More woke nonsense!

[WARSZAWA16]

Hidden Image/Members Only

[JontyR]

if they don’t like the way Roald wrote it, stop publishing the books.

And that would be better how?

Whoever owns the rights now are doing this not out of any massive wokeness but because they are protecting their investment. This is the commercial equivalent of curating art in museums, keeping it accessible for future generations. And will keep the cash rolling into the owners.

David Walliams probably won't be afforded the same treatment.

[DastardlyDick]

Read that earlier.

Expecting the Newspeak dictionary V1.1 to be out any time soon.

Yes, it's getting increasingly Orwellian out there - we'll have "unpersons" before we know it!

[myothernameis]

Yes, it's getting increasingly Orwellian out there - we'll have "unpersons" before we know it!

Sam Smith wishes his gender to be known as fisher-them 

[jackdaw]

And that would be better how?

Whoever owns the rights now are doing this not out of any massive wokeness but because they are protecting their investment. This is the commercial equivalent of curating art in museums, keeping it accessible for future generations. And will keep the cash rolling into the owners.

David Walliams probably won't be afforded the same treatment.

Of course, the rights holders are doing it for commercial reasons…greed.

But if they were faced with choice of leaving the text as Roald Dahl intended or ceasing publication, pretty sure the same driver would see them continue publishing with such “shocking” words as “fat” and “white” included.

And I think that would be a better outcome…Roald Dahl’s subversive humour is ill served by sanitising his works.

[bigden40]

And that would be better how?

Whoever owns the rights now are doing this not out of any massive wokeness but because they are protecting their investment. This is the commercial equivalent of curating art in museums, keeping it accessible for future generations. And will keep the cash rolling into the owners.

David Walliams probably won't be afforded the same treatment.

Netflix recently acquired the rights. 

Notwithstanding that Roald Dahl is quite offensive at times I do have an issue with the publishers rewriting his work and still presenting it as Dahl.

Having seen the examples of what’s changed it’s pretty dire stuff and I’m really not sure what problem they think they’re solving by not calling Augustus Gloop fat.

[Thephoenix]

A young relative was shopping in Primani recently and went to the fitting rooms to try stuff on.
On her last visit they were all unisex, but following complaints from some women, they were now indicated as 'Women Only' on one side, and 'Other Genders' on the other.
However anyone self identifying as a woman can use the women's side even if he's a 'man', and I assume dressed as a man..or not???
I assume you can self identify as a woman if the 'Other Genders' is full or if you're a pervert?

Is it sex discrimination to have a women's only, but not a men's only?

[RogerHealey]

Remember that mini series slid into The Two Ronnies series from the late 70s, 'The Worm That Turned?' Basically a send-up of the then perceived male dominated society where now women had the lead roles in marriage and beyond into the workplace and government with a police state run by Diana Dors (as I recall)l. Anyway, who's laughing now? That was woke-lite. And there's no Diana Does now.

[JontyR]

Netflix recently acquired the rights. 

Notwithstanding that Roald Dahl is quite offensive at times I do have an issue with the publishers rewriting his work and still presenting it as Dahl.

I get your point, but Dahl's works have all been altered for presentation to other audiences. For instance he wasn't supposedly a fan of Wilder's interpretation of Willy Wonka.

Similalry in the movie (shot in 1964) there were complaints about the look of the Oompa-Loompahs and the potential consideration of looking like African Slaves. That's why they are orange and green. 

[Blackpool Rock]

A young relative was shopping in Primani recently and went to the fitting rooms to try stuff on.
On her last visit they were all unisex, but following complaints from some women, they were now indicated as 'Women Only' on one side, and 'Other Genders' on the other.
However anyone self identifying as a woman can use the women's side even if he's a 'man', and I assume dressed as a man..or not???
I assume you can self identify as a woman if the 'Other Genders' is full or if you're a pervert?

Is it sex discrimination to have a women's only, but not a men's only?

Yes but don't bother complaining as men have been cancelled so nobody gives a shit 

[Stevelondon]

Yes but don't bother complaining as men have been cancelled so nobody gives a shit 

Beat me to it !!!

[JontyR]

Yes but don't bother complaining as men have been cancelled so nobody gives a shit 

Do you genuinely feel discriminated against or unsafe because of this?

[billybobsmith]

Do you genuinely feel discriminated against or unsafe because of this?

I feel discriminated against, or I would like to believe that it's my right as a man to feel so.

I do love the way that the "groups" that feel discriminated against are then the very people discriminating against others.  Hypocrites.

[JontyR]

I feel discriminated against, or I would like to believe that it's my right as a man to feel so.

I do love the way that the "groups" that feel discriminated against are then the very people discriminating against others.  Hypocrites.

Why do feel discriminated against as a man then? Is it because you can't use the women's changing rooms in Primark? Or is it because you are listed as "not a woman" by Primark? Or because women want to have a safe space - do you feel threatened when you go and try on clothes in Primark?

Seeing as you hate hypocricy at least I know it can't be that you are going out of your way to be offended on purpose. Or that you are exhibiting snowflake behaviours.

[jackdaw]

Why do feel discriminated against as a man then? Is it because you can't use the women's changing rooms in Primark? Or is it because you are listed as "not a woman" by Primark? Or because women want to have a safe space - do you feel threatened when you go and try on clothes in Primark?

Seeing as you hate hypocricy at least I know it can't be that you are going out of your way to be offended on purpose. Or that you are exhibiting snowflake behaviours.

Not upset about it in this case, but it’s patently an example of discrimination when women are provided with women only spaces, but men aren’t provided equivalent men only spaces.

If I was going into hospital think I’d prefer a men only ward…and if wasn’t offered that choice when women were being offered women only wards, I’d put a complaint in. Can you really not understand why some blokes feel this way?

[JontyR]

Not upset about it in this case, but it’s patently an example of discrimination when women are provided with women only spaces, but men aren’t provided equivalent men only spaces.

If I was going into hospital think I’d prefer a men only ward…and if wasn’t offered that choice when women were being offered women only wards, I’d put a complaint in. Can you really not understand why some blokes feel this way?

I just think that folks are looking to complain about stuff.

I'm lucky only to have been required to have one stop in hospital and I was with other blokes. I don't know if it were a specific mens ward or not. I reckon they will probably have people by gender first but they wouldn't guarantee it just because you don't know exactly what numbers of men and women you may have to treat. When I've visited folks in hospital I've not noticed.

Whilst Obs and Gynae and maternity would be women only by default, I'm struggling to see where there would be a need for men only wards. I'm guessing that if I went into hospital with massively swollen knackers then I'd probably be placed in a side room.  I'm also guessing that those who may have had their prostates done would be with other blokes too - there are respected posters here who will be able to advise if this is the case.

If I was in a ward with a lot of people and we'd all broken a wrist I wouldn't really care. Nor would I care if I was in intensive care.

Women generally who want safe spaces are that way because they may have been or are at fear of attack. Men generally want safe spaces because they are a bit embarrassed. I don't think the two equate. 

[Doc Holliday]

I just think that folks are looking to complain about stuff.

I'm lucky only to have been required to have one stop in hospital and I was with other blokes. I don't know if it were a specific mens ward or not. I reckon they will probably have people by gender first but they wouldn't guarantee it just because you don't know exactly what numbers of men and women you may have to treat. When I've visited folks in hospital I've not noticed.

Whilst Obs and Gynae and maternity would be women only by default, I'm struggling to see where there would be a need for men only wards. I'm guessing that if I went into hospital with massively swollen knackers then I'd probably be placed in a side room.  I'm also guessing that those who may have had their prostates done would be with other blokes too - there are respected posters here who will be able to advise if this is the case.

If I was in a ward with a lot of people and we'd all broken a wrist I wouldn't really care. Nor would I care if I was in intensive care.

Women generally who want safe spaces are that way because they may have been or are at fear of attack. Men generally want safe spaces because they are a bit embarrassed. I don't think the two equate.

Same sex wards were phased out circa 2010. There are some exceptions, one of which is ICU, but it is generally considered a breach if it happens and has to reported and justified.

When a family member was in Hospital last year on an acute medical assessment ward, she was moved beds three times in five days as the ratio of male/female admissions changed in order to accommodate this principle.