Planet Rugby Forum

Seneca of the Night wrote:I don't think I've ever read anything more horrifying in a newspaper in all my life:

At its most crowded point, the 4.22am from Glasgow to Manchester airport was the UK's most overcrowded service

Can you imagine being on that?

sockwithaticket wrote:Jesus, how low is the click traffic that you need that sort of headline?

danny_fitz wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:Jesus, how low is the click traffic that you need that sort of headline?

Its a curious business model. Giving their content away for free while hoping that begging and writing clickbait articles will draw in advertising revenue despite losing money year on year.

c69 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

She is clearly a misandrist

Twenty-one of the 30 women killed by strangers were murdered in terrorist attacks, which some feminists have linked to male violence towards women on account of the number of men convicted of terror attacks who also have a history of domestic violence.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

4071 wrote:

c69 wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

She is clearly a misandrist

She has a point, if you consider how she defines crimes of misogyny.

In her earlier piece about violence against women:

Twenty-one of the 30 women killed by strangers were murdered in terrorist attacks, which some feminists have linked to male violence towards women on account of the number of men convicted of terror attacks who also have a history of domestic violence.

If terror attacks are crimes of misogyny, then I would also prefer the police to investigate them rather than burglary.


On the other hand, it may be that these articles are just the twisted brain-wrongs of a mental.

JM2K6 wrote:Like that incel guy?

fatcat wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Like that incel guy?

One of the ones who were coveting 72 virgins, or the other one?

fatcat wrote:I don't read Reddit and never have, unless it's a link I've clicked on I guess. I'm not aware of any incel terrorists, although I remember one prat recording a video in his car complaining about not being able to pull girls. I can;t remember what crime he committed though.

JM2K6 wrote:

fatcat wrote:I don't read Reddit and never have, unless it's a link I've clicked on I guess. I'm not aware of any incel terrorists, although I remember one prat recording a video in his car complaining about not being able to pull girls. I can;t remember what crime he committed though.

Alek "The Incel Rebellion has already begun" Minassian (10 killed), who followed Elliot Rodger's deeply misogynistic manifesto (6 killed), as did Nikolas Cruz (17 killed). Dimitrios Pagourtzis (10 killed) wasn't quite the same but his was triggered after being publicly rejected by the girl he harassed for months.

It's also a common theme for domestic violence to feature in the backgrounds of various terrorist types, Islamic or otherwise.

fatcat wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

fatcat wrote:I don't read Reddit and never have, unless it's a link I've clicked on I guess. I'm not aware of any incel terrorists, although I remember one prat recording a video in his car complaining about not being able to pull girls. I can;t remember what crime he committed though.

Alek "The Incel Rebellion has already begun" Minassian (10 killed), who followed Elliot Rodger's deeply misogynistic manifesto (6 killed), as did Nikolas Cruz (17 killed). Dimitrios Pagourtzis (10 killed) wasn't quite the same but his was triggered after being publicly rejected by the girl he harassed for months.

It's also a common theme for domestic violence to feature in the backgrounds of various terrorist types, Islamic or otherwise.

A quick Wiki reveals nothing that would suggest misogyny as being a primary reason for the last two guys.

JM2K6 wrote:

fatcat wrote:I don't read Reddit and never have, unless it's a link I've clicked on I guess. I'm not aware of any incel terrorists, although I remember one prat recording a video in his car complaining about not being able to pull girls. I can;t remember what crime he committed though.

Alek "The Incel Rebellion has already begun" Minassian (10 killed), who followed Elliot Rodger's deeply misogynistic manifesto (6 killed), as did Nikolas Cruz (17 killed). Dimitrios Pagourtzis (10 killed) wasn't quite the same but his was triggered after being publicly rejected by the girl he harassed for months.

It's also a common theme for domestic violence to feature in the backgrounds of various terrorist types, Islamic or otherwise.

JM2K6 wrote:Well, I'm glad your quick google has convinced you.

Items recovered by police at the scene included gun magazines with swastikas carved in them. One student reported that Cruz had drawn a swastika and the words "I hate niggers" on his backpack.[86] CNN reported that Cruz was in a private Instagram group chat where he expressed racist, homophobic, antisemitic, and anti-immigrant (xenophobic) views. He said he wanted to kill gay people and Mexicans, and talked about keeping black people in chains. He said he hated black people "simply because they were black," and Jewish people because he believed "they wanted to destroy the world". He also referred to white women who engaged in interracial relationships as traitors.[87]

bimboman wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

fatcat wrote:I don't read Reddit and never have, unless it's a link I've clicked on I guess. I'm not aware of any incel terrorists, although I remember one prat recording a video in his car complaining about not being able to pull girls. I can;t remember what crime he committed though.

Alek "The Incel Rebellion has already begun" Minassian (10 killed), who followed Elliot Rodger's deeply misogynistic manifesto (6 killed), as did Nikolas Cruz (17 killed). Dimitrios Pagourtzis (10 killed) wasn't quite the same but his was triggered after being publicly rejected by the girl he harassed for months.

It's also a common theme for domestic violence to feature in the backgrounds of various terrorist types, Islamic or otherwise.

Elliot Rodger was deeply mentally ill. Making that a mysonginy issue is nonsense.

fatcat wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:Well, I'm glad your quick google has convinced you.

I'm obviously not looking at the right sources of information.

Some bullshit I saw on Wiki -

Items recovered by police at the scene included gun magazines with swastikas carved in them. One student reported that Cruz had drawn a swastika and the words "I hate niggers" on his backpack.[86] CNN reported that Cruz was in a private Instagram group chat where he expressed racist, homophobic, antisemitic, and anti-immigrant (xenophobic) views. He said he wanted to kill gay people and Mexicans, and talked about keeping black people in chains. He said he hated black people "simply because they were black," and Jewish people because he believed "they wanted to destroy the world". He also referred to white women who engaged in interracial relationships as traitors.[87]

fatcat wrote:I simply pointed out that at least two of them had serious issues with people other than women, to which you responded with your google wisecrack.

fatcat wrote:

bimboman wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

fatcat wrote:I don't read Reddit and never have, unless it's a link I've clicked on I guess. I'm not aware of any incel terrorists, although I remember one prat recording a video in his car complaining about not being able to pull girls. I can;t remember what crime he committed though.

Alek "The Incel Rebellion has already begun" Minassian (10 killed), who followed Elliot Rodger's deeply misogynistic manifesto (6 killed), as did Nikolas Cruz (17 killed). Dimitrios Pagourtzis (10 killed) wasn't quite the same but his was triggered after being publicly rejected by the girl he harassed for months.

It's also a common theme for domestic violence to feature in the backgrounds of various terrorist types, Islamic or otherwise.

Elliot Rodger was deeply mentally ill. Making that a mysonginy issue is nonsense.

They're not mutually exclusive. Of the ones JM mentioned he was clearly a misogynist.

fatcat wrote:My handwavy one-liner was mocking Islamic terrorists, as in they'll have no success with women until they are surround by 72 virgins, ie. they are incels themselves.

eldanielfire wrote:Joe Biden shouldn't run for president. Basically because he'sold and white. (Not because he is seriously creepy around women)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -candidate

It tries to hide that a bit with the Dems supposed leftward shift, but despite some high profile individuals as I recall there has been little evidence of this since 2016.

eldanielfire wrote:Joe Biden shouldn't run for president. Basically because he'sold and white. (Not because he is seriously creepy around women)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -candidate

It tries to hide that a bit with the Dems supposed leftward shift, but despite some high profile individuals as I recall there has been little evidence of this since 2016.

Moreover, the strategy is a bad fit for a party that is surfing a “blue wave” caused, predominantly, by women and minorities who were mobilized by the Republican party’s embrace of Trump’s racist politics, and by the #MeToo movement and its aftermath.

naki wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:Joe Biden shouldn't run for president. Basically because he'sold and white. (Not because he is seriously creepy around women)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -candidate

It tries to hide that a bit with the Dems supposed leftward shift, but despite some high profile individuals as I recall there has been little evidence of this since 2016.

Moreover, the strategy is a bad fit for a party that is surfing a “blue wave” caused, predominantly, by women and minorities who were mobilized by the Republican party’s embrace of Trump’s racist politics, and by the #MeToo movement and its aftermath.

Weren't the majority of the men most publicly excoriated by the #MeToo movement card-carrying Democrats? Certainly the most prominent ones like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Woody Allen, Matt Lauer, Louis CK et al

In the UK you'd never hear that the first two female Prime Minister's where female

Womack wrote:

In the UK you'd never hear that the first two female Prime Minister's where female

How utterly conventional

Womack wrote:

In the UK you'd never hear that the first two female Prime Minister's where female

How utterly conventional

eldanielfire wrote:Joe Biden shouldn't run for president. Basically because he'sold and white. (Not because he is seriously creepy around women)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -candidate

It tries to hide that a bit with the Dems supposed leftward shift, but despite some high profile individuals as I recall there has been little evidence of this since 2016.

Fertility experts are urging the government to dump legislation that demands women who have frozen their eggs must use them within 10 years. After this time fertility clinics are obliged to destroy the eggs, irrespective of what the woman they belong to wants – unless she has been through the egg-freezing process because her fertility is compromised, which can happen for a number of reasons.

The law at present dictates that any woman who has had her eggs frozen for “social” reasons – that is, not medically indicated (for instance, she may not have met someone she wants to have children with yet) – has a maximum of 10 years in which to use them. Before we even begin to unpack the implications of such restrictions, though, the term “social” in itself warrants our attention. Pejorative is putting it lightly.

When it comes to women’s bodies, in so many areas, our voice and our autonomy continue to be the weakest currencies
It often feels like one of nature’s cruellest tricks that a woman must remain aware of her declining fertility before she is ready to actually contemplate the reality of having a baby, but that is our biological lot. We increasingly turn to options such as egg and embryo-freezing to give ourselves more time and recourse. The idea that making use of technological advances and giving ourselves some hope for the future, in light of something we cannot control, could be deemed as “social” is frankly laughable.


Since 2010 there has been a rapid increase in the number of women choosing to freeze their eggs. This most often happens through private clinics at an eye-watering cost, because the NHS will only offer egg-freezing to women who are medically compromised. The private sector monetises women’s hope and has continued to do so in spite of a lack of robust data on any future success the process might bring. Cryopreservation tanks don’t just contain our eggs, they contain our fragile and perhaps sometimes misguided faith.

An extensive report from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published at the end of last year made it clear that chances of success are much higher if a woman freezes her eggs before 35, when she still has good fertility. At present, 38 is the most common age women choose to do it. The report also made clear that the birthrate for women using their own frozen eggs was 18%, which is much lower than the 26% success rate of IVF. The HFEA chair, Sally Cheshire, was clear that women should be fully informed about what to expect: “Egg-freezing cycles and subsequent thawing still account for only 1-2% of all IVF treatment cycles, and even fewer result in a baby being born.”

Even if we take this information into account and women, feeling the hot breath of time, begin choosing to freeze their eggs earlier, the law dictates a set timeframe within which we can use them. On the most basic level, how can that be right? As Baroness Ruth Deech, the British bioethicist and politician who was chair of the HFEA from 1994 to 2002, and is one of the most vocal campaigners for a change in this law says, the limit is “arbitrary” and not in keeping with the technology that now means eggs can be safely frozen indefinitely.

In an interview with BBC Two’s Victoria Derbyshire, Deech said a change in legislation would “be very easy to do, wouldn’t cost anything and would give hope to women. There is nothing medically wrong with it, and I simply cannot see why the government won’t give this attention.” The government is, in fact, disregarding how this current law breeches human rights law. But why consider the paltry matter of human rights when you’re afraid of upsetting your hoary backbenchers? Recalling a meeting with health minister Jackie Doyle-Price, Deech said, “I think she was frightened the anti-abortionists would pile in.”

I find this insight as frightening as I do depressing because the naked fact of all this is that, when it comes to women’s bodies, in so many areas, our voice and our autonomy continue to be the weakest currencies. Someone always claims to knows better – usually a powerful man. But this law is flagrantly discriminatory towards women trying to take charge of their reproductive systems.

We don’t say that men are only allowed to store their sperm for 10 years before it’s destroyed.

Yet no decision related to women’s health could ever be a matter of simple human conscience. Not with centuries of historical stigma that still lingers where we rely on other powers to make things better for us. I have spent the last year researching and writing a book about exactly this, and it’s been less eye-opening than dura mater-splitting. We know that medicine has an inherent bias against women; that women presenting with pain are not only given fewer painkillers than men but are often offered sedatives instead (because we’re easier when we’re quieter); that treatment for women with coronary heart disease is delayed compared to men. When we say what we want or need, someone – usually a man, or a system founded by a man – always knows better.


Just this month we have learned that, for 60 years, women have been taking the contraceptive pill with the recommended seven-day break completely unnecessarily. In 60 years, no one in the medical establishment dared to stick their head above the parapet and question whether women really had to deal with the pain, mess and emotional toll of a monthly bleed. The evidence clearly tells us we don’t. But there remained this lingering idea that it’s probably “better” to do what nature intended us to do.

Nature can be brutal. Especially if you’re born with a womb. There is no doubting that egg-freezing is a hard process involving mind-clouding hormone treatment, invasive tests and painful procedures. I know, because I’ve done it. But the existence of this law as it stands, in clear disregard of what technology can now do, continues to give women the message that their hope should have a limit.

It is 2019. This law must change not just to remain in line with technological advances, but to stop treating women’s hopes and desires as something so ephemeral. We can’t stop our biological clocks ticking, but god knows we deserve the option to take the reins if we choose to.

• Eleanor Morgan is author of Anxiety for Beginners: A Personal Investigation, and is training to be a psychologist

1nn1t 11h ago


https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/fert ... -freezing/

The standard storage period for sperm is normally 10 years, although men in certain circumstances can store their sperm for up to 55 years. Your clinician will be able to explain whether you can do this.


https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/fert ... -freezing/

The standard storage period for eggs is normally 10 years, although women in certain circumstances can store their eggs for up to 55 years. Your clinician will be able to explain whether you can do this.

eldanielfire wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -fertility

Fertility experts are urging the government to dump legislation that demands women who have frozen their eggs must use them within 10 years. After this time fertility clinics are obliged to destroy the eggs, irrespective of what the woman they belong to wants – unless she has been through the egg-freezing process because her fertility is compromised, which can happen for a number of reasons.

The law at present dictates that any woman who has had her eggs frozen for “social” reasons – that is, not medically indicated (for instance, she may not have met someone she wants to have children with yet) – has a maximum of 10 years in which to use them. Before we even begin to unpack the implications of such restrictions, though, the term “social” in itself warrants our attention. Pejorative is putting it lightly.

When it comes to women’s bodies, in so many areas, our voice and our autonomy continue to be the weakest currencies
It often feels like one of nature’s cruellest tricks that a woman must remain aware of her declining fertility before she is ready to actually contemplate the reality of having a baby, but that is our biological lot. We increasingly turn to options such as egg and embryo-freezing to give ourselves more time and recourse. The idea that making use of technological advances and giving ourselves some hope for the future, in light of something we cannot control, could be deemed as “social” is frankly laughable.


Since 2010 there has been a rapid increase in the number of women choosing to freeze their eggs. This most often happens through private clinics at an eye-watering cost, because the NHS will only offer egg-freezing to women who are medically compromised. The private sector monetises women’s hope and has continued to do so in spite of a lack of robust data on any future success the process might bring. Cryopreservation tanks don’t just contain our eggs, they contain our fragile and perhaps sometimes misguided faith.

An extensive report from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published at the end of last year made it clear that chances of success are much higher if a woman freezes her eggs before 35, when she still has good fertility. At present, 38 is the most common age women choose to do it. The report also made clear that the birthrate for women using their own frozen eggs was 18%, which is much lower than the 26% success rate of IVF. The HFEA chair, Sally Cheshire, was clear that women should be fully informed about what to expect: “Egg-freezing cycles and subsequent thawing still account for only 1-2% of all IVF treatment cycles, and even fewer result in a baby being born.”

Even if we take this information into account and women, feeling the hot breath of time, begin choosing to freeze their eggs earlier, the law dictates a set timeframe within which we can use them. On the most basic level, how can that be right? As Baroness Ruth Deech, the British bioethicist and politician who was chair of the HFEA from 1994 to 2002, and is one of the most vocal campaigners for a change in this law says, the limit is “arbitrary” and not in keeping with the technology that now means eggs can be safely frozen indefinitely.

In an interview with BBC Two’s Victoria Derbyshire, Deech said a change in legislation would “be very easy to do, wouldn’t cost anything and would give hope to women. There is nothing medically wrong with it, and I simply cannot see why the government won’t give this attention.” The government is, in fact, disregarding how this current law breeches human rights law. But why consider the paltry matter of human rights when you’re afraid of upsetting your hoary backbenchers? Recalling a meeting with health minister Jackie Doyle-Price, Deech said, “I think she was frightened the anti-abortionists would pile in.”

I find this insight as frightening as I do depressing because the naked fact of all this is that, when it comes to women’s bodies, in so many areas, our voice and our autonomy continue to be the weakest currencies. Someone always claims to knows better – usually a powerful man. But this law is flagrantly discriminatory towards women trying to take charge of their reproductive systems.

We don’t say that men are only allowed to store their sperm for 10 years before it’s destroyed.

Yet no decision related to women’s health could ever be a matter of simple human conscience. Not with centuries of historical stigma that still lingers where we rely on other powers to make things better for us. I have spent the last year researching and writing a book about exactly this, and it’s been less eye-opening than dura mater-splitting. We know that medicine has an inherent bias against women; that women presenting with pain are not only given fewer painkillers than men but are often offered sedatives instead (because we’re easier when we’re quieter); that treatment for women with coronary heart disease is delayed compared to men. When we say what we want or need, someone – usually a man, or a system founded by a man – always knows better.


Just this month we have learned that, for 60 years, women have been taking the contraceptive pill with the recommended seven-day break completely unnecessarily. In 60 years, no one in the medical establishment dared to stick their head above the parapet and question whether women really had to deal with the pain, mess and emotional toll of a monthly bleed. The evidence clearly tells us we don’t. But there remained this lingering idea that it’s probably “better” to do what nature intended us to do.

Nature can be brutal. Especially if you’re born with a womb. There is no doubting that egg-freezing is a hard process involving mind-clouding hormone treatment, invasive tests and painful procedures. I know, because I’ve done it. But the existence of this law as it stands, in clear disregard of what technology can now do, continues to give women the message that their hope should have a limit.

It is 2019. This law must change not just to remain in line with technological advances, but to stop treating women’s hopes and desires as something so ephemeral. We can’t stop our biological clocks ticking, but god knows we deserve the option to take the reins if we choose to.

• Eleanor Morgan is author of Anxiety for Beginners: A Personal Investigation, and is training to be a psychologist

Then this comment and why comments should be always open on news articles:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -125166407

1nn1t 11h ago


https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/fert ... -freezing/

The standard storage period for sperm is normally 10 years, although men in certain circumstances can store their sperm for up to 55 years. Your clinician will be able to explain whether you can do this.


https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/fert ... -freezing/

The standard storage period for eggs is normally 10 years, although women in certain circumstances can store their eggs for up to 55 years. Your clinician will be able to explain whether you can do this.