woulfe

<<< The simple answer is that the victim always knows, because perpetrators of hate crimes always want them to know >>>

Too true. And I have been to that dark place.

However, I wished to explore the issue of male on male bullying - something that is very much "under the radar". Part of the reason being that many men are uncomfortable acknowledging that they have been victimised.

We hear a lot from men's groups about bullying women and they do need to be outed. But so little from these same groups about men who bully other men. Most crime is committed by men on men - whether homophobia is a part of the conscious or unconscious motivation or not. I had hoped to look more closely at this issue. And am very disappointed at R0bert's vapid response above. And his claims that Pynchme is unfair? - an unfounded claim. Now Runner is unfair.

As you say, you can't take people faster or further than they want to go.

woulfe
You are a good person.

Reading through these posts again I think one point has been forgotten. None of us on this thread so far concur with Abbott's statement about his feelings towards homosexuality. Do any of us now feel threatened by homosexuality after the comment?

Give us all some credit, most people are not homophobes and I think most people took the word 'threatened' to mean Abbott's own discomfort given his Catholic upbringing, not threatened in the worst sense of the word. It has to be taken in context.

It is a bit like the ironing comment. As a woman I thought this was a beat up too and don't feel I am letting my sisters down in this perspective. Abbott is who Abbott is - I know who he is and I won't be voting for him.

Will Abbott eventually change? Probably not, but that is his cross to bear ('scuse the pun).

Giving RObert a hard time because he acknowledges, like I do that this is Abbott's own personal dilemma, is also overt.

Anyway I better get back I have some ironing to do.

woulfe, thanks. I probably snapped more than I should have at Severin, generally I respect her but the earlier sarcastic comment to to what I'd shared combined with cheering on Pynchme did not go down well.

I'm not just talking about taking people further or faster than they are ready to go but also about the perceptions which are created when it seems that groups who are striving for tolerance seem unwilling to give it themselves. That does not mean tolerating active discrimination or abuse but it does mean accepting that others will give tolerance rather than celebration.

Being seen to be intolerant of others for holding or expressing unwanted viewpoints (which don't include hate speech etc) gives some justification for others to harden their own views. Some will hate regardless of what you do or don't do (as was demonstrated earlier on this thread by Peterson).

It's a difficult discussion and I do see that Abbott could have used a better words to expressing what he said (and that he probably had considered his response to a question he was likely to be asked).

At this stage I'd not vote for him either (which as a long term coalition voter is not trivial to me). His historical stance on a variety of issues as Howard's attack dog disgusted me and I don't accept that it was Ok because that's what his role demanded.

I do also see that sometimes roles bring out better in people than they might otherwise be, that Abbott may well be thinking about the kind of person he want's to be if he gets to lead the country and be working at the changes to make it so. I don't know that but I'd not outright dismiss the possibility of a choice towards personal growth.

R0bert

Severin I've thought about your challenge to discuss male bullying and think that there could be value in it. A risky proposition to share something like that but hopefully worth it. I've submitted an opening post for a thread on the topic.

R0bert

Dennis Pryor wrote a satirical booklet
called, "Political Pryorities: How to get
on top of Australian Politics," a few decades
ago. In it he discusses a few laws of politics
that may be of interest...

Pryor tells us that:

" Politicians tend to follow the law of obfuscation
or "that wasn't what I said." All of their statements
have to be worded so that the opposite meaning can
be extracted from them. For example the hidden agenda
of a simple statement like, "we'll abolish poverty,"
reads : "We shall abolish poverty sometime in the future
subject to the state of the economy; if the Senate lets
us, if we haven't got more important things to do, if it
suits the international bankers and if there is no more
important measure necessary to win the next election."

We therefore should expect that
Tony Abbott will always be able to explain his statement
of being threatened by gays in a wide variety of ways.

Personally, I can't see why any politician would bother
talking about anyone's sexual orientation - and how it
affects them. Unless it is a deliberate ploy to appeal
to a certain sector of voters.

I would have thought that their (i.e the pollies) pursuit
of power is for them the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Severin thanks for seeing what I meant.

R0bert, I don't think that expressing agreement and adding extra information to further an opinion amounts to "cheering" someone on.

I'll be interested to read your thread.

IMO I am always fair.

Woulfe - I stand by my opinion re: demands by a moral majority to dictate the terms of challenge as a means of resistance.

I am not gay myself nor ever had that experience but have dear friends and colleagues who are gay and who struggle against polite contempt every day. I had them in mind in my anger as I replied to Robert's post. I do campaign on several social justice issues and am familiar with methods of dismissing minority group's claims to decent treatment, tolerance and inclusion by blaming them for not presenting their issue in one way or another.

Foxy: "I would have thought that their (i.e the pollies) pursuit
of power is for them the ultimate aphrodisiac."

I'm still thinking about that. Wondering about women who gain power as well, some of whom show the same inclination IMO.

Beaut post as always.