to gain personal power or wealth.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 4:53:04 PM UTC-5, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
I guess you\'ve never traveled on business with a colleague. When I did I would typically have dinner with them. Often we would do a little sightseeing as well as the time was limited. Would you not do this with a female colleague?
--
Rick C.
-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 11:20:32 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 05/12/2020 15:51, dca...@krl.org wrote: anotheranother
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 8:55:24 AM UTC-5, David Brown
wrote:
On 05/12/2020 00:48, John Larkin wrote: another
On Frii,i 4 Dec 2020 10:38:11 +0100, David Brown another
davidi...@hesbynett.no> wrote: ii
And he is saying publicly that he doesn\'t view woman as people another
in the same way as men - he can\'t have a professional another
relationship with them, or a friendship with them, because he another
sees them primarily as sex objects - or ais weaker beings that
must be protected by gallant gentlemen, like something out of
a Victorian novel. It is a pathetic state of affairs that this
person has risen to the prominence he has. another
i
Did he say all that? Got a link?
He said he won\'t dine alone with a woman other than his wife. He is
happy to dine alone with another man. The difference in gender is
what matters to him - it is misogyny. He thinks people will assume
he is having an affair, and a person will only reason like that if
he himself thinks women are sex objects.
another
I certainly don\'t view women in the same way as men.
Of course there are differences between men and women. But there
are no differences that are relevant to having a meal together,
unless you are actually out on a date.
You see the world as binary. The world is much more complex than
that. I usually agree with you, but in this case I do not.
The world is indeed complex (and the division of people into \"male\" or
\"female\" is an oversimplification in itself). But in this case, I am
clear - if the guy is unable to have a dinner with a woman without being
overwhelmingly concerned with her gender, or even just overwhelmingly
concerned with what other people will think about him having dinner with
a woman, then he is not fit for officeanother
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife? I can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my wife. At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
I guess you\'ve never traveled on business with a colleague. When I did I would typically have dinner with them. Often we would do a little sightseeing as well as the time was limited. Would you not do this with a female colleague?
--
Rick C.
-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 4:53:04 PM UTC-5, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
I guess you\'ve never traveled on business with a colleague. When I did I would typically have dinner with them. Often we would do a little sightseeing as well as the time was limited. Would you not do this with a female colleague?
--
Rick C.
-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 11:20:32 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 05/12/2020 15:51, dca...@krl.org wrote: anotheranother
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 8:55:24 AM UTC-5, David Brown
wrote:
On 05/12/2020 00:48, John Larkin wrote: another
On Frii,i 4 Dec 2020 10:38:11 +0100, David Brown another
davidi...@hesbynett.no> wrote: ii
And he is saying publicly that he doesn\'t view woman as people another
in the same way as men - he can\'t have a professional another
relationship with them, or a friendship with them, because he another
sees them primarily as sex objects - or ais weaker beings that
must be protected by gallant gentlemen, like something out of
a Victorian novel. It is a pathetic state of affairs that this
person has risen to the prominence he has. another
i
Did he say all that? Got a link?
He said he won\'t dine alone with a woman other than his wife. He is
happy to dine alone with another man. The difference in gender is
what matters to him - it is misogyny. He thinks people will assume
he is having an affair, and a person will only reason like that if
he himself thinks women are sex objects.
another
I certainly don\'t view women in the same way as men.
Of course there are differences between men and women. But there
are no differences that are relevant to having a meal together,
unless you are actually out on a date.
You see the world as binary. The world is much more complex than
that. I usually agree with you, but in this case I do not.
The world is indeed complex (and the division of people into \"male\" or
\"female\" is an oversimplification in itself). But in this case, I am
clear - if the guy is unable to have a dinner with a woman without being
overwhelmingly concerned with her gender, or even just overwhelmingly
concerned with what other people will think about him having dinner with
a woman, then he is not fit for officeanother
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife? I can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my wife. At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
I guess you\'ve never traveled on business with a colleague. When I did I would typically have dinner with them. Often we would do a little sightseeing as well as the time was limited. Would you not do this with a female colleague?
--
Rick C.
-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 8:25:25 AM UTC-5, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
That\'s the fine point on the issue, isn\'t it? Is accepting such an attitude a manner of \"tolerance\" or a matter of accepting someone\'s unreasonable biases?
Clearly this is a matter of gender and treating one gender very differently from another. Where do we draw the line and consider treatment of the sexes differently and very much not equal to be acceptable because it is an issue of \"propriety\"? At one time it was considered to be a matter of propriety to dine with someone of a different race.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 05/12/2020 22:52, dca...@krl.org wrote:
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife? I
can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my wife.
At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I
certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
Dan
Some people are more sociable, or have jobs that involve more social
interaction - politics is one such job. A politician spends a lot of
time in meetings, talking to people and travelling - working lunches and
dinners are common. Most of these are likely to be with multiple
people, of course. But should the guy refuse to have dinner with
someone just because she is a woman? Either he has seriously screwed-up
values or he has a history of cheating on his wife as his reason to be
reluctant. Either way, it is insulting to woman, and shows an attitude
that is - at best - outdated a generation ago.
Like most of us in this group (since most of us have similar kinds of
jobs - and we are all the kind of people who converse in Usenet groups),
I am not particularly social and my job involves interacting with
computers far more than other people. But even in this branch it can
occasionally happen that you might be travelling with a colleague to a
workshop, conference, sales meeting, etc. Would anyone think it is
normal behaviour to refuse to eat a meal with that colleague just
because she happens to be female? In my mind, that\'s as unprofessional,
inhumane and insulting as suggesting that you share more than just the meal.
I think you are very narrow minded on this subject. Why is it unprofessional , inhumane , and insulting. It is not as if someone refused to eat with some women and not with others. You are not very tolerant if you are upset by someone having
different ideas of propriety than you.
That\'s the fine point on the issue, isn\'t it? Is accepting such an attitude a manner of \"tolerance\" or a matter of accepting someone\'s unreasonable biases?
Clearly this is a matter of gender and treating one gender very differently from another. Where do we draw the line and consider treatment of the sexes differently and very much not equal to be acceptable because it is an issue of \"propriety\"? At one time it was considered to be a matter of propriety to dine with someone of a different race.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 8:25:25 AM UTC-5, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
That\'s the fine point on the issue, isn\'t it? Is accepting such an attitude a manner of \"tolerance\" or a matter of accepting someone\'s unreasonable biases?
Clearly this is a matter of gender and treating one gender very differently from another. Where do we draw the line and consider treatment of the sexes differently and very much not equal to be acceptable because it is an issue of \"propriety\"? At one time it was considered to be a matter of propriety to dine with someone of a different race.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 05/12/2020 22:52, dca...@krl.org wrote:
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife? I
can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my wife.
At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I
certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
Dan
Some people are more sociable, or have jobs that involve more social
interaction - politics is one such job. A politician spends a lot of
time in meetings, talking to people and travelling - working lunches and
dinners are common. Most of these are likely to be with multiple
people, of course. But should the guy refuse to have dinner with
someone just because she is a woman? Either he has seriously screwed-up
values or he has a history of cheating on his wife as his reason to be
reluctant. Either way, it is insulting to woman, and shows an attitude
that is - at best - outdated a generation ago.
Like most of us in this group (since most of us have similar kinds of
jobs - and we are all the kind of people who converse in Usenet groups),
I am not particularly social and my job involves interacting with
computers far more than other people. But even in this branch it can
occasionally happen that you might be travelling with a colleague to a
workshop, conference, sales meeting, etc. Would anyone think it is
normal behaviour to refuse to eat a meal with that colleague just
because she happens to be female? In my mind, that\'s as unprofessional,
inhumane and insulting as suggesting that you share more than just the meal.
I think you are very narrow minded on this subject. Why is it unprofessional , inhumane , and insulting. It is not as if someone refused to eat with some women and not with others. You are not very tolerant if you are upset by someone having
different ideas of propriety than you.
That\'s the fine point on the issue, isn\'t it? Is accepting such an attitude a manner of \"tolerance\" or a matter of accepting someone\'s unreasonable biases?
Clearly this is a matter of gender and treating one gender very differently from another. Where do we draw the line and consider treatment of the sexes differently and very much not equal to be acceptable because it is an issue of \"propriety\"? At one time it was considered to be a matter of propriety to dine with someone of a different race.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
D
David Brown
Guest
On 06/12/2020 17:31, Rick C wrote:
That is exactly my point.
To say \"I\'d be happy to share dinner and sightseeing with a male
colleague, but not a female one\" is to say that you are treating the
woman differently for no reason other than her gender. That is bigotry
and misogyny at best, and at worst it is considering her first and
foremost as a sex object.
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 4:53:04 PM UTC-5, dcaster@krl.org
wrote:
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 11:20:32 AM UTC-5, David Brown
wrote:
On 05/12/2020 15:51, dca...@krl.org wrote: anotheranother
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 8:55:24 AM UTC-5, David Brown
wrote:
On 05/12/2020 00:48, John Larkin wrote: another
On Frii,i 4 Dec 2020 10:38:11 +0100, David Brown another
davidi...@hesbynett.no> wrote: ii
And he is saying publicly that he doesn\'t view woman as
people another in the same way as men - he can\'t have a
professional another relationship with them, or a
friendship with them, because he another sees them
primarily as sex objects - or ais weaker beings that must
be protected by gallant gentlemen, like something out of
a Victorian novel. It is a pathetic state of affairs
that this person has risen to the prominence he has.
another
i
Did he say all that? Got a link?
He said he won\'t dine alone with a woman other than his wife.
He is happy to dine alone with another man. The difference in
gender is what matters to him - it is misogyny. He thinks
people will assume he is having an affair, and a person will
only reason like that if he himself thinks women are sex
objects.
another I certainly don\'t view women in the same way as
men.
Of course there are differences between men and women. But
there are no differences that are relevant to having a meal
together, unless you are actually out on a date.
You see the world as binary. The world is much more complex
than that. I usually agree with you, but in this case I do not.
The world is indeed complex (and the division of people into
\"male\" or \"female\" is an oversimplification in itself). But in
this case, I am clear - if the guy is unable to have a dinner
with a woman without being overwhelmingly concerned with her
gender, or even just overwhelmingly concerned with what other
people will think about him having dinner with a woman, then he
is not fit for officeanother
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife? I
can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my
wife. At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I
certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
I guess you\'ve never traveled on business with a colleague. When I
did I would typically have dinner with them. Often we would do a
little sightseeing as well as the time was limited. Would you not do
this with a female colleague?
That is exactly my point.
To say \"I\'d be happy to share dinner and sightseeing with a male
colleague, but not a female one\" is to say that you are treating the
woman differently for no reason other than her gender. That is bigotry
and misogyny at best, and at worst it is considering her first and
foremost as a sex object.
D
David Brown
Guest
On 06/12/2020 17:31, Rick C wrote:
That is exactly my point.
To say \"I\'d be happy to share dinner and sightseeing with a male
colleague, but not a female one\" is to say that you are treating the
woman differently for no reason other than her gender. That is bigotry
and misogyny at best, and at worst it is considering her first and
foremost as a sex object.
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 4:53:04 PM UTC-5, dcaster@krl.org
wrote:
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 11:20:32 AM UTC-5, David Brown
wrote:
On 05/12/2020 15:51, dca...@krl.org wrote: anotheranother
On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 8:55:24 AM UTC-5, David Brown
wrote:
On 05/12/2020 00:48, John Larkin wrote: another
On Frii,i 4 Dec 2020 10:38:11 +0100, David Brown another
davidi...@hesbynett.no> wrote: ii
And he is saying publicly that he doesn\'t view woman as
people another in the same way as men - he can\'t have a
professional another relationship with them, or a
friendship with them, because he another sees them
primarily as sex objects - or ais weaker beings that must
be protected by gallant gentlemen, like something out of
a Victorian novel. It is a pathetic state of affairs
that this person has risen to the prominence he has.
another
i
Did he say all that? Got a link?
He said he won\'t dine alone with a woman other than his wife.
He is happy to dine alone with another man. The difference in
gender is what matters to him - it is misogyny. He thinks
people will assume he is having an affair, and a person will
only reason like that if he himself thinks women are sex
objects.
another I certainly don\'t view women in the same way as
men.
Of course there are differences between men and women. But
there are no differences that are relevant to having a meal
together, unless you are actually out on a date.
You see the world as binary. The world is much more complex
than that. I usually agree with you, but in this case I do not.
The world is indeed complex (and the division of people into
\"male\" or \"female\" is an oversimplification in itself). But in
this case, I am clear - if the guy is unable to have a dinner
with a woman without being overwhelmingly concerned with her
gender, or even just overwhelmingly concerned with what other
people will think about him having dinner with a woman, then he
is not fit for officeanother
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife? I
can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my
wife. At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I
certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
I guess you\'ve never traveled on business with a colleague. When I
did I would typically have dinner with them. Often we would do a
little sightseeing as well as the time was limited. Would you not do
this with a female colleague?
That is exactly my point.
To say \"I\'d be happy to share dinner and sightseeing with a male
colleague, but not a female one\" is to say that you are treating the
woman differently for no reason other than her gender. That is bigotry
and misogyny at best, and at worst it is considering her first and
foremost as a sex object.
D
dcaster@krl.org
Guest
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 10:41:14 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
You need to check the dictionary. You are a bigot. No tolerance for anyone who does not agree with you.
Dan
On 06/12/2020 14:25, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 05/12/2020 22:52, dca...@krl.org wrote:
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife?
I can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my
wife. At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I
certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
Dan
Some people are more sociable, or have jobs that involve more
social interaction - politics is one such job. A politician spends
a lot of time in meetings, talking to people and travelling -
working lunches and dinners are common. Most of these are likely to
be with multiple people, of course. But should the guy refuse to
have dinner with someone just because she is a woman? Either he has
seriously screwed-up values or he has a history of cheating on his
wife as his reason to be reluctant. Either way, it is insulting to
woman, and shows an attitude that is - at best - outdated a
generation ago.
Like most of us in this group (since most of us have similar kinds
of jobs - and we are all the kind of people who converse in Usenet
groups), I am not particularly social and my job involves
interacting with computers far more than other people. But even in
this branch it can occasionally happen that you might be travelling
with a colleague to a workshop, conference, sales meeting, etc.
Would anyone think it is normal behaviour to refuse to eat a meal
with that colleague just because she happens to be female? In my
mind, that\'s as unprofessional, inhumane and insulting as
suggesting that you share more than just the meal.
I think you are very narrow minded on this subject. Why is it
unprofessional , inhumane , and insulting.
Imagine someone refused to eat dinner with you because they thought
people might think you were sleeping together. This means that the
other person thinks of you in terms of sex - whether you\'d be having
sex, and whether other people would think you\'re having sex. This
person isn\'t concerned with you, or your thoughts or feelings, or the
interesting conversation with you, or treating you as a friend, or as a
professional colleague - they are concerned primarily about sex, and
about their own image. /You/ are reduced to a potential sex object -
with the assumption that you\'d sleep with them given half a chance, and
only that other person\'s \"high moral standards\" are preventing it.
How is that /not/ insulting?
It is not as if someone
refused to eat with some women and not with others. You are not very
tolerant if you are upset by someone having different ideas of
propriety than you.
I am tolerant of most people, most things, and most ideas. But there
are a few things I am severely intolerant of:
1. Bigotry. That includes misogyny, racism, homophobia, and other bigotry.
2. People who think their religious beliefs make them superior, and
gives them a right to judge others or impose their will on others.
(Actually, this applies to other kinds of beliefs too - such as
self-righteous vegetarians who won\'t let others make their own choices.
There\'s nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, or a Christian, Muslim,
Buddhist, or whatever - it\'s your attitude to other people that can be
wrong.)
3. People who pander to bigots or self-righteous religious fanatics in
order to gain personal power or wealth.
You need to check the dictionary. You are a bigot. No tolerance for anyone who does not agree with you.
Dan
D
dcaster@krl.org
Guest
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 10:41:14 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
You need to check the dictionary. You are a bigot. No tolerance for anyone who does not agree with you.
Dan
On 06/12/2020 14:25, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 05/12/2020 22:52, dca...@krl.org wrote:
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife?
I can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my
wife. At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I
certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
Dan
Some people are more sociable, or have jobs that involve more
social interaction - politics is one such job. A politician spends
a lot of time in meetings, talking to people and travelling -
working lunches and dinners are common. Most of these are likely to
be with multiple people, of course. But should the guy refuse to
have dinner with someone just because she is a woman? Either he has
seriously screwed-up values or he has a history of cheating on his
wife as his reason to be reluctant. Either way, it is insulting to
woman, and shows an attitude that is - at best - outdated a
generation ago.
Like most of us in this group (since most of us have similar kinds
of jobs - and we are all the kind of people who converse in Usenet
groups), I am not particularly social and my job involves
interacting with computers far more than other people. But even in
this branch it can occasionally happen that you might be travelling
with a colleague to a workshop, conference, sales meeting, etc.
Would anyone think it is normal behaviour to refuse to eat a meal
with that colleague just because she happens to be female? In my
mind, that\'s as unprofessional, inhumane and insulting as
suggesting that you share more than just the meal.
I think you are very narrow minded on this subject. Why is it
unprofessional , inhumane , and insulting.
Imagine someone refused to eat dinner with you because they thought
people might think you were sleeping together. This means that the
other person thinks of you in terms of sex - whether you\'d be having
sex, and whether other people would think you\'re having sex. This
person isn\'t concerned with you, or your thoughts or feelings, or the
interesting conversation with you, or treating you as a friend, or as a
professional colleague - they are concerned primarily about sex, and
about their own image. /You/ are reduced to a potential sex object -
with the assumption that you\'d sleep with them given half a chance, and
only that other person\'s \"high moral standards\" are preventing it.
How is that /not/ insulting?
It is not as if someone
refused to eat with some women and not with others. You are not very
tolerant if you are upset by someone having different ideas of
propriety than you.
I am tolerant of most people, most things, and most ideas. But there
are a few things I am severely intolerant of:
1. Bigotry. That includes misogyny, racism, homophobia, and other bigotry.
2. People who think their religious beliefs make them superior, and
gives them a right to judge others or impose their will on others.
(Actually, this applies to other kinds of beliefs too - such as
self-righteous vegetarians who won\'t let others make their own choices.
There\'s nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, or a Christian, Muslim,
Buddhist, or whatever - it\'s your attitude to other people that can be
wrong.)
3. People who pander to bigots or self-righteous religious fanatics in
order to gain personal power or wealth.
You need to check the dictionary. You are a bigot. No tolerance for anyone who does not agree with you.
Dan
R
Rick C
Guest
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 3:18:01 PM UTC-5, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
Ok, you attached a label to him. So what? Is that your way of attempting to shame him? Is that label supposed to have some significance?
I think the significance is that you don\'t want to discuss the facts. You just want to beat on the guy.
--
Rick C.
+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 10:41:14 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 06/12/2020 14:25, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, December 6, 2020 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
On 05/12/2020 22:52, dca...@krl.org wrote:
But why is a guy having dinner with a woman who is not his wife?
I can not remember ever having dinner with a woman other than my
wife. At least since I have been married.
Can not remember having dinner with just another man either. I
certainly would not be overwhelmed in either case.
Dan
Some people are more sociable, or have jobs that involve more
social interaction - politics is one such job. A politician spends
a lot of time in meetings, talking to people and travelling -
working lunches and dinners are common. Most of these are likely to
be with multiple people, of course. But should the guy refuse to
have dinner with someone just because she is a woman? Either he has
seriously screwed-up values or he has a history of cheating on his
wife as his reason to be reluctant. Either way, it is insulting to
woman, and shows an attitude that is - at best - outdated a
generation ago.
Like most of us in this group (since most of us have similar kinds
of jobs - and we are all the kind of people who converse in Usenet
groups), I am not particularly social and my job involves
interacting with computers far more than other people. But even in
this branch it can occasionally happen that you might be travelling
with a colleague to a workshop, conference, sales meeting, etc.
Would anyone think it is normal behaviour to refuse to eat a meal
with that colleague just because she happens to be female? In my
mind, that\'s as unprofessional, inhumane and insulting as
suggesting that you share more than just the meal.
I think you are very narrow minded on this subject. Why is it
unprofessional , inhumane , and insulting.
Imagine someone refused to eat dinner with you because they thought
people might think you were sleeping together. This means that the
other person thinks of you in terms of sex - whether you\'d be having
sex, and whether other people would think you\'re having sex. This
person isn\'t concerned with you, or your thoughts or feelings, or the
interesting conversation with you, or treating you as a friend, or as a
professional colleague - they are concerned primarily about sex, and
about their own image. /You/ are reduced to a potential sex object -
with the assumption that you\'d sleep with them given half a chance, and
only that other person\'s \"high moral standards\" are preventing it.
How is that /not/ insulting?
It is not as if someone
refused to eat with some women and not with others. You are not very
tolerant if you are upset by someone having different ideas of
propriety than you.
I am tolerant of most people, most things, and most ideas. But there
are a few things I am severely intolerant of:
1. Bigotry. That includes misogyny, racism, homophobia, and other bigotry.
2. People who think their religious beliefs make them superior, and
gives them a right to judge others or impose their will on others.
(Actually, this applies to other kinds of beliefs too - such as
self-righteous vegetarians who won\'t let others make their own choices.
There\'s nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, or a Christian, Muslim,
Buddhist, or whatever - it\'s your attitude to other people that can be
wrong.)
3. People who pander to bigots or self-righteous religious fanatics in
order to gain personal power or wealth.
You need to check the dictionary. You are a bigot. No tolerance for anyone who does not agree with you.
Ok, you attached a label to him. So what? Is that your way of attempting to shame him? Is that label supposed to have some significance?
I think the significance is that you don\'t want to discuss the facts. You just want to beat on the guy.
--
Rick C.
+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209