Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

Kidchameleon

silverharp wrote: »

what do ye make of this advert?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeVLxcekEsw

Dont really see a problem with it?

deaddonkey15

Louise O'Neill with an article on women's weight here

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/thin-or-fat-we-are-so-much-more-than-our-appearance-420193.html

Cites examples of the girls in her class and a random woman on the street commenting on her weight yet still writes:

"The furore when women who don’t fit in to sample sizes appear naked on TV or in movies, as if men collectively decided that they couldn’t understand what use such a woman might serve if they didn’t find her attractive.

If a woman’s body wasn’t pleasing to the Male Gaze, then surely it would be better off hidden away, so these Angry Men On The Internet wouldn’t have to be reminded that women don’t exist purely as sex objects for their pleasure."

I suppose it's still somehow the patriarchy's fault that women put other women under pressure to look like the women in women's magazines.

Wibbs

maybe

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

I suppose it's still somehow the patriarchy's fault that women put other women under pressure to look like the women in women's magazines.

Of course it is DD. It is always men's fault and women are always victims. Whinging victims at that. QV Dulally/O'Neill and the bullpen of the Guardian. Never mind that as I've pointed out before; porn which is majority straight male produced and consumed contains a far wider diversity of body shape, weight, age and race of women than the largely women and gay men produced fashion industry and pages of Vogue, Cosmo et al who want a bloody medal every time they put a Black lass on the cover, or OHMIGOD!! a "plus size" woman.

Pawwed Rig

Wibbs wrote: »

! a "plus size" woman.

Plus size being smaller than average size of course

Wibbs

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Plus size being smaller than average size of course

Depends on the plus sized model in question P. Ashley Graham would be well larger than the average by a good margin. In Europe anyway.



And Tess Holliday would be right at the top end and clinically obese.



To be fair that the fashion types even regard them at all is unusual. Then again it always follows the money. Pretending to like fat is "in" at the moment and more people in the west are fatter so it sells clothes(more men than women are obese, but more women buy clothes more often so…).

DEFTLEFTHAND

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I was with you until this part. Why do we need to drop dopey Yank PUA words here? If the abuser was a male, would you use the same term on his wife who "let it happen?"

That's a universal term. It's a fact of nature seen in all mammal species. The dominant (alpha) and the submissive (beta).

gizmo555

Wibbs wrote: »

And Tess Holliday would be right at the top end and clinically obese.

This is what gets me. We come in all shapes & sizes, and nobody should be "body shamed". But to pretend that morbid obesity to an extent that reduces life expectancy by up to ten years, while causing all sorts of chronic illnesses along the way, is "beautiful" or something that anyone should aspire to or find desirable is just deranged.

Pawwed Rig

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

That's a universal term. It's a fact of nature seen in all mammal species. The dominant (alpha) and the submissive (beta).

Never heard off before in relation to people until PUA literature

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

what do ye make of this advert?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeVLxcekEsw

I'm not sure they would have been so willing to portray a woman as a "100% asshole".

But it doesn't seem to be something that could be generalised to more men so probably not the best example of a problem in ads.

Outlaw Pete

silverharp wrote: »

what do ye make of this advert?

After see that, I want a Coleman Sweeney movie. That was epic


Seriously though, it shows men in lots of different lights, good and bad and so it's not suggesting men are all assholes or anything.

Good advert too. I suspect it will do the job it's intended to do. Most adverts I tune out for, that I would have watched.

Wibbs

maybe

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

That's a universal term. It's a fact of nature seen in all mammal species. The dominant (alpha) and the submissive (beta).

Actually it's not close to a "fact" D. Even among mammalian species where the terms were once heavily applied they have become old hat in lieu of recent and better research. Indeed the chap who was among the first to research into dominance in wolf packs* has distanced himself from the alpha/beta stuff. It's just not good science. And as PR points out it was almost never used in relation to humans until the whole American PUA/Manosphere stuff came along. TBH I'd not have a particular issue with that if it had much validity. It really doesn't and when they get into Omega and all that you start to think they've gone full on nerdy Sheldon Cooper with their labelling. Ironically just like the American college Left who they hate with their over labelling of every bloody thing.





*he was mistaken because he was observing wolves in captivity, wolves who were adolescents of roughly the same age jostling for position minus the parents and older siblings they'd have in nature. Like a canine Lord of the Flies basically. A wolf pack is basically a family, with the "alpha" pair being the mammy and daddy.

tritium

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

Well that's me f**ked then. I think it's madness to make people feel bad (and no matter what they say that's what they are doing) about things that they cannot change. The only thing I could actually change there is able bodied, and naturally who is going to voluntarily hack off an arm or leg.

I for one would refuse to take part in that crap. I should be judged on my personality, and for an university my academic and working history, not on what is between my legs, the colour of my skin, my parents wealth levels, or that I have been lucky enough not to have major deformities from birth or haven't been involved in serious accidents.

Interesting that she focuses on young white males. Theres a pretty compelling arguement that young people (say<25) significantly loose out in the privlige stakes and that males inbthis category are heavily subject to certain adverse societal outcomes, e.g. suicide and poor educational outcomes

mzungu

tritium wrote: »

Interesting that she focuses on young white males. Theres a pretty compelling arguement that young people (say<25) significantly loose out in the privlige stakes and that males inbthis category are heavily subject to certain adverse societal outcomes, e.g. suicide and poor educational outcomes

I think what all this talk of 'privilege' seems to miss is that just by living in a western democracy (especially Ireland), you are better off than the vast majority of the planet. We pretty much won the lottery of life being born in this country, so to be throwing around 'privilege' as some kind of insult is a bit pointless, especially when it's mostly people from comfortable middle classes doing all the labelling.

I've said it before and ill say it again, all this navel gazing and labelling smacks to me of people with far to much time on their hands.

professore

That privilege thing really rubs me up the wrong way, especially when spouted by SJWs with millionaire parents living in some leafy D4 suburb to someone who came from a very poor family, had no telephone at home, and didn't see the inside of a restaurant until graduating from college at 23, and had to work for everything they have.

In fairness, Ireland isn't too bad YET ...

Dick phelan

professore wrote: »

That privilege thing really rubs me up the wrong way, especially when spouted by SJWs with millionaire parents living in some leafy D4 suburb to someone who came from a very poor family, had no telephone at home, and didn't see the inside of a restaurant until graduating from college at 23, and had to work for everything they have.

In fairness, Ireland isn't too bad YET ...

Tell me about it, i took a sociology module in college about gender, i remember in one tutorial a girl told my friend because he was a white male his life was easier then others and he wouldn't understand really adversity faced by women. my mate is from one of the poorest area's of limerick has a useless drunk waste of space for a dad and has worked part time since the age of 16, funded his way through college without any money from parents, the cheek of some people to suggest you wouldn't no hardship because your white and have a penis, meanwhile said girl probably has fees paid for by daddy and never worked a real job in her life. Hilarious when middle class women claim to be oppressed, they don't no what real hardship is.

py2006

I was told only last week, that "you wouldn't understand, because you are a man", when I questioned a female friend on her claims of oppression/misogyny etc.

This is a woman who lives in a lovely semi-detached house with a loving husband and a lovely baby girl who can afford to stay at home to take care of her baby.

newport2

newport2 wrote: »

Interesting one in the Guardian today

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/07/cps-report-violence-against-women-girl-men-boys-victims-violent-crime

Basically, the CPS report titled "Violence against Women and Girls" includes violence against men and boys in it. It's stated in brackets in the small print, but the title is what people will remember. Lumping men and boys in it pumps up the numbers under Violence against women and girls. Are actual figures for men and boys not important enough to be published clearly? Deliberately manipulating stats or just accidently misleading figures?

Violence against women reach record high - no mention of the fact above in reporting this. Deliberately misleading journalism. It's a serious enough issue without exaggerating it.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/05/violent-crimes-against-women-in-england-and-wales-reach-record-high

Pat Mustard

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Louise O'Neill with an article on women's weight here

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/thin-or-fat-we-are-so-much-more-than-our-appearance-420193.html

Louise O' Neill wrote:

The concept of trigger warnings and political correctness often get bashed as the bastion of an overly sensitive generation of young people but I don’t agree.

The self-delusion is unrelenting.

Is there a suggestions column in The Examiner? This standard of fare has become as regular as it is disappointing.

The last time a writer for the Examiner came out with this level of drivel, I think it was the Unionist politician Stephen King, banging on about 'the grain of Catholic obedience' that was apparent to him, in Ireland's population.

py2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y90cC4qPgq4

Pat Mustard

py2006 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y90cC4qPgq4

Le Grand Journal show covers current affairs, politics and comedy, so if Ornella Fleury is an aspiring comedian, that was the place to try to be funny. Her spiel may have backfired because Hill was offended. However, if she had tried that with somebody like Jimmy Carr, he would have just launched into peals of his usual fake laughter.

I found an account of what was said here:

In Friday's programme the TV presenter had launched into a sketch, saying she had always fancied him because she first saw him in a film in which he had blood from a woman's period smeared on his knees, referring to the 2007 hit Superbad.

Fleury added that she then saw him masturbate in front of 200 people in The Wolf of Wall Street, which let her know "he was the man for her."

She also said she had seen him sodomised in This Is The End by a three-metre tall demon.

"And you? I heard you get sodomised on a regular basis," responded Hill.

The host Ornella Fleury went on: "Anyway, here's why I have a sexual fantasy with you Jonah – all I have to say is sexual fantasy and you guys laugh... guess I don't need to finish the joke...

"My sexual fantasy would be that we would meet up in a hotel room at night. We would chat, you'd make me laugh, you'd make me laugh a lot, and then all of a sudden you'd bring your friends DiCaprio and Brad Pitt... and then you would leave."

Hill, who sat with a baffled grin on his face throughout the scene, gave a thumbs up then thanked her for "being invited on to the programme to be ridiculed by a local journalist."

The fact that he said to her: "I heard you get sodomised on a regular basis" doesn't make it sound like he particularly took it lying down either.

She explained that she had been just messing around and had made a mistake:

On Monday Fleury gave her Mea Culpa.

Speaking directly to him on camera she said: “Jonah, the problem is that for 10 years I have lived with you through your films. In fact Jonah, I really had the impression that I knew you so last Friday I thought I was just messing around with a friend, but the reality is that we are not friends.

“No the reality is that you two have two Oscar nominations and I have two videos on my YouTube account. You have made films with Scorese and Tarantino and me, I have made an advert for Spontex (a company that specializes in making cleaning products)."

There was no word out of Hill's camp whether the wounded actor had accepted her apology.

I suppose that people assume that comedians tend to have fairly thick skins and might be fair game to be slagged off, under certain circumstances. Many standup comedians that I've seen tended to have some cutting putdowns for hecklers, so I can see how there might be an assumption that they can take an amount of abuse on a comedy talkshow.

The way it looks to me is that Ornella Fleury tried to take the piss out of the wrong comedian and it backfired. Reminds me a bit of that Borat scene: "You... not so much".

Sleepy

I've never heard of Jonah Hill doing stand-up so I think she was confusing a comic actor with a comedian. The former are simply actors with good comic timing with a script, the latter are used to the cut and thrust of hecklers in a live room. They're two related, but ultimately rather different professions. When you see a cross-over, it's usually from comedian to comic actor, rarely (if ever?) the other way around.

kunst nugget

maybe

Sleepy wrote: »

I've never heard of Jonah Hill doing stand-up so I think she was confusing a comic actor with a comedian. The former are simply actors with good comic timing with a script, the latter are used to the cut and thrust of hecklers in a live room. They're two related, but ultimately rather different professions. When you see a cross-over, it's usually from comedian to comic actor, rarely (if ever?) the other way around.

Yeah, that would be my take on it as well. He's listed as a comedian on wikipedia but I've never heard of him doing stand up.

You reminded me of the time the actor playing Kramer decided to try his hand at stand up. That went down a treat…

Pat Mustard

Link to Jonah Hill doing standup.

kunst nugget

maybe

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Link to Jonah Hill doing standup.

Well, that's me proven wrong…

daithi7

Oh Gawd why did I open this thread..... warning I'm about to rant ))

Sexism (against Males) Examples:

-the really dumb 'Positive discrimination 'introduced in the last election for political candidates., I think it was 30% of FG candidates (maybe it was all parties??) had to be women. This stipulation is plainly stupid. I'd love to see 50% of the candidates being women, but they must get there by merit and hard work like every other candidate, not by some blatantly sexist edict brought in by stupid, populist politicians.Grrrr!!

- reports giving out that there are fewer women in top jobs in business, etc. That's cos many decided to become either part time, or full time mothers, and work less at their careers - Doh!! , it's so obvious, yet in any media discussion on this topic you'll rarely hear any contributor articulating this glaringly obvious fact. (As an aside, it would be interesting to see if the % of full time career women, who have consistently dedicated themselves to their careers, carries through to the same % who make it to the top. My guess fwiw is that career women are at least proportionately represented at the top)

- Family law and family law courts in general. Don't get me started. Blatant sexist law, and application of these laws, backed up by years of out moded precedent, by biased courts that rule 90% of the time in favour of the woman. This impacts on some unfortunate men's lives in really serious ways, (house, money, future earnings, access to children and family) when they are at their most vulnerable. If there was ever a blatant example of damaging sexism operating in our society, it's right there, enshrined in law, enacted every day, ruining many unfortunate guy's lives. It's truly tragic, yet you'll never hear any politician proposing to reform it to work more equally. Why not!?

newport2

daithi7 wrote: »

It's truly tragic, yet you'll never hear any politician proposing to reform it to work more equally. Why not!?

Because they'd be subsequently vilified by the media, the NWCI, etc and would not get re-elected.

johnnyskeleton

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

That's a universal term. It's a fact of nature seen in all mammal species. The dominant (alpha) and the submissive (beta).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)

The beta male, far from being submissive, is actually the second in status in a group. According to the theory, anyway.

johnnyskeleton

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

I suppose it's still somehow the patriarchy's fault that women put other women under pressure to look like the women in women's magazines.

I blame the matriarchy for insisiting that i save and wear pants when i leave the house in the morning. And when a male friend of mine points out that theres dirt on my shoe, he doesn't realise that he isnt helping me out, he has internalised the matriarchy and is forcing me to conform on their behalf.

Maguined

Sleepy wrote: »

I've never heard of Jonah Hill doing stand-up so I think she was confusing a comic actor with a comedian. The former are simply actors with good comic timing with a script, the latter are used to the cut and thrust of hecklers in a live room. They're two related, but ultimately rather different professions. When you see a cross-over, it's usually from comedian to comic actor, rarely (if ever?) the other way around.

A big factor was also the language. Hill is sitting there with an earpiece so someone can translate into English what is being said but when everyone around the table is smiling and laughing at what is being said in a different language and you are waiting on a normally toneless translation in your ear it comes across as far more being laughed at than a group of people having harmless fun laughing with each other.

Not really sexism but just an example of what is claimed as sexism really isnt.

The whole thing about how people feel like it's ok to comment on women's appearances. I got my hair cut recently (same as I do every 3 months or so) and everyone in my office felt like they could comment on it. As did people in the office across the way. And some felt like they could stop as they walked by and call in to comment on it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Letree

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)

The beta male, far from being submissive, is actually the second in status in a group. According to the theory, anyway.

The alpha beta thing is a bit of a nonsense anyway. Someone may be an alpha in one group of people and may not be anywhere near an alpha in another group of people. Depending on the personalities and characters in a given group.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Really? I've come across plenty of giving out from women along the lines of people feeling like they have "the right" to comment on their appearance just because they're women. Different circles I suppose.

py2006

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In this day and age I would be EXTREMELY hesitant in complimenting a woman on something as trivial as hair or clothes. Especially in the work place

newport2

py2006 wrote: »

In this day and age I would be EXTREMELY hesitant in complimenting a woman on something as trivial as hair or clothes. Especially in the work place

Unless you know her personally, saying nought is the safest option

kunst nugget

maybe

newport2 wrote: »

Unless you know her personally, saying nought is the safest option

I wouldn't compliment someone on their hair or clothes if I didn't know them personally. It's not out of paranoia about the age we live in or anything, I just wouldn't see the point of it. I'd say it to the people I work in the office with but I see and talk to them everyday.

py2006

Well in the way you kinda know colleagues but don't fully know them. I'd avoid any compliments. Probably overly cautious but you never know...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Carlos Orange

No

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

By that logic women would never give out about men referring to women as girls and yet that obviously happens. Double standards are pretty common.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I wasn't talking about a friend who I hadn't met in months, I was talking about literally everyone in my office, both "the lads" and the higher-ups (in front of everyone). Along with people from other offices stopping to call in and mention it.
And yes it is a bit rich talking about "the right" because it is women who judge other women's appearance more than men do, but that's still down to the patriarchy.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

And yes it is a bit rich talking about "the right" because it is women who judge other women's appearance more than men do, but that's still down to the patriarchy.

Aye, I think the article posted a few pages back highlights that. Also the other article a while back where the term 'ladylike' was deemed an insult.

It's all a bit silly.

py2006

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Totally agree and I don't see the harm. But you may one day innocently compliment the wrong woman who views your compliment negatively.

py2006

What ya'll reckon about this article

The article basically says girls don't have their own minds at a youngish age despite being 2 years more mature apparently. There has to be some level of accountability among young women. No all boys are bad. Not all girls are vulnerable, innocent snowflakes. Some girls watch and like porn too. A lot of young girls are heavily influenced by the sexualised imagery in pop and female popstars etc. A quick glimpse on Facebook will show some startling profile pics. Is this young boys fault too?

Pornography is molding and conditioning the sexual behaviors and attitudes of boys, and girls are being left without the resources to deal with these porn-saturated boys.

Pawwed Rig

Bit of common sense from the Brits around the safe spaces concept

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/14/theresa-may-criticises-university-safe-spaces-for-shutting-down-debate

frostyjacks

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Bit of common sense from the Brits around the safe spaces concept

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/14/theresa-may-criticises-university-safe-spaces-for-shutting-down-debate

The Tories, to be fair to them, play with a straight bat. In this life you have to be able to stand on your own two feet, have thick skin and give as good as you get. I don't want the next generation growing up in a sterile, debate-free environment. It's no preparation for the real world.

Pawwed Rig

There is no role for Fathers in looking after infants

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0923/818670-baby-box-limerick/

JRant

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is no role for Fathers in looking after infants

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0923/818670-baby-box-limerick/

Not one bit surprising really. Maternity hospitals in Ireland treat the father as an inconvenience most of time.

Icemancometh

No

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is no role for Fathers in looking after infants

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0923/818670-baby-box-limerick/

I think it's just an ignorantly written article about a worthwhile project.

the_pen_turner

Totally disgraceful campaign. Saw it on the news last night. . All about how mothers need help and education . How mothers can help stop cut death. How this box will help the mother be organised for the arrival.
It's like they don't even understand that there could be a father or that he might need help liking after the child

um7y1h83ge06nx

The same idiots probably (rightfully) complain about fathers not getting involved in raising kids and cannot see the irony.