Can we use ban-tar


#1

I’ve been intrigued by the latest from the US Presidential nonsense.
So what Donald Trump makes a comment like he did, I wouldn’t mind betting that many of his detractors have said similar and done worse. His only crime is to say it, years ago, when a camera was there. In today’s world it would be difficult to say or do things when a camera isn’t there. I know that in evenings in the pub and elsewhere among mates ban-tar has been in evidence used along similar lines. One of my mates had an overnight bag in his boot permanently, just in case, and it was useful to him, more than once.

Oh yes and the ladies from experience are far worse than blokes. I bet Mrs Clinton has been involved in things on girlie nights out that she is thankful for no cameras in evidence.


#2

Ah good. Defending misogyny.

Glad you’re in a youth organisation.


#3

Defending it, no, just seeing from both sides. I just hope people who denegrate Trump are Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Squeaky Clean on all fronts of making any sort of comments in private. Are you PeP? I know I’m not and neither is my wife and children. I’ve worked predominately with women all of my working life and we give as good as we get, which if filmed or recorded would raise some eyebrows, especially on a Friday afternoon. As I say women are much, much worse than men.

Remember Mrs Clinton stuck to her meal ticket, I mean husband, when he admitted worse 20 or so years ago, which makes her far more mysogenistic IMO. I know people who have been in the divorce courts for similar to Mr Clinton’s actions, but they weren’t the husband of a woman who thought if defend him and overlook this and hang around I can use this to my benefit. If she’d filed for divorce he’d have been political toast and she’d be nowhere and she knew it. So who’s worse, a bloke who makes an off the cuff remark that billions of men throughout history will have done similarly or a woman who overlooks her hubbies indiscretions so she can benefit from it?

I can see Clinton as President but not because she’s the best option, but because she wins the ballot box, closed eyes “ip dip” or shutting of eyes and making a mark.


#4

You seem to be focusing on the fact that he made the comments in private. It doesn’t matter one bit when, where or how he said what he did, the fact is he said them (and clearly believes them rather than just “having a laugh”, if you also take in to account reports from various women to have worked for him).

I’ve never said I was brilliant and perfect. But I’m not attempting to be leader of the free world.

I doubt Hillary is perfect either, but she’s not quite as bad as the raving lunatic opposing her.


#5

So how do we get Teflon thrown out the Corps?


#6

I’m not skweaky clean, but race, sex, religion etc isn’t banter, it’s a word which cannot be written on here. People of a certain generation think it’s OK, like my late grandfather. However even he knew that he had to turn it off later in life. Some of the over privileges oiks and the wannabes now use the word “bants” when in actual fact they need a get of out jail free card just in case it gets take wrong. It used to be, “I’m not a racist/sexist but…”


#7

I don’t know how I am somehow defending mysogeny. This latest thing has been discussed in the tea bar and office (more entertaining the leaving the EU) and practically everyone here has said why does it matter, including most of the women, there are a couple who get all placard wavy over nearly everything, who everyone ignores. All the women berate Clinton and do not regard her as being a good woman or female role model. The general view is Trump’s a berk with poor judgement for letting it get filmed, but being a berk doesn’t exclude people from holding public office, people voted for Blair. As for reports from women who worked for Trump getting uppity, a pinch of salt is required, as they are probably didn’t work there long and are looking for their Warhole moment.

When does banter (or bar talk, locker room talk etc) of all subjects, stop being banter and does it mean, we being in a youth organisation can’t indulge in it? Too late.

Does it matter wrt public figures what they did in the past, especially if offends modern styled sensibilities. Based on this I bet there are things being done on/via social media that come back to haunt people 10, 20, 30 years down the line, given that people are all too willing to take photos and videos and put them out there. We’ve warned our kids to be ultra cautious about what they do etc etc as employers increasingly scan social media when job applications come in.

I think we get too caught up on things (aided and abetted by the media) and put things from the past, when it wouldn’t have been regarded as a problem, into a modern context and become overly moralistic about it. Should be put a modern spin on things or should we view them as being of their time? It strikes me that Love Thy Neighbour isn’t repeated, but anyone who watched knows how it always ended up. So why not repeat it? My mum and dad are still, by modern standards, a bit naughty, but IMO they are old enough to not to have to worry. The kids comment to me about it, but, they get on really well with the African couple that live next door, they’re always coming round to see them, so you take what they say with a pinch.

Why should I be thrown out? Surely we should take a broad view on things as we are supposedly helping guide youngsters through the maze of their teenage years. If you take a narrow perspective you ain’t doin’ 'em any favours. Our dinner table was and is still a hotbed of questions and debates.


#8

Neither of these people are fit to run a bath let alone a country.

To be quite frank what Trump said in private doesn’t make any difference to my opinion of him (which couldn’t get much lower) & it’s not affected him with the American voters where he is still steady at 44% to 48%. (despite what our press would have you believe). No matter what your view on people’s private thoughts he has said enough in public (often contradicting other things he has said in public) that demonstrates he isn’t fit to be president.

Unfortunately the alternative is arguably even worse, we have the person who as Secretary of State was instrumental in the post Gadaffi Libya and the early days of the Syria conflict, a person who has to take a huge amount of the blame for the rise of IS. If Trump is unfit because of his words she is unfit because of her actions as arguably the worst Secretary of State since Dean Rusk. (Oh and Trump is quite right when he says that her husband is one of the worst sexual predators ever in modern American politics, $850,000 to keep one complainant out of court).

It’s like being in a position where you have to choose between Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, oh wait…


#9

Did you actually watch the video Teflon? I’m struggling to see how you relate to it as “banter”, unless you are one of those people who don’t really understand how banter is supposed to work. What Trump was saying wasn’t banter, he wasn’t poking fun at someone and getting made fun of in return. Trump was openly explaining (albeit in a jokey way) how as a celebrity he can get away with coming onto women, kissing them, and grabbing them in the pussy. The guy is an old perve who doesn’t have an eloquent bone in his body.

Hilary is useless as well, but at least she has some political experience and is therefore more qualified for the job.


#10

Interesting facial book quote: Dismissing trumps comments as locker room humour is the reason people like Brock Turner do what they do.


#11

Following this conversation with interest. This is a Facebook post I read today, which might explain why some people feel so strongly about the issues around Trump’s comments https://www.facebook.com/david.gerrold/posts/10209417186918968:

About ten years ago, I was managing a seminar for one of the best trainers in the world. There’s an exercise called Secrets. The room is darkened and then everybody in the room, including most of the staff, has to put their hands over their eyes, or put their heads down on their desk.

Then the trainer goes through a list of questions.

“If you have ever … raise your hand.”

Because I was the course manager, I had to keep my eyes open to make sure the room stayed safe. So I was able to see how many hands went up for each question.

Most of the questions were gentle, even harmless, but all of the questions were designed to be cathartic. But a number of the questions cut right down to the bone.

There are things people carry around inside, a lot of hurt and guilt and shame and fear, but there’s no safe place to unload those feelings, so the exercise allows some relief. The participants get to keep their secrets safe, but they get to acknowledge that they are holding these things that keep gnawing at them – they get to own that part of their identity.

This particular time, however, when the trainer asked questions about abuse, about rape, about violence – nearly every woman in the room raised her hand.

Now this was not a unique group of women. These were adult women of all ages, from early twenties to late sixties. Some were students, others were working women. Some were married, others were single or divorced. Some were highly skilled professionals. Some were strong family women.

“Have you ever been raped?” “Have you ever been molested?” “Have you ever been the target of physical or emotional abuse?” “Have you ever been made to feel ashamed of your identity?” “Have you ever held yourself back…?”

And worse.

Observing this for the first time, I felt tears running down my cheeks because of the level of pain in the room. All those pale hands, silent in the dark. A testimony of unspoken hurt. I felt my chest tightening and my heart pounding – I felt myself getting angry, as angry as I felt when my son finally confessed to me how he had suffered at the hands of an abusive foster-parent. I wanted to find the perp and hurt back.

But no – all I could do was remain a silent witness. Stunned and horrified.

Later … much later, when the trainer and I went out to dinner, I had to ask. “Is this normal? All these women?” He said, “Sometimes it’s worse.”

Ever since that moment, I have had to look at women differently – with the knowledge that I am living among a population that is very much carrying a burden of oppression – not unlike the Jews in Nazi Germany, not unlike the slaves in the pre-civil war south. Not unlike so many populations here in this country and around the world.

White male privilege allows white males to exist in a bubble of ignorance and illusion. I have to generalize here, but I’m pretty sure that most men have no idea and even less understanding of just how steeply the landscape has been tilted – just how much (through our unconsciousness) we are deliberately punishing half the human race.

This week, what has been most appalling to me about Donald Trump’s despicable confession of being a sexual predator … is not the various defenses of those who are trapped in his sinking lifeboat with him. No – what’s appalling to me is how few men are able to understand that what Trump spoke about was the “normal” that women experience every day. What is appalling to me is how few men are enraged.

I have been simmering, smoldering, and finally boiling with anger the more I consider his words. I can’t get them out of my head. I can’t escape them. Despite my pacifist leanings, I still want to punch that vile ■■■■■■■ in the face with a jackhammer. Words are insufficient.

And if I’m feeling that way, I cannot imagine how the women who have heard those words are feeling. This isn’t a once-in-a-while occurrence. This is … just another Tuesday.

Sidebar: There’s a story about the filming of Django Unchained – that Leonardo DiCaprio was having trouble with all the racist language he had to speak. He wanted to apologize for it. But Samuel L. Jackson (allegedly) said, “Hey, Motherfucker. This is just another Tuesday for us.”

Well, I’m tired of Tuesday – and the rest of the week as well.

I grew up in a time when anti-semitism was freely expressed. I grew up in a time and lived in an environment where anti-gay sentiments were freely expressed. And eventually, that sensitized me to a lot of other prejudices – anti-black and anti-Muslim and anti-Native American, and so on.

But it wasn’t until that moment in that training room that I realized what a pernicious vile crime against women we have allowed in our culture.

Women alone will not be the solution here. It is up to men, good men, strong men, compassionate men, to draw a line in the sand and redefine what it means to be a man – and that can no longer include the reduction of women from their rightful place as leaders and partners in our society.

Trump is only a symptom. The real disease still festers in the rest of us.


#12

I don’t disagree with that view Prune.

However to berate a Trump and treating him as an isolated incident is intellectually dishonest his words/attitudes and potentially his actions (no one has made an actual allegation to make them more than just words) are not unique to him or the US.

You just need to look at the current trial of Ched Evans and any number of other football related scandals. Yiu will hear similar words in every Sunday league locker room, every rugby club, every cricket club, in the Police it’s used to be called “canteen/carrier culture” in the forces it’s just referred to as Banter.

Does this prevalence make it right? Of course it bloody doesn’t, but does it make it a genuine issue that will affect the US election result, nope. (No matter how desperate the Gruadiand are to see see Trump dead and buried).

Feminists weren’t going to vote Trump anyway and your average voter will be so exposed to this attitude that it won’t change their votes, at least not when the alternative is Clinton who is married to and has stood by/defended a man accused of multiple sexual offences. (He might never have been charged but mud sticks and no smoke without fire etc)


#13

This has been a topic of discussion in our form and the opinions have been more divided than we anticipated. We thought the kids would be all against Trump, we got that wrong.
They identified Trump’s comment as very much alive in the playground among both sexes, which given the modern proclivaties we try and instil was a surprise, but then again human nature is what human nature does.
One the 6th Form did a bit of digging on Hils and Bill and her opinion on Hilary Clinton was an amazing attack. An attack in terms of a woman who wrongly defended her husband’s actions in terms of his admitted acts, as far as she’s concerned she should have divorced him, but that didn’t suit Hilary Clinton’s personal ambition needs. Her opinion is that Hilary Clinton is not a woman of any integrity and shouldn’t even be allowed anywhere near political offices, even as a cleaner. Her parents divorced recently because of her mum betraying her family, just like Bill Clinton did his.


#14

“Bantar” is only banter when everyone involved sees the light-hearted she of the conversation. talking about grabbing women by the pussy and working like a bitch to F a woman is not banter, in any sense, especially from a 59+ year old. Such behaviour and language is undoubtedly far more prevalent than just an arrogant, out-of-touch, foul-mouthed Presidential candidate but that does not make it acceptable. In a month’s time, one of these two is going to be elected as the most powerful individual in the world - they have a huge global responsibility. Trump has demonstrated, on numerous occasions that he lacks any form of tact and diplomacy and is unfit to be a Global Statesman; he will bully the world in a manner far more destructive than Putin. Like it or not, the President of the USA has far wider-ranging responsibilities than 50 pesky states. If America chooses him as their next president, they will have re-wound the clock 50 years or so; dangerous, very dangerous.

Of course, Hilary isn’t exactly a perfect example of what a president should be, not by a long shot. Perhaps the saying “God Bless America” should be re-worded to “God Help America”.

Intersting and destabilising times.


#15

Not everyone involved when banter is flying around is in a happy place wrt it.

It might be considered as banter by many to deride a person while they are there. A mate of mine saw a hit on numbers at his sqn and was the butt of jokes in his presence that were regarded as banter, but he took it personally. Banter?? I never got involved as it was ‘a by the grace of god there go I’ moment. I wouldn’t have blamed him if he’s snouted a couple of them.

As for what people do when they get into power. I remember Obama was going to do all manner of things, but no doubt found that once in the chair it’s not possible for any number of reasons. So whichever one of these gets in, they’ll find the same. It’s the same in any walk of life or position; big ideas, visions and plans until you’re there and reality bites.


#16

I agree with almost all of your post except this sentence. The attitudes were there long before our culture. Man evolved from lesser animals where male dominance probably contributed to our evolution by tending towards the survival of the fittest; it helped form tribes that defended against predators both human and otherwise. That is in our DNA. That is not an excuse for the behaviour now and we must all control it. The fact that you feel violent towards the perpetrators is another aspect of this. You, clearly, control this which is right and proper and it is up to all of us to build a society that controls the behaviour effectively. I do agree that not choosing an idiot, who thinks this is acceptable, to lead the Western World might be a first step.

As for racism, remember that for millennia if you met a man from another tribe, one who looked a little different, the chances were that if you didn’t kill him, he would kill you. That is in our history and to understand that is the first step to overcoming racism. I am reminded of two VGSs forced to share the same patch of grass, the most effective use of which would have been to co-operate. They didn’t, they parked their caravans several hundred yards apart, did opposite direction circuits, and did not even speak on a regular basis. The only difference between them was not skin colour or religion, but the squadron number on their flying suits.


#17

This applies equally to both current presidential candidates.

Gracie I take it your course was all women and probably selected to be there. Where’s the balance? Personally I refuse to take part in this sort of nonsense unless it is central to the course.

As a man I’ve been groped in pubs/clubs under the guise of it being alright because it’s a hen night, embarrassed by comments of women and actions where for the latter I pushed the woman away only to get a string of ‘docker language’, so get on message that it’s not just men who do things and act in this way. We’ve had female managers and they are much worse than any man in similar positions as they think they have to overcompensate. It’s not just ‘privileged white males’, white women are no different and in the black and Asian communities men and women aren’t squeaky clean, but that doesn’t fit with the Guardianistas view of the world. But it’s easier to blame white men for every ill known to man.

As a child of the 60s I grew up in a world like you mention, but that’s how it was and you cracked on. It was there and mostly ignored, we laughed at what was on the TV etc because it as humerous and still is. Don’t say it doesn’t go on today, in a different way because it does.

Sitting there in your little bubble of feminine perfection is doing you no favours. People like you stopped me during the 90s opening doors and being generally courteous to women in general, because of the attitude displayed to me. I thought sod 'em open your on door etc even if you are struggling.


#18

There’s unfortunately too much garbage in this post to reply to effectively.

If I had the time and more importantly the will, I would answer what you’ve written there. As I don’t, and as I’m a moderator and not really supposed to be rude to people, the best you’re going to get is this:

“I have read your message and I have nothing more to add”.


#19

I assume that by posting a link which I thought gave a fair reflection on why people are upset/irritated/annoyed by the comments made by Trump and his ilk would add to the conversation. Who said that I am sat in a little bubble of feminine perfection? You make assumptions about me and my age! This is the pertinent bit at the start of the post, which should explain why I put it up, it was someone’s opinion and, to the best of my knowledge, a male one at that! I found it interesting and hoped others would:

“Following this conversation with interest. This is a Facebook post I read today, which might explain why some people feel so strongly about the issues around Trump’s comments https://www.facebook.com/david.gerrold/posts/102094171869189681:

I am a child of the 60’s, and I hope that the world we live in is more even, equal and caring to every human being. But I find myself needing to prepare my daughters for the world in a way that I didnt my sons.


#20

One of the kids made a couple of quite astute observations

  1. Trump hasn’t learned the art of thinking before speaking, where as Clinton who has become part of the US political elite looking to create a Kennedy style dynasty says things that are fully measured and prepared in public and probably has a completely different set of conversations in private
    I would say this comes from his business life. In his position he can probably be quite bombastic as if someone doesn’t want his investment, someone else will.
  2. Don’t say or do anything on camera or spoken word (and they included social media) that can be used in the future against you.

Another 6th Former said they’ve been comparing the American and British election processes as part of their sociology course. One of the biggest differences they’ve seen is the money involved and how especially in America lots of rich people like to give money in the hope their support will bring them a bit more money and success. They said one of their class suggested that Trump is only standing to disrupt the Republicans and ensure Clinton gets in and will be handsomely rewarded afterwards. Who says kids today aren’t engaged. I’ve always thought the former and the latter is food for thought, after all the Clintons are ethically and morally bereft (say one thing and do another) and I wouldn’t put it past her to do anything to get the top job. As has been said here and elsewhere she overlooked her husbands indiscretions.