Shane Sutton - Team Sky coach

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

Even Tim Hunt admitted his comments were sexist !!! Just because he never meant to cause offence doesnt mean it was ok. It means he really isn't as smart or thoughtful as he should have been.

But did Hunt's throw-away joke at an obscure conference justify destroying his career?

Just in case anyone is paying attention to this character, it's worth pointing out that Tim Hunt did not have his career destroyed. He caused controversy when he made a stupid and sexist speech, which even he admits was stupid and sexist. It led to a few months of embarrassment and his resignation from various positions, of a mostly honorary nature. He remains an eminent scientist and has as much work as a wealthy man in his mid 70s wants to carry out.

The interesting ongoing aspect of the incident is not any particular consequences suffered by Tim Hunt, but the way it continues to loom large as an injustice in the minds of the kind of halfwits who believe that men are the real victims of sexism.

 

[Robert21]

Re: Re:

Which is why people like Sutton will go back to Aus and work in a country where it is still ok to go to a pub where women daren't walk into, and brag about kicking the cat and beating the wife.

You seem to forget that one of the rules of the politically correct thought police is to not resort to racism when attacking the evils of sexism. Another is to avoid labeling whole groups of people with gross, negative stereotypes.

You have reached the depths when you cut and paste a quote from another poster under my name - And yet we have a thread about Skybots - The irony is delicious !

Sorry. Fixed!

 

[Electress]

Re: Re:

Even Tim Hunt admitted his comments were sexist !!! Just because he never meant to cause offence doesnt mean it was ok. It means he really isn't as smart or thoughtful as he should have been.

But did Hunt's throw-away joke at an obscure conference justify destroying his career? Or does the fact that this sort of thing commonly happens happens these days highlight the fact that the laudable desire to challenge discrimination had created just another tyranny?

In addition, there seem to be plenty of people around these days whose whole focus in life appears to be looking for things to be offended by, especially if this helps them to further their agendas. Even Trevor Philips, one-time chair of the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission, recognises that pandering to such individuals has gone too far, not least because doing so has helped to fuel the 'populist' backlash which put Trump into power.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/19/trevor-phillips-i-dont-care-about-offending-people-has-political-correctness-gone-mad-channel-4

Couldn't agree more with the bold. Life would be so damn dull if we never said anything the slightest bit risque, polemical, daring, etc. etc. in case some one might be offended. In such a world, Darwin would have been in chokey as the likes of Bishop Usher got all hot under the collar. Change rests with the unreasonable man, after all.

I'd much rather the world was full of free thinkers willing to challenge ideas and say the wrong thing so long as their intentions aren't malevolent, versus a world where we have the thought police, whose intentions appear to be to shut anyone up that doesn't agree with a narrow world view predicated on an assumption of victimhood. It's a dead bore and very dangerous to boot. Any one interested in this stuff should check out what's happening to Prof. Jordan Peterson in Canada. As for Tim Hunt - well, since most of the people who know his name probably know him for this rather than his achievements, I'd have thought his reputation has suffered, which seems absurd given what he actually said was pretty darn mild and clearly not intended to cause offence. Folks need to develop a bit thicker skin and focus on bigger issue rather than trivial tokenism. Why not get hot under the collar about things causing actual harm, like modern day slavery, FGM, harrassment in the workplace etc. etc.

Which is not to say that bullying is acceptable - there's a world of difference between an off the cuff, slightly off colour joke and systematic bullying and harrassment. A culture in which a number of people feel uncomfortable and excluded -whatever their gender - clearly needs at least investigating if the aim of an organisation, such as British Cycling, is to get the best out of people. The culture should be able to adapt to different needs: some people will need reassurance, some people will need a kick up the backside. Personally I can tolerate a lot of what others might call sexism if the intention to cause harm isn't there, and there is a demonstrable willingness to act when the behaviour is called out. That said, the reviews I've read don't exactly inspire confidence that there was a genuine willingness to change when you have the BC Board allegedly over-turning the findings of it's own independent compliance officer and covering up adverse findings.

 

[Robert21]

Re: Re:

[Just in case anyone is paying attention to this character, it's worth pointing out that Tim Hunt did not have his career destroyed. He caused controversy when he made a stupid and sexist speech, which even he admits was stupid and sexist. It led to a few months of embarrassment and his resignation from various positions, of a mostly honorary nature. He remains an eminent scientist and has as much work as a wealthy man in his mid 70s wants to carry out.

Hunt was a genuine victim of the authoritarian, politically correct thought police and a good example of how they have helped to create just another tyranny.

He did not make a 'stupid and sexist speech' He made a throw-away joke as part of a speech praising the achievements of women scientists in Korea, following his joke with "now seriously" to emphasise he was making a joke, something those out to destroy him chose to ignore. In response to the storm whipped up by the twitter mob the UCL immediately demanded that he resign or be sacked. He was then forced to resign from The European Research Council. In the end his wife, also a leading UK scientist, was forced to leave her post so the pair could move to Japan to continue their research. Despite the article below, The Guardian played a central role in pillorying Hunt, regarding the personal price he and his wife paid as being a price well worth paying to further its overtly feminist agenda, something the paper has remained unapologetic about.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins

 

[Electress]

None of you chaps have any right to express your thoughts on such a matter as Tim Hunt's sexist remarks because, unlike me, you have no idea of the real experience of being a woman and the daily horrors we women face at the hands of an institutionally sexist, gender-biased patriarchy.... :lol:

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Re: Re:

[Just in case anyone is paying attention to this character, it's worth pointing out that Tim Hunt did not have his career destroyed. He caused controversy when he made a stupid and sexist speech, which even he admits was stupid and sexist. It led to a few months of embarrassment and his resignation from various positions, of a mostly honorary nature. He remains an eminent scientist and has as much work as a wealthy man in his mid 70s wants to carry out.

Hunt was a genuine victim of the authoritarian, politically correct thought police and a good example of how they have helped to create just another tyranny.

Indeed, there is no tyranny greater than a man suffering embarrassment when he publicly embarrasses himself by making a speech including sexist remarks in front of a crowd. The truest authoritarianism happens when people think less of you because of your own stupid behaviour. And of course no career is more truly ruined than that of the man who is still in highly paid and prestigious employment.

Just look at the language characters like this use to describe a wealthy man suffering embarrassment: "tyranny", "authoritarianism", "thought police". They have no such overblown sympathy for the situation of a young woman who, for instance, complains of sexist bullying at work.

 

[GraftPunk]

Re: Re:

[Just in case anyone is paying attention to this character, it's worth pointing out that Tim Hunt did not have his career destroyed. He caused controversy when he made a stupid and sexist speech, which even he admits was stupid and sexist. It led to a few months of embarrassment and his resignation from various positions, of a mostly honorary nature. He remains an eminent scientist and has as much work as a wealthy man in his mid 70s wants to carry out.

Hunt was a genuine victim of the authoritarian, politically correct thought police and a good example of how they have helped to create just another tyranny.

He did not make a 'stupid and sexist speech' He made a throw-away joke as part of a speech praising the achievements of women scientists in Korea, following his joke with "now seriously" to emphasise he was making a joke, something those out to destroy him chose to ignore. In response to the storm whipped up by the twitter mob the UCL immediately demanded that he resign or be sacked. He was then forced to resign from The European Research Council. In the end his wife, also a leading UK scientist, was forced to leave her post so the pair could move to Japan to continue their research. Despite the article below, The Guardian played a central role in pillorying Hunt, regarding the personal price he and his wife paid as being a price well worth paying to further its overtly feminist agenda, something the paper has remained unapologetic about.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins

The whole thoughtpolice and the hatethought stuff is pretty weird, and sounds a bit unhinged. Like tin-foil unhinged. That being said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Just as having free-will and making up your own mind is important (despite the apparent moral ignorance involved), there is this other important thing (especially for Sutton at BC, and for most us with a job) called professionalism which generally doesn't include the bad behavior and poor judgment Sky/BC have shown. If Sutton had it, he wouldn't be in this mess. Same goes for SBW and SDB and the other lot involved. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[Robert21]

Re: Re:

there is this other important thing (especially for Sutton at BC, and for most us with a job) called professionalism which generally doesn't include the bad behavior and poor judgment Sky/BC have shown. If Sutton had it, he wouldn't be in this mess. Same goes for SBW and SDB and the other lot involved. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Good points, well made. However, if you want to end someone's career, accusing them of unprofessionalism might not do the job and is open to challenge. On the other hand, accuse them of 'sexism' and, in the current political climate, you know that the twitter mob and media will be all over it and it is 'game over' for them.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

there is this other important thing (especially for Sutton at BC, and for most us with a job) called professionalism which generally doesn't include the bad behavior and poor judgment Sky/BC have shown. If Sutton had it, he wouldn't be in this mess. Same goes for SBW and SDB and the other lot involved. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Good points, well made. However, if you want to end someone's career, accusing them of unprofessionalism might not do the job and is open to challenge. On the other hand, accuse them of 'sexism' and, in the current political climate, you know that the twitter mob and media will be all over it and it is 'game over' for them.

Jess Varnish was vindicated so the accusation of 'sexism' was more than that.

 

[Irondan]

I would like to remind the commenters in this thread that any off topic rants and personal attacks will be removed.

Please post to the topic at hand in an impersonal, friendly, and civil manner.

Cheers

 

[Rob27172]

Re: Re:

there is this other important thing (especially for Sutton at BC, and for most us with a job) called professionalism which generally doesn't include the bad behavior and poor judgment Sky/BC have shown. If Sutton had it, he wouldn't be in this mess. Same goes for SBW and SDB and the other lot involved. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Good points, well made. However, if you want to end someone's career, accusing them of unprofessionalism might not do the job and is open to challenge. On the other hand, accuse them of 'sexism' and, in the current political climate, you know that the twitter mob and media will be all over it and it is 'game over' for them.

So now every man who is stuck in the past where Men were Men and women were chained to the sink, should get a free pass and all the people who have moved on should shut up and let them be because some people think it is too much PC for their tastes. And after all, all these people are trying to do is end the careers of very good honourable people.

Sorry never going to happen.
Slavery was not wrong in 1780, it wasn't even illegal. The people of the time thought that negros (as they were called in those times, not my term) were sub humans who were there to be of use to the white superior humans who ran the world.

Luckily for the world as a whole this thought process has now been proved to be wrong. Although many people thousands died and a civil war was fought to get that to happen. And in some parts of the world slavery is still in existence.

Around 100 years ago women were thought of as too stupid and emotionally charged to be given the serious task of voting. Luckily this also has been proven to be a ridiculous and stupid thought process and those men who stuck by this thought and pushed this agenda were thankfully removed.

Hopefully, at some point the gender disparity in our society which pervades throughout our structures; and is now seen in situations where men with these thoughts either bully or use their power to marginalise or discriminate against women; will also fall by the wayside. However until that time people who truly believe deep down that they are superior to women. Like Tim Hunt, Shane Sutton and Donald Trump will continue to slip up in public or private and have to live with the shame that they rightly should feel.

Maybe their apologists are actually trying to justify their own inner thoughts which are more and more out of step with the society around them?

Over time all things change and evolve - maybe some people just need to catch up

 

[Tricycle Rider]

However, "...dressed like an Australian's nightmare" gets a pass

Love that reference, even as a "Sheila".

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Wendy Houvenaghel.sticks the boot in: http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/39339718

• She felt "oppressed" by both Sutton and Brailsford, describing the training environment as "horrid".
  
• Sexism and "ageism" were prevalent at British Cycling.
  
• She put up with the situation because "if you rocked the boat, you were out".
  
• She was "discarded" by British Cycling after London 2012 despite six years of "constantly medalling" at major championships.

 

[Robert5091]

"...it has accepted the draft report's findings and already put into a place a 39-point action plan to "systematically address the cultural and behavioural shortcomings".

The statement added: "Our new chair Jonathan Browning has apologised for instances where we have fallen short in our commitment to athlete welfare and has offered to meet with anyone who can help improve British Cycling.""
Nothing to see here - move on ...

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Wendy Houvenaghel.sticks the boot in: http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/39339718

• She felt "oppressed" by both Sutton and Brailsford, describing the training environment as "horrid".
  
• Sexism and "ageism" were prevalent at British Cycling.
  
• She put up with the situation because "if you rocked the boat, you were out".
  
• She was "discarded" by British Cycling after London 2012 despite six years of "constantly medalling" at major championships.

Oh Wendy is just jealous because she was not a winner!! Wait a minute that's not right!

People talked about Varnish blowing a trumpet because she was not good enough! Ooops there's that argument out the window!!!!

 

[GraftPunk]

So much smokescreen, so little time.

 

[Robert21]

Re: Re:

So now every man who is stuck in the past where Men were Men and women were chained to the sink, should get a free pass and all the people who have moved on should shut up and let them be because some people think it is too much PC for their tastes... people who truly believe deep down that they are superior to women. Like Tim Hunt, Shane Sutton and Donald Trump will continue to slip up in public or private and have to live with the shame that they rightly should feel.

I had thought that 'off topic rants' were been deleted from this thread.

Whatever, your reply highlights the issue I was trying to point out. Yes, people like Trump need to be held to account for their attitudes to women, but when people portray Tim Hunt, who was giving a speech praising the achievements of female scientists in Korea that included an ill-judged joke, as been no different to the likes of Trump, then it does seem that attempts to challenge one form of narrow-minded bigotry have simply led to the imposition of another form of narrow-minded bigotry, if not the seeds of a rather frightening Orwellian world where 'thoughtcrimes are death'.

Unfortunately, even though challenging discrimination and bringing about greater equality is obviously a laudable aim, it often seems that pursuing that goal is helping to create a situation where intolerance is held to be a virtue and anyone who suggests that the world is filled with shades of grey, not black and white simplicity, or who expresses discomfort at the lynch-mob mentality of the social media, or who says they believe 'innocent until proven guilty' is still an important principle, is vilified as been no better, or even a supporter of, oppression, misogyny, racism and so on. (Perhaps not surprisingly, the refusal to accept that shades of grey exist, with a growing polarisation and narrowing of attitudes seems to have become a lot worse since Trump was elected.)

As to Sutton, as the evidence accrues it does seem that he was no Tim Hunt.

That there was high-level mismanagement in BC also seems to be self evident. Given that Sutton's 'forthright' nature was apparent to everyone, it does seem amazing that no one ever thought to explain to him the realities of the 21st Century workplace, especially as everything was dependent on public funding. As Robert Millar recently wrote in the UK Magazine Rouleur, the 'Teflon suit' wearers also need to be held to account.

(By the way, the main reason women didn't have voting rights 100 years ago was the very same reason that, in the UK at least, the majority of men didn't have voting rights 100 years ago - historically voting was linked to property ownership, and it was only the carnage of WW1 that led the establishment to accept that granting the vote to 'the lower orders' was the right thing to do.)

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

So now every man who is stuck in the past where Men were Men and women were chained to the sink, should get a free pass and all the people who have moved on should shut up and let them be because some people think it is too much PC for their tastes... people who truly believe deep down that they are superior to women. Like Tim Hunt, Shane Sutton and Donald Trump will continue to slip up in public or private and have to live with the shame that they rightly should feel.

I had thought that 'off topic rants' were been deleted from this thread.

Whatever, your reply highlights the issue I was trying to point out. Yes, people like Trump need to be held to account for their attitudes to women, but when people portray Tim Hunt, who was giving a speech praising the achievements of female scientists in Korea that included an ill-judged joke, as been no different to the likes of Trump, then it does seem that attempts to challenge one form of narrow-minded bigotry have simply led to the imposition of another form of narrow-minded bigotry, if not the seeds of a rather frightening Orwellian world where 'thoughtcrimes are death'.

Unfortunately, even though challenging discrimination and bringing about greater equality is obviously a laudable aim, it often seems that pursuing that goal is helping to create a situation where intolerance is held to be a virtue and anyone who suggests that the world is filled with shades of grey, not black and white simplicity, or who expresses discomfort at the lynch-mob mentality of the social media, or who says they believe 'innocent until proven guilty' is still an important principle, is vilified as been no better, or even a supporter of, oppression, misogyny, racism and so on. (Perhaps not surprisingly, the refusal to accept that shades of grey exist, with a growing polarisation and narrowing of attitudes seems to have become a lot worse since Trump was elected.)

As to Sutton, as the evidence accrues it does seem that he was no Tim Hunt.

That there was high-level mismanagement in BC also seems to be self evident. Given that Sutton's 'forthright' nature was apparent to everyone, it does seem amazing that no one ever thought to explain to him the realities of the 21st Century workplace, especially as everything was dependent on public funding. As Robert Millar recently wrote in the UK Magazine Rouleur, the 'Teflon suit' wearers also need to be held to account.

(By the way, the main reason women didn't have voting rights 100 years ago was the very same reason that, in the UK at least, the majority of men didn't have voting rights 100 years ago - historically voting was linked to property ownership, and it was only the carnage of WW1 that led the establishment to accept that granting the vote to 'the lower orders' was the right thing to do.)

No offense intended but it's impossible to take your post seriously when you negate your own argument sentence by sentence. I can't work out if this is very long-winded parody or serious. Please say it's parody.

(And I'm sure nobody here will take your misleading, vastly simplified version of the history of suffrage seriously. There are a lot of very intelligent, edumacated people here you know).

 

[Dan2016]

Re:

Wendy Houvenaghel.sticks the boot in: http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/39339718

• She felt "oppressed" by both Sutton and Brailsford, describing the training environment as "horrid".
  
• Sexism and "ageism" were prevalent at British Cycling.
  
• She put up with the situation because "if you rocked the boat, you were out".
  
• She was "discarded" by British Cycling after London 2012 despite six years of "constantly medalling" at major championships.

Toxic isn't it. Glad to see Varnish, Cooke and Pooley vindicated further.

Or maybe it's just more crazy feminazis are on a rampage of totalitarian thoughtcrime punishment...[bangs head against wall]

 

[Robert21]

Re: Re:

I'm sure nobody here will take your misleading, vastly simplified version of the history of suffrage seriously. There are a lot of very intelligent, edumacated people here you know.

'Edumacated' they might be, but they probably are only aware of the popularised history of women's suffrage, which is far more misleading than anything I have said. Fact is universal male suffrage in the UK was not introduced until the 1918 Representation of the People Act and this was in recognition of the sacrifices ordinary people (but overwhelmingly by men) in the war. For example, the then Home Secretary, George Cave, introduced the debate of the act by saying:

War by all classes of our countrymen has brought us nearer together, has opened men’s eyes, and removed misunderstandings on all sides. It has made it, I think, impossible that ever again, at all events in the lifetime of the present generation, there should be a revival of the old class feeling which was responsible for so much, and, among other things, for the exclusion for a period, of so many of our population from the class of electors. I think I need say no more to justify this extension of the franchise.

At the same time all women over 30 (plus some under 30 such as those with a university degree) were also given the vote - it is a matter of Parliamentary record that this difference was intended to prevent men from becoming a minority voting group, given the number killed in the war.

As to the suffragette movement, for the most part it was not fighting for the vote to be given to all women. Rather, it was fighting for women of the privileged classes to be given the same voting rights as their land and property owning husbands and brothers. There was genuine hostility in the movement to its cause been linked the campaign for the 'lower orders' to be given the vote, with it been argued that those who tried to link the two campaigns were 'no friends of women'. The suffragette movement failed entirely, not least because it resorted to what today would be called a terrorist campaign - bombings, including one in Westminster Abbey, arson, slashing paintings in the National Gallery, trying to kill Asquith by throwing an axe at him and so on. Then, as now, the government was loath to give any concessions to those resorting to such terrorist tactics.

The only figure fighting to have the vote extended to all women (and men) was Sylvia Pankhurst, who was thrown out of the WSPU by her mother for her 'socialist' attitudes and opposition to the WSPU's terrorist activities. With the outbreak of WW1 Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst turned their attentions to drumming up support of the war and became the leading figures of the shameful 'white feather' movement, also demanding that any able-bodied man who did not sign up to be slaughtered in the trenches be immediately jailed. After the war the Pankhursts, (naturally with the exception of Sylvia) became involved in right-wing politics, with Adela Pankhurst becoming a founder of the proto-fascist 'Australia First' movement. All in all they were far from the paragons popular history paints them!

 

[Robert21]

Re: Re:

maybe it's just more crazy feminazis are on a rampage of totalitarian thoughtcrime punishment...

In the case of Sutton, as the evidence accumulates it seems increasingly likely that this is not the case. On the other hand, when it comes to what happened to Tim Hunt, the caricature you draw is far nearer the truth.

 

[Electress]

Re: Re:

maybe it's just more crazy feminazis are on a rampage of totalitarian thoughtcrime punishment...

In the case of Sutton, as the evidence accumulates it seems increasingly likely that this is not the case. On the other hand, when it comes to what happened to Tim Hunt, the caricature you draw is far nearer the truth.

I'd agree with both the above. The difference however is actually nothing to do with sexism for me, but bullying. Hunt wasn't bullying. From all I've read, Sutton was. I'm pretty indifferent as to what gender is being bullied. It's unacceptable either way.

Sadly, the more time passes and the more Sky seem to be carrying on regardless with their endless winning classics and stage races alike, the more it seems as if SDB and his cronies will brazen it out because there isn't, after all, the appetite to 'cut off the withered arm' and see the whole 'Royal Mint' and 'Medal Factory' mythology being trashed.

I find it utterly perplexing why the current Cheese at BC is under any pressure when he's only been around 6 months. FFS - go after the reputations of the people who did the damage, not some poor idiot who's inherited the mess (albeit that he may well have done little to change it.)

 

[Robert21]

The difference however is actually nothing to do with sexism for me, but bullying. Hunt wasn't bullying. From all I've read, Sutton was. I'm pretty indifferent as to what gender is being bullied, It's unacceptable either way.

From the evidence so far it does seem that Sutton overstepped the boundaries. However, to be fair, it also seems that a number of different issues are frequently conflated when discussing Sutton's behaviour, not all of which are necessarily genuine examples of bullying, or even directly associated with Sutton himself. For example, the supposed 'culture of fear' seems to centre on riders knowing that, in the ruthless quest for medals, if their performances are not up to scratch, then their place on the squad was at risk. Similarly, it was seen to be risky to complain about BC management or policy, but the same could be said of almost any corporate organisation.

I agree that genuine bullying is always unacceptable. However, assuming that Sutton is guilty of bullying and / or sexism, I can't help thinking that the likely punishment - effectively the end of his career- in part reflects the fact he is male, with it been deemed necessary to 'hold him to account' not only for his actual personal behaviour, but also a range of 'bigger issues' that his behaviour is held to represent. Such attitudes certainly seemed to be prevalent in the case of Tim Hunt.

Perhaps Sutton's punishment is correct and proportionate, but if so what is so different about cases such as the one below, other than the gender of the perpetrator? (Who has been allowed to keep her job.) No man who did even a fraction of what this women did would have been let of with a warning.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/01/police-chiefs-tirade-about-breasts-was-gross-misconduct-panel-rules

 

[thehog]

Sutton is finished, banished to never work again. Not sure why he persists. He might was well (win) confess all.

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

I'm sure nobody here will take your misleading, vastly simplified version of the history of suffrage seriously. There are a lot of very intelligent, edumacated people here you know.

'Edumacated' they might be, but they probably are only aware of the popularised history of women's suffrage, which is far more misleading than anything I have said. Fact is universal male suffrage in the UK was not introduced until the 1918 Representation of the People Act and this was in recognition of the sacrifices ordinary people (but overwhelmingly by men) in the war. For example, the then Home Secretary, George Cave, introduced the debate of the act by saying:

War by all classes of our countrymen has brought us nearer together, has opened men’s eyes, and removed misunderstandings on all sides. It has made it, I think, impossible that ever again, at all events in the lifetime of the present generation, there should be a revival of the old class feeling which was responsible for so much, and, among other things, for the exclusion for a period, of so many of our population from the class of electors. I think I need say no more to justify this extension of the franchise.

At the same time all women over 30 (plus some under 30 such as those with a university degree) were also given the vote - it is a matter of Parliamentary record that this difference was intended to prevent men from becoming a minority voting group, given the number killed in the war.

As to the suffragette movement, for the most part it was not fighting for the vote to be given to all women. Rather, it was fighting for women of the privileged classes to be given the same voting rights as their land and property owning husbands and brothers. There was genuine hostility in the movement to its cause been linked the campaign for the 'lower orders' to be given the vote, with it been argued that those who tried to link the two campaigns were 'no friends of women'. The suffragette movement failed entirely, not least because it resorted to what today would be called a terrorist campaign - bombings, including one in Westminster Abbey, arson, slashing paintings in the National Gallery, trying to kill Asquith by throwing an axe at him and so on. Then, as now, the government was loath to give any concessions to those resorting to such terrorist tactics.

The only figure fighting to have the vote extended to all women (and men) was Sylvia Pankhurst, who was thrown out of the WSPU by her mother for her 'socialist' attitudes and opposition to the WSPU's terrorist activities. With the outbreak of WW1 Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst turned their attentions to drumming up support of the war and became the leading figures of the shameful 'white feather' movement, also demanding that any able-bodied man who did not sign up to be slaughtered in the trenches be immediately jailed. After the war the Pankhursts, (naturally with the exception of Sylvia) became involved in right-wing politics, with Adela Pankhurst becoming a founder of the proto-fascist 'Australia First' movement. All in all they were far from the paragons popular history paints them!

A misleadingly simplified potted synopsis (and a bit irrelevant to the thread). As you know, there are very weighty tomes written on the history of women's suffrage, for good reason.

Either way, again no offense intended but it seems you have a taste for simplified exaggerations in your posts, like those highlighted above. It's self-discrediting. This obviously isn't the thread for suffrage talk though. It's a distraction away from modern attitudes, which is what's relevant now regarding Sutton. What is the point you're trying to make? Boil it downz. If it's simply that sexism and accusations thereof is a complicated matter, existing in both genders, with various social threads and unconscious bias and such and such and so forth, I'd hazard a guess that not many people would disagree. It seems as though you're saying something different to that, but I won't put words in your mouth.