another show that I vaguely recall on the BBC from a few years back....

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/b...st-1006188.php

imagine if this was inverted? the BBC would have been firebombed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4457416.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4200442.stm

"It was clear from the context that the programme was not seriously proposing a demeaning view of men - Ofcom"

"the BBC said it would have been apparent to most viewers that stereotypes were being gently sent up rather than endorsed."

Aye! right! of course it's all a bit of a laugh when men are being ridiculed, no harm done, eh?

Quote from chris1970

another show that I vaguely recall on the BBC from a few years back....

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/b...st-1006188.php

imagine if this was inverted? the BBC would have been firebombed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4457416.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/4200442.stm

"It was clear from the context that the programme was not seriously proposing a demeaning view of men - Ofcom"

"the BBC said it would have been apparent to most viewers that stereotypes were being gently sent up rather than endorsed."

Aye! right! of course it's all a bit of a laugh when men are being ridiculed, no harm done, eh?

It was so interesting and so revealing and ever so predictable that no reader comments facility was available on any of those BBC links whereas they mostly are when any other kind of topic is being reported upon. I have noticed this time and a time again whenever the issue involves such a "sensitive" and "emotive" subject such as the one being discussed in this particular thread - "perceived anti male sexism". The reason for this is obvious - a flood of angry males "whingeing and whining" is the very last thing the BBC wants to see in response to any such issue, especially when many of the comments may - oh the horror of it, God forbid! - include rants about rampant feminism and a very apparent pro female bias in present day British society.

I have witnessed the same in BBC phone in programs or on the galling Wimmin's Hour program - wimmin are given full air time to bitchily squeal and squawk their misandry at high decibel level while at the same time any anti female protestations voiced by males are either brought to a halt poste haste or are simply screeched over with a whole lot of twisted and inconsequential verbal gob$hite banality.

I heard some geezer bang on about the f*****g BBC on BBC Radio Five Live today, hosted by that muppet Victoria Derbyshire - Victoria Derbyshire, a Long Haired Leftie from Liverpool. This bloke on Dingbat Derbyshire's slot said, in all seriousness, that the BBC is...wait for it and prepare to wet yourselves, or worse, here....."the most respected, most admired, most balanced and fairminded Broadcasting Agency in the whole world!"

Yes, honestly!

What ******* planet is he living on? Not the same one as me and that's for sure!

"the most respected, most admired, most balanced and fairminded Broadcasting Agency in the whole world!"

I wonder how much they paid him

This was broadcast this evening. I managed to catch most of the programme and it inspired me to write this article:

http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/...-audience.html

Quote from johnkimble1

This was broadcast this evening. I managed to catch most of the programme and it inspired me to write this article:

http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/...-audience.html

An excellent piece John.

I was similarly encouraged to see much of the discussion remain current and not deviate into female victimhood. Although it was telling at the end, one woman remarked like a little schoolgirl how they'd behaved and hadn't spent the whole time discussing 'women's issues.' We're so grateful for small mercies.

It was enjoyable to see Caroline Flint (Labour) attempting to wriggle out of contradictions that David Dimbleby highlighted about her.

The one negative aspect was how the general consensus, both on the panel and in the audience, that quotas to get more women in parliament was ok.

As I've mentioned previously, a 'representative' number of female politicians isn't required, as male politicians have been chivalrously lobbying for womens concerns (at the detriment of men's) since the inception of parliament itself (read Belfort Bax's 1908 book THE LEGAL SUBJECTION OF MEN http://menstribune.com/Belfort_Bax.html ). The reality is, more women in politics will only exacerbate the dire legal and social status of men.

And yes, the most nauseating example of a grovelling mangina was Monty Don at the end, suggesting that an all-female parliament wouldn't be a bad thing (so how many tyrannical feminists like Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt, Diane Abbot, Tessa Jowell or any of the 'Blair's Babes' would that equate to in terms of eroding democracy itself via a runaway gynocentric agenda?), and to cap it off the previously fiery Kelvin Mackenzie temporarily lost his balls also and agreed.

Quote from Celtic Druid

The one negative aspect was how the general consensus, both on the panel and in the audience, that quotas to get more women in parliament was ok.

Well it wasn't much of a consensus. Several women in the audience condemned them, and you'll actually find that Jo Swinson of the Lib Dems is an extremely vocal opponent of such nonsense.

The MPs were merely towing the party line, with the Tory woman stating she had previously been against them but they were now going to "give them a go".

Any consensus was extremely weak and only a result of the pressures resulting form teh make up of the audience which prevented people from expressing their opinions fully.