Absolutely not ... never never never ... not in my book ... but 'excuse' is not the same thing as 'reason' and I was just pointing out that what she did didn't come out of thin air and the Romans weren't an innocent party.
As for Trump 'being effeminate' .......... please explain
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I didn't mean that faith is a valid reason, just that it is given as a reason that cannot be refuted. God made my people to rule the earth/be better than your people/punish the wicked... How do you know? God told me. If you lot don't agree, you are both wrong and ungodly so I don't have to listen to you. I have met people who are racist or sexist or nationalists or all sorts of isms and ists. They all have unshakeable reasons.
OK - but did every queen you can think of then in history involve their domains in 'manly' things like killing people? Or is killing people neither manly nor womanly but just a power thing? Odd though that when 'men' have wars it's largely men that die, not the women they allegedly 'hate'. I know men instigate most if not all of this - but the figures appear to show that men 'hate' men vastly more than they do women - the figures quoted here (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rethinking-men/201102/the-wars-against-men) are alarming. But it was always known that after war, men were at a short supply - that's happened throughout history.
Isn't that an excuse again? Didn't Boudicca raze London? Irrespective of what happened to her or her family, she could have sat on her hands and done nothing. But she then had 'power' and used that power as she saw fit and killed thousands.
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Boudica/ - is a sample of what I dislike. Everything is perspective eh? It's ok for us to leave the EU, but wrong for Scotland to want to leave the UK. Boudicca is a heroine (sorry hero) but Adams is a terrorist. The point still is that women do just as horrendous things as men when they have the power. It is power that's abused irrespective of gender. I totally agree that women were stopped from having the power largely - but that is because men could - and still do have most of the control. But from history and the few women who have had power, things don't change.
Yes, she razed London (a Roman town) ... because she could and it was her intention to take back the power they'd taken from her ... as I said, I'm not making excuses, I'm giving a reason ... yes, some women do just as horrendous things as some men do (if they can) ... but that's the whole point ... gender stereotypes are a false construct.
The gender issue is interesting. Men have had more opportunity to do dreadful things - though I would point out that in war, after the battle there is usually rape and murder - but we don't know if women would be just as bad, given the chance. Traditionally, men have been soldiers and women nurses. Even today, violence and violent crime is more male than female. However, what matters is that we are, or should be, capable of thought and can behave with fairness and compassion. It doesn't matter which gender you claim, you don't have to be a bigot or a thug, that's a choice.
Generally when talking about someone being or saying something sexist or racist we are talking about predudice without just cause.
To say more women garden for example isn't sexist if that's the truth. To say women are better gardeners could be sexist at least without offering justification. If you lived somewhere where only women gardened then it's likely women would be better in that instance. I'd argue it's just cultural factors that separate men and women gardening wise. Ability wise they are equal, men are generally stronger but then strength isn't a big factor in gardening (within reason).
With the John Terry case if he did say what he was alleged to then he discriminated without just cause, that being predudiced against someone for skin colour alone. Owing that there is a history of discrimination against blacks then it adds to the offence caused when used in this context. If he did say it then it doesn't necessarily mean he's racist (though the insult is) nor does it mean he isn't racist if he didn't use it in the context Anton refers.
I haven't watched the documentary, I do remember the case at the time and have subsequently read a little about it.
I think just being an ahole can cause offence too but usually it's easier to explain. Still it might depend on context and what insults one person may not bother another. Calling Wenger a peado was certainly bad and potentially slanderous. It likely wasn't discrimation of him per se rather him being an opposition manager and a minority of fans being idiots . If he joined their team they wouldn't call him it.
The gender issue is interesting. Men have had more opportunity to do dreadful things - though I would point out that in war, after the battle there is usually rape and murder - but we don't know if women would be just as bad, given the chance. Traditionally, men have been soldiers and women nurses. Even today, violence and violent crime is more male than female. However, what matters is that we are, or should be, capable of thought and can behave with fairness and compassion. It doesn't matter which gender you claim, you don't have to be a bigot or a thug, that's a choice.
In one of the recent wars in the Middle East weren't some of the men terrified of a brigade made entirely of women? Kurdish women I think. Their fear based both on what the women would do to them and the belief that they couldn't enter paradise if killed by a woman.
Posts
As for Trump 'being effeminate' .......... please explain
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
So is it 'ist' or just the abuse of power?
And ...
Dovefromabove said: ???
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
To say more women garden for example isn't sexist if that's the truth. To say women are better gardeners could be sexist at least without offering justification. If you lived somewhere where only women gardened then it's likely women would be better in that instance. I'd argue it's just cultural factors that separate men and women gardening wise. Ability wise they are equal, men are generally stronger but then strength isn't a big factor in gardening (within reason).
With the John Terry case if he did say what he was alleged to then he discriminated without just cause, that being predudiced against someone for skin colour alone. Owing that there is a history of discrimination against blacks then it
adds to the offence caused when used in this context. If he did say it then it doesn't necessarily mean he's racist (though the insult is) nor does it mean he isn't racist if he didn't use it in the context Anton refers.
I haven't watched the documentary, I do remember the case at the time and have subsequently read a little about it.
I think just being an ahole can cause offence too but usually it's easier to explain. Still it might depend on context and what insults one person may not bother another. Calling Wenger a peado was certainly bad and potentially slanderous. It likely wasn't discrimation of him per se rather him being an opposition manager and a minority of fans being idiots . If he joined their team they wouldn't call him it.
In one of the recent wars in the Middle East weren't some of the men terrified of a brigade made entirely of women? Kurdish women I think. Their fear based both on what the women would do to them and the belief that they couldn't enter paradise if killed by a woman.