Adam Clayton: Sexist bass comments

[TimR]

3 hours ago, cheddatom said:

 

Clearly there are a lot of people who want to hear what JP keeps pointing out, yourself included

 

Not really. I guess clearly there are a load of people who don't want to hear it either. I'm not really bothered. I watch people's behaviour I've not seen anything that contradicts what he says. Only people who don't like to believe men and women are different. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by TimR

[lemmywinks]

1 hour ago, TimR said:

 

The ones where men are on a normal distribution bigger, stronger and more prone to violence than women normally are. 

 

Look in the animal world and you'll see the same behaviours. 

 

You can pretend we are not animals. But all you're doing is pretending. 

 

 

Except lots of species show sexual dimorphism in the opposite way where females are far bigger, stronger and more aggressive, off the top of my head birds of prey, hyenas and a lot of amphibians. Please don't listen to Peterson when he talks about biological science, he knows even less about that than he knows about women and uses it entirely to prop up his religious beliefs around specific roles of men, nothing more. It isn't the insightful observation you seem to think it is.

 

 

Quite what this has to do with the trait of persistently using terms associated with weakness to describe women when we as conscious beings are perfectly capable of not doing that is beyond me, to say we are hardwired and incapable of change is to ignore the last century of history.

[Beer of the Bass]

5 minutes ago, lemmywinks said:

 

 

Except lots of species show sexual dimorphism in the opposite way where females are far bigger, stronger and more aggressive, off the top of my head birds of prey, hyenas and a lot of amphibians. Please don't listen to Peterson when he talks about biological science, he knows even less about that than he knows about women and uses it entirely to prop up his religious beliefs around specific roles of men, nothing more. It isn't the insightful observation you seem to think it is.

 

 

Quite what this has to do with the trait of persistently using terms associated with weakness to describe women when we as conscious beings are perfectly capable of not doing that is beyond me, to say we are hardwired and incapable of change is to ignore the last century of history.

 

It's downright silly applying the concept to bass playing too. If being a good bassist (or any other performer, or indeed any role) was a simple mechanical test of strength, then it would make sense. Otherwise we're just taking a very specific use of the word "strong" and conflating it with much more nebulous, cultural concepts associated with the word.

[shoulderpet]

On 06/12/2021 at 13:20, uk_lefty said:

I think it's worse than that. She put a video of this interview on twitter. Adam Clayton is on TV saying this stuff and she just goes "pr!ck." At the end. 

 

So the "journalist" has seen this few seconds long clip on twitter and written an article about it.

 

Where's the slow handclap emoji?

So apparently according to her the way to tackle sexism is to use a sexist retort....hmm double standard me thinks

[EBS_freak]

Two wrongs don't make a right and all that...

 

...but then again, you wouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight.

[BreadBin]

1 minute ago, shoulderpet said:

So apparently according to her the way to tackle sexism is to use a sexist retort....hmm double standard me thinks

Should she have called him a c*nt?

[EBS_freak]

2 minutes ago, BreadBin said:

Should she have called him a c*nt?

Derek and Clive placeholder.

[MacDaddy]

4 minutes ago, EBS_freak said:

Two wrongs don't make a right and all that...

 

...but then again, you wouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight.

 

He would...

 

[lemmywinks]

25 minutes ago, BreadBin said:

Should she have called him a c*nt?

 

New endorsement deal incoming for Mr Clayton?
https://www.thomann.de/gb/cuntz_guitars.html

[tegs07]

2 minutes ago, lemmywinks said:

 

New endorsement deal incoming for Mr Clayton?
https://www.thomann.de/gb/cuntz_guitars.html

Mr Cuntz makes fine guitars.

[TimR]

2 hours ago, lemmywinks said:

Except lots of species show sexual dimorphism in the opposite way where females are far bigger, stronger and more aggressive,

 

They do. And many don't. We are one species that doesn't. 

 

That has nothing to do with religion or Peterson. 

 

If an average human man went toe to toe with an average human girl. My money wouldn't be on the girl. And I'm pretty sure we had huge protest in London about this very fact, lead by women who seem to feel somewhat at risk from men. 

[Lozz196]

The human race evolved with the males being in general, bigger, stronger, and more violent, hence they became the providers. Females evolved to have a higher tolerance to pain which is very beneficial for childbirth, and to be more nurturing. Neither makes the other inferior, it’s the evolution of the animal over hundreds of thousands of years. Because that is what the human being is, an animal.

[lemmywinks]

2 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

They do. And many don't. We are one species that doesn't. 

 

That has nothing to do with religion or Peterson. 

 

If an average human man went toe to toe with an average human girl. My money wouldn't be on the girl. And I'm pretty sure we had huge protest in London about this very fact, lead by women who seem to feel somewhat at risk from men. 

 

You seem to be aligning smaller build with weakness or an inability to complete certain tasks. This is incorrect, just as a male goshawk is perfectly capable of hunting much larger and stronger animals than itself despite being substantially smaller and less powerful than its female counterpart. In a similar way Petersons assignment of specific gender roles and attitudes towards women is equally nonsensical and absolutely stems from his religious views. This is learned behaviour and in no way innate, Peterson himself is a classic example of this.

 

Also wait a minute, the recent Reclaim the Night Protests were about what now? Are you being deliberately stupid and creepy here or just trolling? If you are being serious that is an amazingly tone deaf take particularly given the thread you are posting in, although it would explain the Peterson thing.

 

The example you chose to use is one which basically outlines how we should 100% be looking into how we raise boys, how to identify/change certain patterns of behaviour and shows how much work we still have to do as a society in this area. The Sarah Everard case which triggered those protests wasn't due to her being physically overpowered btw, her attacker used his police warrant card and handcuffed her. 

[TimR]

10 minutes ago, lemmywinks said:

In a similar way Petersons assignment of specific gender roles and attitudes towards women

Except that he doesn't.

 

And neither did I. As Lozz says. That was one point I made since we are taking about that aspect of masculinity in this thread. 

 

But you'll find that is exactly what his detractors want you to think. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by TimR

[Stub Mandrel]

19 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

The human race evolved with the males being in general, bigger, stronger, and more violent, hence they became the providers. Females evolved to have a higher tolerance to pain which is very beneficial for childbirth, and to be more nurturing. Neither makes the other inferior, it’s the evolution of the animal over hundreds of thousands of years. Because that is what the human being is, an animal.

 

I think you'll find it's the other way around. The physical strength and aggression of males probably follows afrom a role in hunting versus nurturing and child raising. Women probably should be leaders not men. Lets face it, most women leaders in history have been at least reasonably successful

[Stub Mandrel]

12 minutes ago, lemmywinks said:

This is incorrect, just as a male goshawk is perfectly capable of hunting much larger and stronger animals than itself despite being substantially smaller and less powerful than its female counterpart.

 

But they do have distinct diets.

[lemmywinks]

12 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

The human race evolved with the males being in general, bigger, stronger, and more violent, hence they became the providers. Females evolved to have a higher tolerance to pain which is very beneficial for childbirth, and to be more nurturing. Neither makes the other inferior, it’s the evolution of the animal over hundreds of thousands of years. Because that is what the human being is, an animal.

 

 

All of this is pretty much irrelevant to the central point, which is to do with language and how some turns of phrase we may have been using without thinking about them seem quite sh1tty in the cold light of day. 

 

 

It is also markedly incorrect, as an aside if you want to look into human evolution and the roles of women then you may find it's far more complex and balanced than the simplified "man provide, woman breed" example you gave above. One Million Years BC is not a documentary, men weren't the heroic, prolific mammoth hunters and women weren't restricted to staying at home. Reviews of hunter-gather burials (which were all previously  assumed to be male) have shown that 30-50% were most likely female. 

[lemmywinks]

12 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

But they do have distinct diets.

 

Male and female gos will hunt the same prey. Both will take rabbits and pink torpedo pheasants which are pretty much the largest prey species for wild birds. Females will sometimes take hares as trained birds but avoid them in the wild. The sexual dimorphism in birds of prey is thought to be due to females spending longer on the nest and larger size is advantageous for keeping eggs warm and increased strength is beneficial for defending them. There's also some literature that shows prey items when birds are paired up and raising young may be more varied but by and large they hunt the same animals.

 

I have a relative they has flown these birds all his life until recently, he has hybrid falcons now.


EDIT As if the swear filter has blocked out "c0ck pheasants"!

Edited December 9, 2021 by lemmywinks

[lemmywinks]

1 minute ago, lemmywinks said:

duplicate

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by lemmywinks

[Lozz196]

I think the main thing is that hundreds of thousands of years can’t be undone by a dictionary 

[TimR]

Birds of prey live solo, and occasionally in pairs. 

 

Humans live in a structured society. 

 

Part of what gives that structure is we have stereotypes. If people try to conform to stereotypes (they can't, and some people are desperate to),  or other people try to pigeonhole  people according to stereotypes, then you have serious issues. 

 

Language and stereotypes are not the issue. Knee jerk solutions to perceived problems by well meaning people are not going to fix those problems in the way they think they will. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by TimR

[Seashell2]

Well, I'm glad that all you chaps are giving some thought to this issue.(Seriously, not being facetious). Ironical though that 6 pages of comment include very little input from female bass players. I have to confess to not reading all 6 pages, though I did see Silvia Bluejay's comment. Insightful as usual. Apologies to any other bass sisters I may have missed.

 

FWIW, I wasn't offended by AC's comments. A bit silly and schoolboyish perhaps, but nothing to really make my hackles rise. I prefer Jah Wobble's description of the bass as 'the predator' of the instruments. Sums it up nicely without resorting to sexism.😎

[la bam]

The title of the original article could easily be re titled as:

 

"Absolute nobody, who nobody has heard of, tries to use and insult rich mega star to try and progress her own career and interests, rather than letting her music do the talking".

 

[Geek99]

10 minutes ago, Seashell2 said:

Well, I'm glad that all you chaps are giving some thought to this issue.(Seriously, not being facetious). Ironical though that 6 pages of comment include very little input from female bass players. I have to confess to not reading all 6 pages, though I did see Silvia Bluejay's comment. Insightful as usual. Apologies to any other bass sisters I may have missed.

 

FWIW, I wasn't offended by AC's comments. A bit silly and schoolboyish perhaps, but nothing to really make my hackles rise. I prefer Jah Wobble's description of the bass as 'the predator' of the instruments. Sums it up nicely without resorting to sexism.😎

My 0.02 is that women are generally less strong but I’d never call them weaker 

tal wilkemfield is only normal sized but manages a whole gig on a full sized bass and good luck to her. 
AC is possibly not intending his comment to be taken generally but perhaps specifically with regard to his context of an all-male band? 

[Jonesy]

4 minutes ago, la bam said:

The title of the original article could easily be re titled as:

 

"Absolute nobody, who nobody has heard of, tries to use and insult rich mega star to try and progress her own career and interests, rather than letting her music do the talking".

 

 

It could also be changed to:

 

"Absolute nobody, who nobody has heard of, doesn't engage brain when speaking"

 

Granted Clayton is a lot more famous than Shah, but he's still a bass player and the majority of people wouldn't know who is and would walk past him on the street. 😆