Nice to see the BBC reporting on marches again

[Kris]

What women's rights has he taken away?


Mrs Steve R to you, what would be satisfactory evidence for you if there are no reports? none I'm thinking, all I can suggest is that you go through youtube with a fine tooth comb, find all the old live streams to different protests and then google to see if they have been reported on, I really don't care enough if you believe me or not to do that tbh, it might take you some time but have fun.

Why is that funny?


Lady? Even though I'm a woman I still don't know what rights I have lost because of Trump?

What the lady said, but I can tell what they did cover. I definitely saw coverage of the Remainers protesting in London, and about 6 people demonstrating outside the Russian Embassy with a pile of mannequins.

It's really amazing. You've both bean moaning about the lack of coverage for other marches yet you are both unable to provide an example to back up your claim. One of you tells me to "do my own research innit", and the other tells me yet more examples of marches that *have* been covered.

MRS Steve R, maybe you are one of the older fashioned ladies. Nothing wrong with that, but calling yourself Mrs Husband's Name is something that would have some feminists up in arms. Nothing wrong with that either, but the fact you are calling yourself Mrs Husband's name may mean that you are not tuned into the argument of the women who were marching.

In answer to your question, you won't lose ANY rights due to Trump being elected. As far as I can make out, he has been made President of the USA, and doesn't have any ability to change laws in the UK.

What do the women who were marching think they have lost? They have lost some equality. In the 70s and 80s it was more or less accepted that a boss smacking his female employee's arse, forcing her to wear certain clothing, paying her less than her male counterparts, giving her an unwanted shoulder massage etc etc.

Trump has, unwittingly, given the pervy boss a bit more "courage" to push the boundaries again. No, there won't be any changes in laws that take away American women's rights. The damage is more discreet than that.

Those women may think that Trump will set the women's movement back 20-30 years. They may be incorrect, but considering the battles that feminism has had to fight and win they have earned the right to defend themselves.

[Mrs Steve R]

Well he says he is in favour of Women's rights but when some of them choose to exercise their right to protest, he makes a mockery of it simply because he doesn't like them speaking out against something he likes.

I didn't think it was a bad question, especially as nobody here has lost any rights because of Trump have they?

It's really amazing. You've both bean moaning about the lack of coverage for other marches yet you are both unable to provide an example to back up your claim. One of you tells me to "do my own research innit", and the other tells me yet more examples of marches that *have* been covered.

MRS Steve R, maybe you are one of the older fashioned ladies. Nothing wrong with that, but calling yourself Mrs Husband's Name is something that would have some feminists up in arms. Nothing wrong with that either, but the fact you are calling yourself Mrs Husband's name may mean that you are not tuned into the argument of the women who were marching.

In answer to your question, you won't lose ANY rights due to Trump being elected. As far as I can make out, he has been made President of the USA, and doesn't have any ability to change laws in the UK.

What do the women who were marching think they have lost? They have lost some equality. In the 70s and 80s it was more or less accepted that a boss smacking his female employee's arse, forcing her to wear certain clothing, paying her less than her male counterparts, giving her an unwanted shoulder massage etc etc.

Trump has, unwittingly, given the pervy boss a bit more "courage" to push the boundaries again. No, there won't be any changes in laws that take away American women's rights. The damage is more discreet than that.

Those women may think that Trump will set the women's movement back 20-30 years. They may be incorrect, but considering the battles that feminism has had to fight and win they have earned the right to defend themselves.

If I had started the thread I might have gone to the effort of preparing a couple of examples but knowing it would not make the slightest bit of difference to what any of you think why should I bother wasting my time?

Calling myself my husbands name on a forum will have the feminists up in arms? GOOD I corrected you on my name because Steve R is a different poster. (he's not my husband either)
No I'm not really tuned in with the argument of the women who were marching tbh, what was the point? like you said nobody has lost any rights, it was more about outrage, if I'm honest I've read things on here about women that are worse than what Trump said or did, should I walk the streets dressed as a massive vagina every time that happens?

[goslow]

I didn't think it was a bad question, especially as nobody here has lost any rights because of Trump have they?


If I had started the thread I might have gone to the effort of preparing a couple of examples but knowing it would not make the slightest bit of difference to what any of you think why should I bother wasting my time?

Calling myself my husbands name on a forum will have the feminists up in arms? GOOD I corrected you on my name because Steve R is a different poster. (he's not my husband either)
No I'm not really tuned in with the argument of the women who were marching tbh, what was the point? like you said nobody has lost any rights, it was more about outrage, if I'm honest I've read things on here about women that are worse than what Trump said or did, should I walk the streets dressed as a massive vagina every time that happens?

image.jpg

[Mrs Steve R]

so who exactly was cooking the tea when all this was going on?

image.jpg

[Eric Cartman]

I didn't think it was a bad question, especially as nobody here has lost any rights because of Trump have they?

Which question? I lazily quoted the whole passage but was only really concentrating on those two statements.

[Mrs Steve R]

Which question? I lazily quoted the whole passage but was only really concentrating on those two statements.

I forget, something about why these people were not marching for people who had actually lost rights or had never had them.

[the other bob wilson]

It's really amazing. You've both bean moaning about the lack of coverage for other marches yet you are both unable to provide an example to back up your claim. One of you tells me to "do my own research innit", and the other tells me yet more examples of marches that *have* been covered.

MRS Steve R, maybe you are one of the older fashioned ladies. Nothing wrong with that, but calling yourself Mrs Husband's Name is something that would have some feminists up in arms. Nothing wrong with that either, but the fact you are calling yourself Mrs Husband's name may mean that you are not tuned into the argument of the women who were marching.

In answer to your question, you won't lose ANY rights due to Trump being elected. As far as I can make out, he has been made President of the USA, and doesn't have any ability to change laws in the UK.

What do the women who were marching think they have lost? They have lost some equality. In the 70s and 80s it was more or less accepted that a boss smacking his female employee's arse, forcing her to wear certain clothing, paying her less than her male counterparts, giving her an unwanted shoulder massage etc etc.

Trump has, unwittingly, given the pervy boss a bit more "courage" to push the boundaries again. No, there won't be any changes in laws that take away American women's rights. The damage is more discreet than that.

Those women may think that Trump will set the women's movement back 20-30 years. They may be incorrect, but considering the battles that feminism has had to fight and win they have earned the right to defend themselves.

My original post was not specifically about the Women's marches, I was really interested in finding out about these marches that the BBC had ignored because I assumed that they must have happened given the nudge, nudge, wink, wink conversation between Mrs Steve R and Wales Bales at the start of the thread. I had no agenda in asking for more info about these marches which the BBC, and the mainstream media I presume, had ignored, but it looks like it was just a case of the two of them assuming that they had happened - they may be right, but what they said loses a lot of it's impact when they don't seem to be able to back it up.

[Mrs Steve R]

My original post was not specifically about the Women's marches, I was really interested in finding out about these marches that the BBC had ignored because I assumed that they must have happened given the nudge, nudge, wink, wink conversation between Mrs Steve R and Wales Bales at the start of the thread. I had no agenda in asking for more info about these marches which the BBC, and the mainstream media I presume, had ignored, but it looks like it was just a case of the two of them assuming that they had happened - they may be right, but what they said loses a lot of it's impact when they don't seem to be able to back it up.

As I'm now being badgered here's a quick one before I go to bed.

London Muslims March Against ISIS Goes Unreported By Mainstream Media
http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/0...nstream-media/

The Independent did a story about the fact that it had not been covered after his tweets went viral, given the current climate I'd say that was something that should of had plenty of media coverage wouldn't you?

[the other bob wilson]

As I'm now being badgered here's a quick one before I go to bed.

London Muslims March Against ISIS Goes Unreported By Mainstream Media
http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/0...nstream-media/

The Independent did a story about the fact that it had not been covered after his tweets went viral, given the current climate I'd say that was something that should of had plenty of media coverage wouldn't you?

Thanks, here's the Independent story you refer to

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6765976.html

This, an earlier story by the Mirror and fair play to what I would have thought would have been one of the biggest culprits in ignoring something like that, something in the Mail were the only instances of mainstream media reporting that I could find when I Googled "London Muslims March Against ISIS". I then searched the BBC website for "Muslims March Against ISIS" and it didn't return anything. Looking at the pictures of the event in the Independent and the Mail, you would have thought that the size of the march and the sentiment being expressed would have attracted more attention than it did, so I agree with you both that, in this case, the coverage by the mainstream media (in particular the BBC) left a lot to be desired.

[goslow]

As I'm now being badgered here's a quick one before I go to bed.

London Muslims March Against ISIS Goes Unreported By Mainstream Media
http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/0...nstream-media/

The Independent did a story about the fact that it had not been covered after his tweets went viral, given the current climate I'd say that was something that should of had plenty of media coverage wouldn't you?

The article says there were thousands protesting about terrorism but the bloke it quoted says hundreds?

[Vimana.]

Cripes, whenever 'feminists' get together, some of them don't do themselves many favours do they

[Mrs Steve R]

Thanks, here's the Independent story you refer to

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6765976.html

This, an earlier story by the Mirror and fair play to what I would have thought would have been one of the biggest culprits in ignoring something like that, something in the Mail were the only instances of mainstream media reporting that I could find when I Googled "London Muslims March Against ISIS". I then searched the BBC website for "Muslims March Against ISIS" and it didn't return anything. Looking at the pictures of the event in the Independent and the Mail, you would have thought that the size of the march and the sentiment being expressed would have attracted more attention than it did, so I agree with you both that, in this case, the coverage by the mainstream media (in particular the BBC) left a lot to be desired.

The article says there were thousands protesting about terrorism but the bloke it quoted says hundreds?

I can only apologise.

Cripes, whenever 'feminists' get together, some of them don't do themselves many favours do they

It's embarrassing isn't it? you should see some of the stuff in their groups.

Probably her time of the month.

[the other bob wilson]

The article says there were thousands protesting about terrorism but the bloke it quoted says hundreds?

Trump would say it was a million and a half.

[lardy]

As I'm now being badgered here's a quick one before I go to bed.

London Muslims March Against ISIS Goes Unreported By Mainstream Media
http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/0...nstream-media/

The Independent did a story about the fact that it had not been covered after his tweets went viral, given the current climate I'd say that was something that should of had plenty of media coverage wouldn't you?

I hadn't heard of this march. Without doubt, it was newsworthy.

When you think how many people say 'why doesn't the muslim community ever speak out', it's something to bear in mind.

[goslow]

[QUOTE=Mrs Steve R;4712974]As I'm now being badgered here's a quick one before I go to bed.

London Muslims March Against ISIS Goes Unreported By Mainstream Media
http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/0...nstream-media/

The Independent did a story about the fact that it had not been covered after his tweets went viral, given the current climate I'd say that was something that should of had plenty of media coverage wouldn't you?[/QUOTE

Dp

[goslow]

As I'm now being badgered here's a quick one before I go to bed.

London Muslims March Against ISIS Goes Unreported By Mainstream Media
http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/0...nstream-media/

The Independent did a story about the fact that it had not been covered after his tweets went viral, given the current climate I'd say that was something that should of had plenty of media coverage wouldn't you?

And it wasn't an anti isis march.

[Mrs Steve R]

I've always loved reading scifi books; collections of short stories, novellas and novels. In fact, I have a collection of such books numbering around 400. I love Aldiss, Vance, Ballard, Wyndham, Van Vogt, Heinlein and Dick, and many others too. Post apocalyptic and dystopian themes have always been my favourite.

When I was a boy, many decades ago, i read a short story in which men and women had fought a war against each other. The women, who'd had the help of sympathetic men, had won the war and were committed to exterminating any men who opposed female primacy.

I cannot find this story in my collection or by searching online but it has haunted me ever since. And for quite a while I've believed that this is where we are headed as a species. Transhumanism and cloning fit in somewhere too. The Y-chromosome, the faulty chromosome, will be permanently exterminated. Ashley Judd has increased my suspicion that this is the globalists' ultimate aim.

World war 3 may be fought by nations but world war 4 could be men against women.

That sounds like something I've read too I don't think you have to look too far in to the future tbh, some of them would probably be up for doing that now, feminist and journalist Julie Bindel has openly called for putting all men in concentration camps and eradicating heterosexuality.

How do we dismantle gender?

"We have to get rid of it. There is no point looking at reforming it. It would be like saying we could reform the Tory party. We just need to abolish and obliterate it."

"We need to stop talking about it like it’s a thing. We need to start laughing at those that pretend that it has somehow replaced biological sex, and stop being afraid of pointing out that the two are completely different and that one actually doesn’t exist outside of male dominance and women’s subordination. Because all gender is, is an imposition of subordination on women, and the opposite of that of course is the dominance of men, who get privilege by being born male, and we get the opposite. So I think we have to just start laughing at it, and not by wearing a tutu and workmen’s boots. But by actually by saying, this thing is actually not real."

Will heterosexuality survive women’s liberation?

"It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back."

"I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s shit."

"And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being shit."

"I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”

Here is her full interview if you can stomach it..
http://www.radfemcollective.org/news...Julie%20Bindel

She writes for the Telegraph, Independent and Guardian newspapers by the way. I wonder what her reaction would be if Trump said all women should be put in some sort of camp?

This is also the kind of lunacy we are dealing with..



Errm, yes you do, LOVE.

I read a book once that there was a magical snowy land in a wardrobe, but as far as I'm aware that hasn't come true either.

Well done though, your globalists secretly want to eradicate men theory is a cracker.

Better hide in that wardrobe when Julie comes for you.