I agree completely

Gone very quiet all of a sudden, dtc. You don't want to tell me how hysterical I am?

<Being a woman, naturally, I must be 'hysterical' when making a point>

It seems to me that dtc is confusing the criticism of somebody, who is a man, with hating all men.

And yet he's accusing you of blind misanthropy?

Also - nice little legal references in his arguments.

Could it be that dtc is one of PJ's legal mates? Or are all lawyers prone to confusing criticism of one member of a class with criticism of the whole class?

And sadly, while reading my postings on the Guardian board, he must have missed my dribblings over the divine Alex ... or perhaps, like PJ, he thinks Alex is such a 'woman' that he doesn't count as a man.

The thing is, PJ is directing his venom and desire to be violent at a whole class of people - women .

His language, his choice of discussion matter, even his hand gestures have all indicated that he sees women as either a receptacle for his sperm, or there to clean up after him.

Pointing this out about PJ does not mean that a person is a man hater.

To try and twist the relating of the facts about PJ's behaviour and speech patterns into hating the whole class that PJ is part of, and then, even to defend it, by saying "He's not so bad, he's only joking" is to defend, and approve of that behaviour.

I know plenty of people who can make jokes without using language that is redolent of violence towards other people in a sexual sense. The fact that PJ chooses to joke in such a manner is very, very telling in itself

To say nothing about what it says of his defenders

I think PJ is a plonker!

He seems to believe he'll have hoards of women throwing themselves at him when he comes out!

The guy's in cloud cuckoo land! The only women he'll attract are of the piglet variety......cheap, bad for health and as thick as their droppings!

EvilWillow,

Had to drive home, takes 1.5 hours. And I'm not a solicitor, but I do know that legal action has been taken over stuff posted in forums.

Hysterical is simply a word. No reference to your sex was intended - just pointing out that making this a debate on DV and rape was going too far.

As for, "or perhaps, like PJ, he thinks Alex is such a 'woman' that he doesn't count as a man", I'm Alex's biggest fan. Voted 10 times for Spencer, a few more times for Alison when it was 37% to 35%.

I won't take this to GU because EvilWillow brought it here after canvassing in GU for suitable quotes. Not scared of the GUers - it's only words.

PJ has laughed at women, said horrible things, criticised them physically and is branded a misogynist. EvilWillow has laughed at PJ, said horrible things, criticised him physically and is branded (by me) a misandrist. So, what's the difference? If PJ is a woman hater because of his behaviour, surely posting in a similar vein has shades of man-hating?

I'm not condoning violence, rape or other horrors, or dismissing them as being a laugh. But I will stand by saying that the things PJ has done have all been done by women. I also stand by my contention that EvilWillow (and others) have isolated PJ's statements, removed their context and presented them as misogynistic. Which is easy to do.

And to say I'm defending PJ personally is incorrect. I'm defending the right, as a man, to joke, banter about and criticise the opposite sex without fear of being called a woman hater. He's nothing to me personally.

I don't know PJ may be a woman hater. But he may also be a dick with a big mouth and a bad attitude who doesn't hate women.

You decide!

And another thing - it's happening to me now.

I defend the right of a man to criticise a woman etc. etc. and the finger of misogyny is pointed at me - I'm suspect, my language is pulled apart for clues, I'm a DV and rape apologist and condone violence on the grounds of sex.

Just proves what I'm saying - a man can't say anything about women because as soon as he does, he's a woman hater.

Bollocks, isn't it?

When i started this thread i was just asking out of interest.I didnt know PJ had been in trouble for domestic violence(same as i dont know any dark secrets of any of the other housemates!)I have( shallowly admittedly)based my opinions of people purely on what i have watched on the TV.
Anyway on the subject of domestic violence,myself and 3 kids have recently been rehoused after having to live in a refuge!
Dont make outrageous comments like the above without thinking first!
PS this dosent make me a man hater either!!!

PJ is like Jonny. Just a pair of ordinary guys being pretty much themselves. I think it will pay off in the long run.

No, you defended PJ saying that he'd get some totty, and "abuse it, really abuse it", as well as some other comments of a similar nature.

That's not criticizing a woman That's a specifically violent comment directed at whoever PJ is going to have sex with. Any woman, or I]any[/i] man

You said he was only having a laugh.

Doesn't remotely sound like defending the righ of a man to criticize a woman.

And again, you can't see the difference between the generally directed comments of PJ and the specifically directed comments of EvilWillow.

dtc,

None of EvilWillow's comments here have been generalisations about men at all - if they had I'd be the first to agree with you because I absolutely hate people generalising about all men being the same, being shallow, thinking with their dicks, etc - but this is not what EvilWillow has done in the slightest.

What she has done is criticise ONE PERSON who happens to be a man, on the grounds of his attitude/alleged treatment of women, which is as valid a grouds as any for a crticism of a person. There are no sweeping generalisations, no "typical man" comments, so please don't have a go on these grounds.

The debate here is about whether PJ is a sexist/mysogenist, yet you seem to be using someones fair arguments on the subject, using things HE HAS SAID as reasoning, as a reason to launch into a tirade against this person. Just because you don't agree with the conclusions this person has drawn, doesn't mean they're being sexist, or give you the right to attack them in this way.

You can debate against it on the grounds of your take on what he's said and his personality, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, but to attack someone else for being sexist with such vigor when they are nothing of the sort is not acceptable.

Lastly, I've no idea what has been said in the GU forum between the two of you or elsewise, but that is absolutely NOT an acceptable topic for debate here - if you wish to talk about someones actions in another forum, then go to that other forum and do it.

Mark

The truth is, he hasn't posted on GU to the best of me knowledge. And if he can talk abut me takingcomments out of context, please note his previous post where he 'quoted' what I had posted on GU ... Completely out of context, so much so they don't make any sense. Yes, I speculated on the size of PJ's willy, only after PJ himself had brought it to our attentions time and time again, on national TV.

Still, I think that this poster has a personal problem with me, for whatever reason, and that is colouring this 'debate'. Shame, really.

Well he thinks that he's the love doctor. cue ball needs to take a reality check. Personally I think that he's a little boring, although he is the one that is gonna start the mind games with everybody about Miss Piggy, and Adele... He started getting Jonny on side the other night, now who will he get on side next.

Am I correct in saying that HM's are not permitted to talk about the prize money & if so why was PJ not given a warning when talking to Alex after the dancing last night when he mentioned that he was looking forward to putting the £70,000 in his sky rocket?

C'mon BB keep your ears & eys open!

<MA>

By the way - to dtc - BOO YA SUX ....

Incidentally, I got the quote wrong re. PJ not wanting to 'be inside' Jade ... what he actually said was "I can't stay in the same bed with you, or people might think I was right in up there."

<VOM>

He DID say "inside you" daughter and I just looked at each other astounded

Master Aquarius - did you also notice how on Saturday night, when PJ lost at musical chairs, he made a beeline for Jonny, shook his hand and said 'good choice' ... Hmmmmmm, what *could* he have meant, seeing as Jonny hadn't started choosing yet ... then, when the next person came out he was all faux innocence, saing 'Oh, that's right, Jonny has to choose who goes on the poor side', as though he'd forgotten. DOES HE TAKE US FOR IDIOTS??????

I *thought* that's what he said, Babycatcher, was told differently by a friend ... 'Inside you' - I ask you, who *speaks* like this???

Oh yes I agree weird way to speak and if I'd been alone I would concede that I may have misheard.
Daughter is 17 and has perfect hearing and we heard the same thing,. Dropped jaws at the same time and so forth!!

he def said "inside you "
jaws dropped here as well lol
cal

I would caution that we've only heard one side of the story. AFAIR from the article, he doesn't have a criminal record.. he was arrested and cleared without charge. We haven't heard his side of the story, and there are certainly cases where women have claimed abuse for attention purposes - there was one in the local newspaper here just last week.

I don't think it's fair to judge somebody by an accusation made in the newspaper (and a low-class tabloid at that), when the other party has had no chance to defend themselves, and the case was never proven in a court of law.

Santo - He was released without charge only because he ACCEPTED a caution - tacit admission of guilt.

Don't you think his family would do more to deny it were it not true?

If his family had done more to deny it, who would have reported it? BB haven't made any mention of it, The Sun don't publish anything that makes their stories look worse than they are, and no other newspaper really covers it.. all I managed to find was a quote from his mother saying he doesn't have a criminal record, and he'll tell his side when he gets out..

I can't find the article in question any longer at either The Sun or the News of the World's page, so I can't really comment on the caution thing, other than to say that as he was undertaking a law training course, he may well have been advised to take the caution rather than face a court apperance, because if my recollection of entrance and graduation procedures is correct, a court appearance isn't looked favourably upon. The validity of that arguement depends on when exactly the events happened however, which is what I was trying to establish.

To say a caution is tacit to an admission of guilt isn't neccesarily true, however it may appear in the eyes of the law.