Prince Charles gets Wuhan virus

@great-big-stees said
Well some woman are a wee bit "catty" but I don't think Suzi is one of those. I think the term "horse faced", when talking about Camilla, has been around for a while and I guess, if the shoe fits, wear it? 🤔

So you think it ok for women to call other women names while pretending to be for all womens rights?.....Something just doesn't add up here! What am I missing?

-VR

@fmf said
It's not "disdain". It's an observation. You called Camilla "Horse-face" because you dislike her. You commented on her physical appearance. It's the sort of thing whodey does with women politicians and public figures that he dislikes.

I hope you will excuse me using your comment to illustrate a curious phenomenon. When people like Suzianne set a really high standard, people always leap on the moment when they let rip, but when people dish out hatred and negativity as standard it just gets tolerated. That's whoever, it's just what they do. I guess if you aim for keeping all your language respectful to women to the point where people leap on the one time you don't it is a compliment to the high standards you usually live by??

@very-rusty said
So you think it ok for women to call other women names while pretending to be for all womens rights?.....Something just doesn't add up here! What am I missing?

It's not the name-calling that's the problem. It's a "feminist" brandishing a woman's physical looks against her as an expression of dislike or disapproval.

That's what right-wing misogynists [and some old school left-wing ones too] do.

They do it to women in a way and to an extent that is different to what they say about men dislike or disapprove of.

That's what you are apparently missing.

@petewxyz said
I hope you will excuse me using your comment to illustrate a curious phenomenon. When people like Suzianne set a really high standard, people always leap on the moment when they let rip

I don't think Suzianne does set "a really high standard". Do you? Not using insults or smears regarding physical appearance or sexual attractiveness as an expression of disapproval of women in the public eye or in the workplace is feminism-in-action in public discourse chapter 1.

@petewxyz said
I guess if you aim for keeping all your language respectful to women to the point where people leap on the one time you don't it is a compliment to the high standards you usually live by??

I think Suzianne can be as disrespectful as she wants to be towards Camilla. She can call her whatever names she wants. The bone I've picked with Suzianne is a very specific one.

@fmf said
It's not the name-calling that's the problem. It's a "feminist" brandishing a woman's physical looks against her as an expression of dislike or disapproval.

That's what right-wing misogynists [and some old school left-wing ones too] do.

They do it to women in a way and to an extent that is different to what they say about men dislike or disapprove of.

That's what you are apparently missing.

Perhaps, but I am not missing the "FACT" it isn't very lady like! 😉

-VR

@fmf said
I don't think Suzianne does set "a really high standard". Do you? Not using insults or smears regarding physical appearance or sexual attractiveness as an expression of disapproval of women in the public eye or in the workplace is feminism-in-action in public discourse chapter 1.

Now that is hard to argue against, so I must again agree with you.

-VR

@very-rusty said
Perhaps, but I am not missing the "FACT" it isn't very lady like! 😉

-VR

"Lady like"?!

@fmf said
"Lady like"?!

Ladylike....appropriate for or typical of a well-bred, decorous woman or girl.

You're welcome,

-VR

@fmf said
I don't think Suzianne does set "a really high standard". Do you? Not using insults or smears regarding physical appearance or sexual attractiveness as an expression of disapproval of women in the public eye or in the workplace is feminism-in-action in public discourse chapter 1.

You think Suzianne usually sets a low standard for herself and others around the appropriate treatment of women?? I thought you were emphasising the moment because she cares about high standards in a world that has serious difficulties treating women appropriately. I hope I havent misunderstood.

@petewxyz said
You think Suzianne usually sets a low standard for herself and others around the appropriate treatment of women?? I thought you were emphasising the moment because she cares about high standards in a world that has serious difficulties treating women appropriately. I hope I havent misunderstood.

Camilla isn't a woman? Does she not deserve the same respect as any other woman?

-VR

@very-rusty said
Ladylike....appropriate for or typical of a well-bred, decorous woman or girl.

You're welcome,

-VR

"Appropriate" in whose view? "Typical" of which women? Are there billions and billions of versions of "ladylike"?

@fmf said
"Appropriate" in whose view? "Typical" of which women? Are there billions and billions of versions of "ladylike"?

Ladylike....appropriate for or typical of a well-bred, decorous woman or girl.

Pick the aforementioned one! 😉

-VR

@petewxyz said
You think Suzianne usually sets a low standard for herself and others around the appropriate treatment of women?

She's posted feminist material and assumed feminist postures on the forums but anyone can do that. I don't see what you mean by "high standards". I have seen her play the 'Misogyny Card' incongruously too many times in order to poison the well and sidestep debate for me to perceive her as setting any "high standards". I have spent almost 30 years on and off rubbing shoulders and working for/with with "feminist" academics, activists and writers. You may have set your bar for "standards" differently from me.

@very-rusty said
Ladylike....appropriate for or typical of a well-bred, decorous woman or girl.

Pick the aforementioned one! 😉

-VR

Dodge noted.