Social conservatism

[ROCKET80]

All that’s happened in the last 12 hours is a load of you have made presumption after presumption.

I actually specifically said it doesn’t mean I treat men badly, I just believe the respect you show to women should go above and beyond general respect to men.

I guarantee you wouldn’t call me a **** to my face either. Keyboard warrior.

Hey Ban-jani

My question to you on this is why?

Why do you treat women differently? Why do you think they need to be treated any differently by you?

Where does this requirement to treat them differently come from?

 

[Rascal]

Hey Ban-jani

My question to you on this is why?

Why do you treat women differently? Why do you think they need to be treated any differently by you?

Where does this requirement to treat them differently come from?

This will be good.

From the Book of Timothy.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."

 

[hilts]

Yes because you want a society that doesn’t differentiate between the sexes.

We are talking generally here.

I did say if the man was elderly I would do it. If my mate had an injury or was disabled, I’d carry his bag.

What I am saying is I would offer it to every woman I come across, I wouldn’t automatically to every man.

If I see a 20/30/40/50 year old bloke, who looks reasonably fit and healthy, carrying a suitcase on to a train, I’m not going to offer to do it for him. He’d think I was barking mad.

I would to a woman of any age.

If a man was vulnerable, maybe as I’ve described before, elderly for example, then yes, I’d make sure he got home alright too.

But I wouldn’t for your average bloke who is of fitness and health, but I would for ALL women.

I honestly cannot fathom what’s wrong with any of that. There isn’t, you’re just being purposefully difficult.

Sex pest

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Yes because you want a society that doesn’t differentiate between the sexes.

We are talking generally here.

I did say if the man was elderly I would do it. If my mate had an injury or was disabled, I’d carry his bag.

What I am saying is I would offer it to every woman I come across, I wouldn’t automatically to every man.

If I see a 20/30/40/50 year old bloke, who looks reasonably fit and healthy, carrying a suitcase on to a train, I’m not going to offer to do it for him. He’d think I was barking mad.

I would to a woman of any age.

If a man was vulnerable, maybe as I’ve described before, elderly for example, then yes, I’d make sure he got home alright too.

But I wouldn’t for your average bloke who is of fitness and health, but I would for ALL women.

I honestly cannot fathom what’s wrong with any of that. There isn’t, you’re just being purposefully difficult.

What if you offered these services to a woman only to discover they were transexual, would you stop halfway?

 

[Rascal]

What if you offered these services to a woman only to discover they were transexual, would you stop halfway?

He would join a monastery, where he would spend his life trying to absolve his sin.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Hey Ban-jani

My question to you on this is why?

Why do you treat women differently? Why do you think they need to be treated any differently by you?

Where does this requirement to treat them differently come from?

Looks as though he’s on a break of some sort.

 

[west didsblue]

Looks as though he’s on a break of some sort.

Well he needed one. He was responsible for about half the posts on this forum.

 

[Marlo]

Interesting thread.

Think it needs clearing up the difference between Social Conservatism as a movement and being socially conservative (I believe there is a difference although one can lead to the horrors of the other).

Like has been said in posts before traditionally Labour voters were economically to the left (socialist policies) but held socially Right-Wing views.

Labour has increased it's middle class support, mostly kids of the working class who have gone to University and are socially liberal and have no interest in religion (like me), that has impacted the perception of Labour amongst it's traditional base.

My dad is a prime example of the traditional Labour voter moving away from the party and this is down to holding socially conservative values. He is anti-EU, he is anti-immigration, he is pro capital punishment and he is very patriotic, although is anti-monarchy.

These are all emotional topics that are easier to manipulate then economic policy, unsurprisingly UKIP picked up his vote.

That is an interesting summary.

My personal (and limited) experience of social conservativism is from my in-laws and their circles, they are generally a slightly older generation, professional class, religious, anti EU, pro-monarchy (watching that Prince Andrew interview with them was priceless), welcome to certain nationalities but less friendly to others. In general I have find them kind, decent and well mannered if slightly old fashioned.

The one thing I am always amazed about is their voting record, still can never understand how they vote for the current PM and Tory party which barely reflects them and in my view is not the least bit socially conservative. Your point regarding your father moving away from labour made me think of them.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

That is an interesting summary.

My personal (and limited) experience of social conservativism is from my in-laws and their circles, they are generally a slightly older generation, professional class, religious, anti EU, pro-monarchy (watching that Prince Andrew interview with them was priceless), welcome to certain nationalities but less friendly to others. In general I have find them kind, decent and well mannered if slightly old fashioned.

The one thing I am always amazed about is their voting record, still can never understand how they vote for the current PM and Tory party which barely reflects them and in my view is not the least bit socially conservative. Your point regarding your father moving away from labour made me think of them.

I suppose (in a way ) that this post should be on the 'Why do you Tory' thread. Ive always believed that people who vote Tory..... hate, fear or dislike a certain class of person or race. These can be real or manufactured (in the press) and can consist of

Unemployed
Disadvantaged
Homeless
Immigrant (legal or Illegal)
Foreigners (they don't even need to be in the UK)
Single Parents
Disabled
Gypsies
Eu

etc etc


The way the Tories win your vote is by being perceived to be tough on each of these groups... by either cutting the benefits , deporting people or banging on about wave machines in the channel. This rhetoric is maintained by a drip feed of headlines in the Tory press (Mail /Express etc) and by TV programming such as ''Cant Pay Wont Pay'' or '' Benefits Britain''

I often hear Tory voters say '' I vote Tory..... I don't agree with all of their policies but'' ..... Which to me means that they'll be one group that the individual dislikes or fears (or maybe doesn't understand) ... and that can usually be brought out over a few beers and a chat. (The conversation always swings round to it).

If the Conservatives actually wanted to solve any of these problems they could / would actually legislate but they don't (for example if they wanted to get really tough on Asylum Seekers they would have to turn up at the United Nations and call for changes to the UN Refugee Convention of 1951) - are they actively lobbying for changes ? No... because it's in their interest not to solve problems as that retains their base vote.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Vic]

I suppose (in a way ) that this post should be on the 'Why do you Tory' thread. Ive always believed that people who vote Tory..... hate, fear or dislike a certain class of person or race. These can be real or manufactured (in the press) and can consist of

Unemployed
Disadvantaged
Homeless
Immigrant (legal or Illegal)
Foreigners (they don't even need to be in the UK)
Single Parents
Disabled
Gypsies
Eu

etc etc


The way the Tories win your vote is by being perceived to be tough on each of these groups... by either cutting the benefits , deporting people or banging on about wave machines in the channel. This rhetoric is maintained by a drip feed of headlines in the Tory press (Mail /Express etc) and by TV programming such as ''Cant Pay Wont Pay'' or '' Benefits Britain''

I often hear Tory voters say '' I vote Tory..... I don't agree with all of their policies but'' ..... Which to me means that they'll be one group that the individual dislikes or fears (or maybe doesn't understand) ... and that can usually be brought out over a few beers and a chat. (The conversation always swings round to it).

If the Conservatives actually wanted to solve any of these problems they could / would actually legislate but they don't (for example if they wanted to get really tough on Asylum Seekers they would have to turn up at the United Nations and call for changes to the UN Refugee Convention of 1951) - are they actively lobbying for changes ? No... because it's in their interest not to solve problems as that retains their base vote.

Just my thoughts.

You forgot the othering of anyone with an internationalist approach as "citizens of nowhere".

And now you can add moaning fishermen to the list.