It is currently Thu May 23, 2013 1:37 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:46 pm
Posts: 23028
Location: In la France profonde, without personal transport...
Quote:
it would be an advantage if older now retired teachers of the yesteryears were brought back


Feck off! I'm retired - the clue is in the word 'retired' you twatbasket...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:43 pm
Posts: 3890
Location: Chuffing Barsetshire
Just don't let them teach punctuation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:06 am
Posts: 28
"A poster girl for idiotic journalism at its most inane"

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 73556.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:46 pm
Posts: 23028
Location: In la France profonde, without personal transport...
New Hero
Image
Amol Rajan

Amol Rajan is an adviser to Evgeny Lebedev, owner of the Independent titles and London Evening Standard. He was previously Deputy Comment Editor at The Independent, and before that Sports News Correspondent and a news reporter at the paper. He is a regular essayist and television critic for The Independent, a book reviewer and bi-weekly restaurant critic for The Independent on Sunday, and his column in i appears on Tuesdays and Thursdays. He is a contributor to The Literary Review and The Salisbury Review, read English at Downing College, Cambridge, spent his gap year at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and for two years was mic boy on Channel 5's The Wright Stuff. He is a trustee of Prospex, a charity for young people in Islington, and his first book, Twirlymen: the Unlikely History of Cricket's Greatest Spin Bowlers, was released by Yellow Jersey Press on May 5.

And a Good Egg!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:14 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:33 pm
Posts: 11908
Location: East London
He's a lord.

Quote:
that other witless termagant employed by the Mail, Amanda ‘ Plateful-of-Hatred’ Platell.


That Parsons stuff is the biggest rubbish since someone at the Mail criticised Christine Bleakley for saying if she looks good in a photo, she's spend ages making herself up. Apparently that showed how vain she was, rather than a sense of humour.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:43 pm
Posts: 3890
Location: Chuffing Barsetshire
Quote:

The UK has more churchgoers and fewer births outside marriage than France.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:10 pm
Posts: 4258
Location: That fancy London, with it's book learning. Sadly not being anywhere else..
ezinra wrote:



There were far more ardent believers many years ago, and yet there were many larger families back then than there are now as well(with five, six, seven or more children been the norm).

Can she explain this?

And the fact that in general, the catholics and other christian denominations are still feverently against coming out in favour of contraception?

We need more religion to temper people's selfish lusts - church favours unfettered reproduction. This makes no sense.

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:27 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:33 pm
Posts: 11908
Location: East London
Couple of articles from 2006.

Here's something Sandra is probably aware of.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5202532.stm

Teenage pregnancy high among black people in the UK



Here's something she might not be aware of

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5349132.stm

Churchgoing high among black people in the UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:26 pm
Posts: 298
She's going on about the evils of porn and it must be banned,does that incule the Mail's website as well? :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:43 pm
Posts: 3890
Location: Chuffing Barsetshire
Has the 'era of porn' led men to think rape is OK?

Depressing article, depressing comments.

Quote:
How ironic that it should take Raquel Welch — a woman whose very name is a byword for sexual fantasy — to identify one of the most urgent problems society faces today: an overwhelming and deeply damaging obsession with sex.

The very fact that Welch became "a byword for sexual fantasy" forty years ago ought to indicate that "society" has been interested in sex for a while. Obsessively? Damagingly? The only differences I can see are that 1) women are now able to admit they have sexual fantasies too (even ones about Raquel Welch), and 2) advertisers and the entertainment industry now systematically use sex-porn-fantasy to market everything under the sun.

Quote:
Raquel, now 71, blames today’s ‘era of porn’ for turning us into sex addicts: ‘We have equated happiness in life with as many orgasms as you can possibly pack in . . .  where is the anticipation and the personalisation? It’s an exploitation of the poor males’ libidos. Poor babies, they can’t control themselves.’

That's not a description of sex addiction. It's a critique of those who would measure sexual satisfaction with a counting stat, as one finds in some women's magazines and sex manuals.

Quote:
In recent years, pornography has moved with terrifying speed from a niche pursuit to one that is ubiquitous and hugely profitable. For a teenage boy only a decade ago, porn was just a mucky magazine, bought only after weeks of steeling himself to saunter nonchalantly into a newsagent’s and grab it from the top shelf.

Today, more than a quarter of internet users have visited a pornographic website.

It seems the video era escaped the Parsons household. No acknowledgement yet from Parsons that women might be interested in pornography. No analysis, either, of why it would be okay for a boy to bash the bishop over a solipsistic fantasy involving Raquel Welch or Pan's People but not while watching a real couple having sex.

Quote:
Internet porn is frequently violent and aggressive. Practices that only a few years ago would have been regarded as abnormal are now mainstream. Male desires that previously would have remained dark fantasies, or have been kept in check, have now become both popularised and legitimised.

Women's desires, of course, have always been soft and pure. Cuddling. A bit of tickling. Then lying back and thinking of England.

For men, the key attribute is learning to keep their non-missionary-position fantasies "in check". This had a 100% success rate in the era before the internetz. There was no prostitution, no extra-marital affairs, and no sexual assault.

Quote:
it cannot be a coincidence that sexual violence against women in Britain is on the increase.

Neither coincidence nor true. We don't know whether sexual violence is increasing or not. All we know is that there's still too much of it.

Quote:
A recent survey of 1,600 women on Mumsnet revealed that an astonishing one in ten women say they have been raped, and more than a third subjected to sexual assault.

These figures are staggering, almost unbelievable. But they become less surprising when you consider that images of women being pulled by their hair and roughly handled during cold, impersonal sex are commonplace on the internet.

At a guess, given that it's mumsnet, I'd say a majority of the respondents who reported being raped were attacked in the golden era before porn.

Almost all pornography is sexist. It's made for men and appeals to (a travesty of?) particularly male fantasies of domination and virility. Does it create those fantasies? I doubt it. It just eroticises a kind of strong-man passive-woman cliché which can be found in everything from comic books to the division of labour.

Quote:
As a mother

Aagh!

Quote:
I find this simply terrifying. What will the consequences be for my daughter, exposed to a generation of boys who have grown up watching this stuff?

She may develop an enviably toned figure, which she'll flaunt to the paparazzi while wearing a VERY revealing bikini.

She may have to say 'No, honey, I'm not into that', and then hope that Honey isn't a rapist — just like in the good old days. This is an area where I think the ubiquity of pornography — and women's growing openness about sex — is problematical: it's too easily taken for granted that, just because a woman likes sex, she will be eager to try every kind of sex. Pornography, like other consumer products, creates unrealistic expectations. But then, forty years ago, so did marriage. The key is discussion and negotiation between the partners — something that pornography airbrushes out of existence.

Quote:
And what of my ten-year-old son — how can I hope to protect him from such degrading and desensitising filth during his teenage years?

Make sure your computer filters out 'dailymail.co.uk'

Quote:
Sex used to be the most powerful gift a woman could bestow. And the pursuit of this prize encouraged men to regard it not as some bestial form of domination (which is how it’s frequently portrayed on the internet) but as a demonstration of love and respect.

:shock: :shock:

This doesn't even make sense. Again it assumes that women have no sex drive of their own, and that prior to about 1995 all men wore a hat and a nice suit and won a lady's hand by serenading her under the moonlight. And wouldn't the idea of sex "as a prize" just encourage macho behaviour? "Love and respect" require that couples treat each other as fully fledged human beings — something absent from both pornography and Parsons' Pavlovian notion of sex as a reward for chivalry.

Not much love and respect in the comments:

Quote:
The serious crime of rape would be taken more seriously if the courts were not full of women being tried for false allegations of rape and celebs stopped dragging up a past "rape" (always by somebody unnamed or deceased!) in order to help sell a book, get some public sympathy etc, etc,

- choppy, birmingham,england, 14/3/2012 9:44 Rating 7

For "the courts", read "the tabloids".

Quote:
Look down the right hand side of these pages. There you will see young women queing to remove their clothes for money. Young women dress like tarts and assert their rights to do so. Then they get drunk and flirt.Many will admit to looking for one night stands. I do not condone rape in any circumstances but how do young men ,often drunk themselves, know if they should carry on or not. As Raquel says in the past young men knew exactly what the answer was. A few young ladies were generous but most had respect for themselves and we knew when the answer was no it meant no.

- Happyexpat, Almeria Spain, 14/3/2012 8:51 Rating 31

"I do not condone rape" but I excuse it, justify it and make it seem logical and inevitable. And I'm a massive fuck-off misogynist to boot.

Quote:
Men do not think rape is ok, monsters do. This feminist assumption that every man is a potential rapist has to stop.

- Mark B, Birmingham, 14/3/2012 7:50 Rating 13

Ah, a Mailite favourite. Andrea Dworkin never said "every man is a rapist": she merely observed that since rapists don't wear a distinctive colour of socks or wander around with a Paul Thomas-style banner reading 'I am a rapist', women had to accept that any man — even the nicest of the nice guys — could be a rapist. Also, lots of men do think rape is ok, as any visit to the Unilad forum would have demonstrated. Or any comment by Tom of Los Angeles:

Quote:
"Has the 'era of porn' led men to think rape is OK?" Nope. Its women giving it away so freely is what makes men think they can take it by force. So much for women's liberation,huh?

- Tom, Los Angeles, USA, 14/3/2012 1:26 Rating 12

I'm blinded by the illogic of this argument as much as by its extraordinary hatefulness.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:07 am
Posts: 10144
Location: Fantasy land
There seems to be a fascination recently for blaming "sex" for things happening, I noticed it in the Graun as well a few weeks back. Given it is arguably one of the two things the human race cannot survive without for very long it would seem an odd choice of target.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:23 pm
Posts: 4954
Location: West Midlands
That last one sounds like something out of a 1950s movie. Boy meets girl, has heard she's a 'slut' who'll 'put out'. When she doesn't he takes it anyway.

Fuck, that's depressing.

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 5:43 pm
Posts: 3890
Location: Chuffing Barsetshire
No one has the right to a child on the NHS

Quote:
I understand that 42-year-old women who long for a child may want infertility treatment. I fully support civil unions for gay couples in committed relationships and appreciate that some may want the chance to be parents, too.

What I don’t accept is the idea that it should be funded by the taxpayer. And if it comes to a choice of how the NHS’s limited funds are spent, I’d rather keep people alive — even if it’s for just a few more precious months.

I wonder, for example, what bowel cancer patients make of this news? As I write, they are still being denied ‘access to the best levels of help’ — in the form of the drug Avastin, which has been proved to prolong life. In many countries it is the standard treatment — but is still deemed too expensive for NHS patients by Nice.

Cancer survivors are among those who might benefit most from fertility treatment. Not that Parsons is interested in the grey areas. Her argument, as always, is that we should put up with what we have and never ask for better.

The Mailites agree with her, of course, because cancer patients > infertile couples in the compassion stakes. But the article has struck a nerve:

Quote:
Sandra Parsons, this article is just nasty. The fact that you speak about your daughter says enough. You know very little about infertility. Do you know that 80% of IF couples can't adopt due to various physical/emotional health issues on both the adopter/adoptees' parts? Not only do IVF departments provide essential services like the cancer scans that I mentioned in a previous post but they also provide the counselling that so many couples need too, not that it works in many cases. On a different note, do not speak for how your nanny feels about her IF, as the chances are like so many IF sufferers, she is having to keep her mouth shut and is having to grin and bear a life time of ridicule, abuse and misunderstanding. Given your stance on the subject, I think it goes with out saying.

- Natalie, London, 23/5/2012 9:30 Rating 7


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:10 pm
Posts: 4258
Location: That fancy London, with it's book learning. Sadly not being anywhere else..
I might be happily accustomed to my own IF problems, but I am still capable of understanding that mine is not the only problem that causes IF.

As some comments have covered - illness, accident or medical treatment can also cause IF. In these cases it seems only fair that those who want children but have had the choice taken from them by fate (or whatever else you believe in) can get some help from the NHS.

How any person can only see in black and white terms and not see the grey in these situations is beyond me.

I hope the women she knows don't mind her openly discussing their medical issues in public - I'd be fucking furious, it is not her place to do so or to judge them for the choices they make (which is pretty much what she is doing by using them as examples in her anti-IVF article).

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Parsons
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:07 am
Posts: 3359
Location: chesterfield
Her argument that spending more money on fertility treatment will mean that more old people will be discharged in the middle of the night is just rubbish. Old people are being sent home in the middle of the night because NHS Trusts are being forced to spend loads of money and waste lots of time implementing government reforms that are totally unnecessary. I know several people at our local hospital who have spent much of the last 12 months jumping through various hoops in order to trying to cling onto their jobs. How can staff work properly when they know that their job could go or be regraded at any time? There is more than enough money in the NHS budgets to provide proper care for the elderly and help for people with fertility treatment if only the government would stop wasting money on pointless reforms.

_________________
www.newshuddlines.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group