Gammons and Letterboxes

[TheCat]

So my weekly dose of Guardian reading has told me that many people are very upset about BoJo suggesting a muslim women in a burqa look a little like a 'letterbox'

At the same time, my learned progressive friends at the Guardian also delight in referring to angry, white, right-leaning folk as 'Gammons'....in light of the fact that their light skins turns pink with anger when discussing things such as immigration.

So...both terms are dismissed as a 'bit of a lighthearted joke' by those in favour of using them, while their opponents brand them as 'deeply offensive'....is one more acceptable than the other? are they both unacceptable? are they both acceptable?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think it's unlikely that people are being abused in the street for being white, middle aged men.

[edcam]

Easy. Johnson's comments are unacceptable, particularly in light of his well-documented racist past, his sure knowledge that this would provoke and embolden the less savoury elements of the far right and this cynical push to set himself up as the next PM in this current unpleasant atmosphere. Not to mention the evident racist and misogynist undertones of his comments. It also presents a danger to women who do wear the garment.

White men who get angry about anything that doesn't support Brexit doesn't compare. The people that qualify as Gammons will be offended by anything that wasn't white, straight and from before 1950. They have no idea what it's like to experience racism.

[diable rouge]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...right-leaning folk...

What a quaint little picture you've tried to paint there...

[JoeLeg]

What edcam said, exactly what edcam said.

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ...right-leaning folk...

>

> What a quaint little picture you've tried to paint

> there...

You do know that one can be 'right-leaning', and still be a rational, reasonable person. It doesn't mean they are a racist, misogynistic imperialist. Or is everyone who might disagree with some leftist sensibilities automaticaly a nazi to you?

[TheCat]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's unlikely that people are being abused

> in the street for being white, middle aged men.

I think that's a fair point of diferntation. If the comments incite intimidation and violence, then i'd agree it is of more concern.

Also, don't get me wrong, I understand that some minorities will suffer 'more' from prejudice. I'm just asking if two wrongs make a right. But, assuming true, I think your point is well made.

[diable rouge]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> diable rouge Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > TheCat Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > ...right-leaning folk...

> >

> > What a quaint little picture you've tried to

> paint

> > there...

>

> You do know that one can be 'right-leaning', and

> still be a rational, reasonable person. It doesn't

> mean they are a racist, misogynistic imperialist.

> Or is everyone who might disagree with some

> leftist sensibilities automaticaly a nazi to you?

Gammon aren't ''right leaning'' though, they're much further to the right in the spectrum. That was my point...

[TheCat]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>They have no idea what it's like to

> experience racism.

Or do they?

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1956574

[dbboy]

Yes and you could express an opinion that Boris looks like a penguin or a walrus, which is similar to him saying women in burka's look like a letter box. It was his OPINION which you may agree or disagree with. It got him three to four days worth of Free publicity from other reporting channels plus its become a topic on here.

[rendelharris]

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes and you could express an opinion that Boris

> looks like a penguin or a walrus, which is similar

> to him saying women in burka's look like a letter

> box. It was his OPINION which you may agree or

> disagree with. It got him three to four days worth

> of Free publicity from other reporting channels

> plus its become a topic on here.

Saying Johnson looks like a walrus, or indeed a delinquent warthog, might be personally offensive, but it would not be being offensive about an item central to his religious beliefs. There's a difference. I wonder if people would have been OK with someone ridiculing Sikhs' turbans, Hindu saris and bindis, Hasidic Jews' hats and ringlets, or Christian vestments? They're all, in their way, as silly/sacred, depending on your viewpoint, as a burka (my personal opinion is that they're all damned silly, but then I'm Godless and beyond redemption), but for some reason it's only the Muslims it seems acceptable to attack.

[flocker spotter]

kill this awful thread with the fire of gammon fury

[malumbu]

Thoughtful thread Cat. I'm glad I waited until after the Last Leg to post.

Boris set a trap and we fell for it. Just increasing his popularity among his core demographic, maybe picking up a few of the more traditional working class vote.

As for the question - gammon similarly feels like we (or many of us) are falling into a similar trap of simply name calling against the Brexiteers and the like.

Having said that I have been using 'angry of Tunbridge Wells' for years and this type of behaviour has long since parodied.

Don't diss this thread.

[dbboy]

OK, so you could have an opinion which you express that Boris is a gob on a stick journalist/MP who resembles a penguin or walrus, will that offend Boris, no as he is so thick skinned or a a community, No.

Had Boris mentioned other religions who wear religious clothing to identify they belong to a specific religion, the level of anger he has succeeded in causing would have been less, but he mentioned a specific group and in true Boris style put his foot squarely in his mouth, probably why Theresa was likely to sack him had he not resigned from the Cabinet. It created a wave of publicity and whether that was his intention or not, who knows but it got everyone in the press, on TV and Radio talking and discussing what he had written in the article, for the best part of a week.

I'm bored hearing and seeing this story replicate like the nasty little infection it has become, and would much prefer Boris's last newspaper article to be tomorrows fish and chip wrapper and end up where it and probably he deserves to be, binned one and for all.

[TheCat]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thoughtful thread Cat. I'm glad I waited until

> after the Last Leg to post.

>

> Boris set a trap and we fell for it. Just

> increasing his popularity among his core

> demographic, maybe picking up a few of the more

> traditional working class vote.

>

> As for the question - gammon similarly feels like

> we (or many of us) are falling into a similar trap

> of simply name calling against the Brexiteers and

> the like.

>

> Having said that I have been using 'angry of

> Tunbridge Wells' for years and this type of

> behaviour has long since parodied.

>

> Don't diss this thread.

And thanks for a thoughtful response malumbu.

For what it's worth my own opinion is that bojo has typically said something boorish to gain attention. And succeeded. Many people think it's offensive and inciting towards violence to Muslim women.....but i've yet to hear a Muslim burqa wearing woman express this opinion....that's not me trying to have a dig, and saying that they don't..I'm highlighting that the most vocal outrage comes from others bein 'offended' on behalf of a Muslim woman.

The issue with the Gammon thing is that I would wager that most people who fit into that category couldn't really give a toss if they get caled a Gammon. But I get frustrated by what I see as the hypocrisy of those people who feel (on behalf of others) that the former is deeply offensive, and the latter (on behalf of others) is nothing to worry about, as white middle aged men don't have feelings.

Yes, Muslim women suffer 'more' prejudice than middle-aged white men. But why should ANY prejudice be acceptablle? If you condemn the first, you really shouldn't delight in use of the second

[JoeLeg]

While you make good points Cat, I still find it difficult to feel sympathy for a section of society which does, whatever we say, suffer far FAR less from endemic prejudice and bigotry than others.

I could write endless tiresome pages on my feelings about racism in the modern age, but that would annoy everyone else so I?ll keep it to this; just last week three young white guys liberally tossed the ?n-word? at my wife in the little convenience store on Wood Vale. It?s 2018, in south London, and that crap is STILL going on. It was in front of our 8 year old daughter as well.

You are right that there is a moral equivalence between the use of various terms based on skin colour, and none are acceptable. But the balance of abuse, as it were, is still very much in one direction and it?s really hard to argue otherwise. As another thread on here clearly demonstrates, it is not all one way and I don?t for one second advocate that it is anything other than abhorrent.

But I have trouble putting someone being called a gammon into the same category as those poor people who posted in the Adys Road thread.

[malumbu]

Just seen the Rees Mogg headline about a show trial, can#t be assed to read it but the point is right, and all a distraction from the general mire we are in (but perhaps indicative of this).

To get on my soap box I hate what I believe has happened in the last couple of years with the polarisation of society and the move towards 'popularism' on both the left and right. We had a blip in the 90s with the lad and ladette culture but that didn't manifest itself in racism. On the contrary giving Bromley as an example I take great pleasure in amusing/cutting remarks about boring suburbia, monoculture, right wing, the chattering classes moving there for the school. But in reality it moved like most of the rest of society and has become more tolerant and multicultural (OK still small town violence at the weekend....)

But was having this conversation with friends near Cambridge - intellectual liberal area, albeit not diverse.... What polarisation of society they said. Wonder which one of us was living in a bubble.

Disclaimer, apologies for the discursive post.

[diable rouge]

If gammon was a term exclusively thrown about by non-white people at white people, then you could class it as a racist term, but it's not. Apparently it's a descriptive term originally used by Dickens. Today it's mainly white Remainers using it as a derogatory term against white Brexiters losing their shit. Snowflake is a similar put-down used by Brexiters. Ironic how snowflakey Brexiters have become with the use of gammon.

The problem I have with Johnson's article is that there was just no reason to say what he did about letterboxes and bank robbers. He main point was that the burka etc shouldn't be banned, which should be applauded. So why did he feel the need to say something 'jokey' that came right out of a '70's sitcom? It wasn't an off-the-cuff remark, this was something that he deliberately wrote down, presumably that was proof-read, edited etc. Despite the bumbling buffoon persona, he's anything but, journalism was his trade, albeit not a very good one. So one can only assume that this was a deliberate attempt to push the boundaries, see what he can get away with and appeal to a certain Tory grassroots demographic as part of his leadership bid. Fine, but not when it has consequences for ordinary Muslim women going about their daily lives, who will now have more Islamophobic threats and insults thrown at them. Johnson is a complete and utter coont for promoting that, and deserves to be called out for it...

[flocker spotter]

White british middle aged men have beeen dealt a pretty good hand in life generally- society caters to their needs and demands over all else. Being called gammon is pretty low bar of insult to people who have had it all their own way all their lives

[TheCat]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> White british middle aged men have beeen dealt a

> pretty good hand in life generally- society caters

> to their needs and demands over all else. Being

> called gammon is pretty low bar of insult to

> people who have had it all their own way all their

> lives

And that right there is prejudice. While overall one may argue that other groups may suffer more often, just because one is born a certain sex and skin colour does not mean that if they have a grievance it should be dismissed out of hand becuase of the 'group' they are identified as coming from. Who are you to prejudge someone's life experience based on the colour of their skin?...I think there's a word for that.....

We can fight for equality for minorities, while still being respectful of all people, and acknowledge the challenges and difficulties that every person may face from time to time, surely?

[TheCat]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> While you make good points Cat, I still find it

> difficult to feel sympathy for a section of

> society which does, whatever we say, suffer far

> FAR less from endemic prejudice and bigotry than

> others.

>

> I could write endless tiresome pages on my

> feelings about racism in the modern age, but that

> would annoy everyone else so I?ll keep it to this;

> just last week three young white guys liberally

> tossed the ?n-word? at my wife in the little

> convenience store on Wood Vale. It?s 2018, in

> south London, and that crap is STILL going on. It

> was in front of our 8 year old daughter as well.

>

> You are right that there is a moral equivalence

> between the use of various terms based on skin

> colour, and none are acceptable. But the balance

> of abuse, as it were, is still very much in one

> direction and it?s really hard to argue otherwise.

> As another thread on here clearly demonstrates, it

> is not all one way and I don?t for one second

> advocate that it is anything other than

> abhorrent.

>

> But I have trouble putting someone being called a

> gammon into the same category as those poor people

> who posted in the Adys Road thread.

A good post. And I would agree, that the 'balance' if definitley to skewed one way. No argument against that from me at all. As I point out above, it is those people who claim to be champions of equality, who then let themselves down by excusing namecalling and abuse of groups of people they beleive 'deserve' it or 'can handle it'

[flocker spotter]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> flocker spotter Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > White british middle aged men have beeen dealt

> a

> > pretty good hand in life generally- society

> caters

> > to their needs and demands over all else. Being

> > called gammon is pretty low bar of insult to

> > people who have had it all their own way all

> their

> > lives

>

> And that right there is prejudice. While overall

> one may argue that other groups may suffer more

> often, just because one is born a certain sex and

> skin colour does not mean that if they have a

> grievance it should be dismissed out of hand

> becuase of the 'group' they are identified as

> coming from. Who are you to prejudge someone's

> life experience based on the colour of their

> skin?...I think there's a word for that.....

>

> We can fight for equality for minorities, while

> still being respectful of all people, surely?

You agenda is pretty transparent. well done

[TheCat]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > flocker spotter Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > White british middle aged men have beeen

> dealt

> > a

> > > pretty good hand in life generally- society

> > caters

> > > to their needs and demands over all else.

> Being

> > > called gammon is pretty low bar of insult to

> > > people who have had it all their own way all

> > their

> > > lives

> >

> > And that right there is prejudice. While

> overall

> > one may argue that other groups may suffer more

> > often, just because one is born a certain sex

> and

> > skin colour does not mean that if they have a

> > grievance it should be dismissed out of hand

> > becuase of the 'group' they are identified as

> > coming from. Who are you to prejudge someone's

> > life experience based on the colour of their

> > skin?...I think there's a word for that.....

> >

> > We can fight for equality for minorities, while

> > still being respectful of all people, surely?

>

>

> You agenda is pretty transparent. well done

What? the agenda to ask you to actually think about your hypocrisy, instead of just regurgitating slogans about 'privelige' back at me?

If you can't objectively understand that we don't defeat prejudice against one group by accepting it against another. Then i'd suggest it's not me with the 'agenda'....

[flocker spotter]

argueing liberal tolerance on behalf of a group who entire reason for being is the living embodiment of intolerance does strike me as being rather agenda driven. apply the same reasoning to other known intolerant groupings and your strawman falls flat on its face. I could be wrong but that is a pretty rare occurence. good luck.

[TheCat]

I think you're starting to confuse someone who has actually shown intolerance, with someone who is from the same 'tribe' as a person who has shown intolerance....

If you can sit there and confidently say that every person who has ever been branded a Gammon is the living embodiment of intolerance....then fair enough. But that fact that you think you can is the definition of prejudice. So good luck with that