Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by chelsea2, Mar 4, 2020.
I’m not the one making the claim. As you can see from my last post I’ve supplied links to a study.
Fancy responding to my point? Shouldn't be too arduous.
I'm not one making claims about CSRs, and yet someone kept wanting me to supply evidence about them. Go figure.
Too difficult for you?
So what is racist, sexist or envious about that comment?
That’s right, they’re both examples of worse-case archetypes.
Read the excerpt again, because what it says is that deploying one archetype i.e the TF is regarded as stigmatising- which is what you correctly agreed with.
The other, TM is socially acceptable in your construct of a “patriarchal socialisation” paradigm.
When you say ideals exist in men’s heads and not in women’s you’re criticising men for being men, because you are making a generalisation about male traits that you claim cannot exist (ie behaviour is only environmental or “socially constructed) but must exist in order for your paradigm to opperate.
I’m sorry, did you address a point to me?
Evidently. Not too good at addressing misogyny, hypocrisy and stereotyping when he's given an example of it.
CSRs are freely available on the EU website. I’ve quoted from them frequently and supplied the links on every occasion.
I did wonder whether you'd care to address a point I made, yes.
no, I was responding to you saying this
Try reading between the lines. Why else hold such vitriol for someone you have not met? The depth of contempt expressed by numerous posters cannont simply be put down to her dress sense.
I assume that you and other haters of Mrs Patel condone it, along with the numerous other posts similar in style.
Post 136 if you're looking for it.
Give one example on this thread.
I couldn't give a stuff about her dress sense. Why should I? I have other reasons not to care much for her. Typical of your attitude to refer to it though.
I did not say it, I was quoting from an article to which I provided the link.
You’re interested in this topic read the whole thing, it’s a great article.
Try addressing post 136.
No - because it's not sexist.
Maybe people dislike the way she appears to do the job?
Which is what this thread is ALL about - is her alleged behaviour bullying or harrassment?
Why do you keep trying to make it about something else?