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

NI24

Eric Cartman wrote: »

man/woman/child , no matter who's saying it, any nasty words are perfectly above board for anyone thinking of committing paternity fraud. Its a damaging form of deception that could very well end two lives if it was revealed.

And yet, no names for married men who impregnate women. And no, bastard doesn't count. I'm talking names specifically geared towards a man's sexual behavior.

JRant

NI24 wrote: »

Outlaw Pete made a ridiculous statement about how 90% of comments regarding women's overtly sexual behavior came from other women. Of all the things to claim, the idea that men only contribute 10% of the running social commentary of women's sexual behavior is such a falsehood it's laughable. In fact, it's one of the few things where men contribute just as much if not more than women.

What would the other "few" things that men contribute be?

NI24

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How can you prove that ? bit of a sweeping generalisation.

Because men and women have different writing styles and studies have backed this up. I can predict the sex of most boards members with almost 100% certainty not by the subject matter, but by how it's written.

JRant

NI24 wrote: »

And yet, no names for married men who impregnate women. And no, bastard doesn't count. I'm talking names specifically geared towards a man's sexual behavior.

How about Daddy, Dad, Da or the old fashioned father?
They're all words used.

NI24

JRant wrote: »

What would the other "few" things that men contribute be?

The way women dress (too revealing, not revealing enough) . How "ladylike" they are in manners, etc. As if it's so unusual for men to comment on other people's lifestyle.

NI24

JRant wrote: »

How about Daddy, Dad, Da or the old fashioned father?
They're all words used.

Clearly I meant women who aren't their wives. But if that's the best you can do, then you really don't have an argument.

JRant

NI24 wrote: »

Clearly I meant women who aren't their wives. But if that's the best you can do, then you really don't have an argument.

Well clearly I can't read your mind. Say what you mean.

What exactly has a married man having a child with someone else got to do with paternity fraud?

NI24

JRant wrote: »

Well clearly I can't read your mind. Say what you mean.

What exactly has a married man having a child with someone else got to do with paternity fraud?

Seriously if you can't see the connection between a man fathering an illegitimate child and a woman mothering an illegitimate child then I can't help you.

The J Stands for Jay

NI24 wrote: »

then I can't help you.

This seems to be your arguement for everything.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Let's get back to sexism against men please. We seem to have veered somewhat off-topic.

Outlaw Pete

NI24 wrote: »

Was this respectable community college a barnyard? Because I went to "mixed" schools my whole life (single sex schools are so rare in my hometown area we just called them schools) and none of the girls ever behaved this way. Some of the boys did, but even then what you mentioned would be extreme behavior. I mean, farting? That's just pig behavior and I doubt even a group of young men think farting in public is funny.

Very respectable. Sure I went there didn't I

Seriously though, it was a pretty central north county Dublin school and so it had pupils from all around the surround areas, from Ashbourne to Darndale and Santry to Skerries. What I describe wasn't everyday but yeah I witnessed all that and then some. We even had one girl expelled for attacking a teacher. Overall though, what I'm trying to say is that the girls I encountered at school were just as bad as the lads in most ways, which I hadn't anticipated. The notes they would pass were just as explicit as the lads, the things they wanted to do to opposite sex just shameful and yeah, they were just as gross but I'm surprised you see the farting as the most animistic of the behaviour I cited tbh.

I only mentioned it as I again, it wasn't something I had expected, given that I had been raised and schooled to think of girls as being made of sugar and spice. After a month or so though, they'd be farting and we'd be saying 'Taxi!' and giving them a dead arm just as much as were with the lads. I think secondary school was good in that way as it made me see that the opposite sex were not really as different as society in general were leading e to believe.

If you'd like I could dig up an after hours thread where a woman wrote into an Irish newspaper asking for advice after cheating on her partner and finding herself pregnant by the other man. The men in there gave a lot of "fcuks" and words like slut and whore were definitely in the conversation. This was a woman they didn't even know-- in fact, the woman didn't exist and it was a made up scenario to get gullible morons into a frenzy over paternity fraud. So yeah, I'd say men definitely care what women are up to and you don't notice it because of a whoppin' case of confirmation bias and willful ignorance.

I remember the thread you're highlighting well, but it was her deception and moral bankruptcy which men were disgusted by, not her promiscuousness.

What I said was that 90% of the time when I heard girls being called such names it was by other females, not that men never did it. Of course they do but like I also said, that tends to only really be when women are "in men's field of vision". What I mean by that is that while men might say such things too, it will tend to be like in the thread example you cited, where some woman has done something awful. Whereas with girls, the majority of them I heard, and still hear, these words being said by women, about other women, it has been about things that were not harming then directly in any way.

For example, next time you see an article or a video going viral where some woman at an awards show is dressed provocatively, go and take a look at the abusive comments on them and you'll see that the majority of them they will made be being made by women. The comments from lads more often than not will be objectifying the woman maybe, but they won't be nearly as vitriolic.

Sure even whenever I see much younger girls walking through Temple Bar or wherever, more often than not if you hear a negative remark being flung at them, rarely will it be a man that said it, unless he knocked back maybe or but that's what I mean by 'field of vision'. As silverharp said, women's police women's behaviour more than men do and 'police' is the apt word now that I think of it. Personally I think a lot of it is jealously.

Not that men aren't harsh with their own gender, and just as green eyed, they very much are Guy gets a fancy car and is getting lots of attention, being a bit cheeky with it, then men, especially young men, are gonna knock him for it. Any articles or videos about Beckham, or Ronalado etc and without a doubt they will have way more negative comments from guys than girls. Both genders have their crosses to bear in that respect I guess. Not that I'd feel sorry for rich, good looking guys driving Porches. Bastards :P

iptba

mzungu wrote: »

This article goes a bit further into the background: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/lessons-on-male-privilege-in-218m-victorian-schools-program/news-story/acea77bcd12cd6c3885c97b2be9fca47

Victorian students will be taught about “male privilege” and how “masculinity” encourages “control and dominance” over women, as part of a mandatory new school subject aimed at combating family violence.

The Victorian government will push ahead with the rollout of its $21.8 million respectful relationships education program, despite claims the program fails to consider the multiple and complex drivers of family violence, ignores male victims and amounts to the brainwashing of children.

Evidence has emerged the program risks alienating men — by presenting all men as “bad” and all women as “victims” — a point highlighted in a report evaluating a pilot of the program in 19 schools last year.

As part of its broader campaign against family violence, the Andrews government has released a series of new resources aimed at kindergarten through to Year 12 classes designed to complement a “whole-of-school” approach to violence prevention.

The Resilience, Rights and Respectful Relationships learning materials aim to encourage gender equity in relationships and challenge gender stereotypes, which are key drivers of ­violence against women, it is claimed.

While the program refers to “gender-based violence”, the overriding emphasis is on men being the perpetrators of violent acts. Proposed lessons will introduce students to the concept of “privilege”, which is described as “automatic, unearned benefits bestowed upon dominant groups” based on “gender, ­sexuality, race or socio-economic class”.

“Being born a male, you have advantages — such as being overly represented in the public sphere — and this will be true whether you personally approve or think you are entitled to this privilege,” states guidance for the Years 7 and 8 curriculum,” it says.

By Years 11 and 12, students are asked to examine their privilege and ways that “equity” can be encouraged, such as catch-up programs, special benefits or entitlements for those who are not considered privileged.

“An awareness of the existence of male privilege is critical in understanding why there is a need for feminist perspectives, and education on gender at all,” the curriculum guide points out.

It also introduces students to the term “hegemonic masculinity”, which is defined as the dominant form of masculinity in society that “requires boys and men to be heterosexual, tough, athletic and emotionless, and ­encourages the control and dominance of men over women”.

Jeremy Sammut, a senior ­research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, criticised the program, calling it ­“taxpayer-funded indoctrination” of children.

“The idea behind this program — that all men are latent abusers by nature of the ‘discourse’ — is an idea that only cloistered feminist academics could love,” Dr Sammut told The Australian. “A lot of evidence suggests that like child abuse, domestic ­violence is a byproduct of social dysfunction: welfare, drugs, family breakdown.”

Kevin ­Donnelly, a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University, said the program was biased and lacked objectivity and balance.

“There’s no doubt that women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence and more needs to be done,” Dr Donnelly said.

“The royal commission found that 25 per cent of victims of family violence are men and there’s little, if anything, in there that acknowledges the impact of violence on men and young boys.”

Hannah Grant, a spokeswoman for Our Watch, which ­man­aged the pilot and carried out the evaluation, acknowledged there had been tension in some schools and statistics demonstrating the gendered nature of violence often prompted challenging ­discussion.

“Feedback suggested that the whole-school briefing had a varied impact within and across schools,” she said.

Education Minister James Merino dismissed concerns over the program.

“We will not stand by while one woman in Australia is killed every week through domestic violence,” Mr Merlino said.

“It’s ­astounding anyone could think teaching our kids about respect for other people is a bad thing.”

A waste of taxpayers money is right.

This was discussed in a critical way on High Noon with George Hook on Newstalk on Wednesday.

silverharp

Rathdranalon ‏@Daicheal 10h10 hours ago
@RitaPanahi

Implying it hasn't started yet, this was taken in a high school classroom earlier this week in Victoria.

Mark Hamill

NI24 wrote: »

The problem with that study is that a good number of twitter users are men parading as women.

I'd be interested in seeing any evidence (i.e. not just your own personal suppositions) to back this up?

um7y1h83ge06nx

EDIT: In response to Silverharp's image btw.

Jesus, wonder do they finish off by asking if all the men present would do the decent thing and kill themselves.

This is aimed at teenagers who are going through a period where they are trying to understand themselves and where they are going to go in life. Being beaten down like this just cannot be good for their mental health.

Examining that sentence historically it probably is true. Men would have typically being in positions of power where they declared war, resulting in the deaths of many men, women and children. If the tables were reversed and women were traditionally the ones in power are these hardcore feminists saying things would be different i.e. there would have been less death and destruction?

<SARCASM>
I reckon they would say that the world would have been much more people as women as loving, peaceful and not evil

What are little boys made of?
What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails
And puppy-dogs' tails
That's what little boys are made of

What are little girls made of?
What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice
And everything nice [or "all things nice"]
That's what little girls are made of

</SARCASM>

Carlos Orange

No

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

Examining that sentence historically it probably is true. Men would have typically being in positions of power where they declared war, resulting in the deaths of many men, women and children. If the tables were reversed and women were traditionally the ones in power are these hardcore feminists saying things would be different i.e. there would have been less death and destruction?

Historically men are typically shovelling excrement in farms. That is far more representative of mens historical life experience than running countries.

silverharp

its feminist original sin, I'd prefer the Christian original sin if I had to pick a fantasy philosophy to hang this off, at least it was democratic :pac:

midnight city

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I remember the thread you're highlighting well, but it was her deception and moral bankruptcy which men were disgusted by, not her promiscuousness.

True, how could anyone miss that point without being incredibly blinkered.

um7y1h83ge06nx

psinno wrote: »

Historically men are typically shovelling excrement in farms. That is far more representative of mens historical life experience than running countries.

More typical of course but the hardcore feminists always conveniently ignore that - poor men never existed in their eyes just rich, powerful warmongers and tyrants. Same thing about "male privilege" and how downtroden women are in first world countries, it's total crap. Should send them to Syria.

abbir

NI24 wrote: »

Seriously if you can't see the connection between a man fathering an illegitimate child and a woman mothering an illegitimate child then I can't help you.

If the woman isn't truthful about the paternity of the child then there is a big difference between them. It's not just the fact of having a child with another person, it is convincing someone that the child is actually theirs.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Obviously this is at the very extreme end of things

Mum suffocated three sons 'so they wouldn't abuse women'

Obviously she probably has some severe mental issues but with all the hate towards men by feminist movements maybe it was only a matter a time before something like this happened.

Tea drinker

Never see this article wrote about a mother....

I love my father but I’m fed up with his mental health issues

PROBLEM: I am a young woman who feels she is only coming into her own now. I do not live at home but my siblings are still at home with my father and mother. The issues that are ongoing at home are hugely affecting my own mental health as well as my mother’s and my siblings’. My father’s mental health is not good. I am starting to suffer panic attacks and bursts of anxiety thinking about the situation at home. I have huge guilt for moving out and I feel I’ve abandoned my mother and want to rescue her at all costs.
Don’t get me wrong, I love my father with all my heart but I am fed up with his mental state. My father’s physical health has never been good and he has gone through a lot, but in the past 10 years his mental health has deteriorated and has affected everyone around him. He suffers from severe depression and loneliness. We have done what we can to help him but he refuses to get professional help. He suffers from terrible anxiety and always acts like he is being attacked, which leads to verbal abuse to all of us. I’m am sick to death of him always playing the victim and wanting us to feel sorry for him.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/i-love-my-father-but-i-m-fed-up-with-his-mental-health-issues-1.2821157

PucaMama

Tea drinker wrote: »

Never see this article wrote about a mother....

I love my father but I m fed up with his mental health issues

PROBLEM: I am a young woman who feels she is only coming into her own now. I do not live at home but my siblings are still at home with my father and mother. The issues that are ongoing at home are hugely affecting my own mental health as well as my mother s and my siblings . My father s mental health is not good. I am starting to suffer panic attacks and bursts of anxiety thinking about the situation at home. I have huge guilt for moving out and I feel I ve abandoned my mother and want to rescue her at all costs.
Don t get me wrong, I love my father with all my heart but I am fed up with his mental state. My father s physical health has never been good and he has gone through a lot, but in the past 10 years his mental health has deteriorated and has affected everyone around him. He suffers from severe depression and loneliness. We have done what we can to help him but he refuses to get professional help. He suffers from terrible anxiety and always acts like he is being attacked, which leads to verbal abuse to all of us. I m am sick to death of him always playing the victim and wanting us to feel sorry for him.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/i-love-my-father-but-i-m-fed-up-with-his-mental-health-issues-1.2821157

I have personal experiences in a situation like this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone being fed up trying to help and getting nowhere. Any parent acting like the father is here is being abusive. Having anxiety and depression does not excuse mental and emotional abuse. The situation described has huge similarities to my own situation. It's very hard to understand unless you have gone through it.

Connacht2KXX

irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/do-men-just-instinctively-dislike-movies-and-tv-shows-that-star-women-426999.html

More Louise O'Neill garbage. Basically, if men don't like a tv show, movie, book that stars or is made by a woman, it's sexist. She then goes on to make even more scientifically untrue claims - she believes that women aren't more likely to be empathetic than men, which implies that men and women are the same at birth and only the patriarchy moulds women to being more empathetic. You know, evolution had nothing to do with determining certain characteristics that 2 polar opposite groups (men and women) are likely to exhibit...

Wibbs

maybe

Connacht2KXX wrote: »

More Louise O'Neill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_IXzU-lnLU

Though I have to admire her getting paid to (t)roll this stuff out and finding enough of an audience for it to satisfy advertisers. Though I strongly suspect like much editorial content these days the audience is more driven by people responding by "what the actual fcuk??" and getting a thrill from that than true believers. Still, credit where credit is due.

Basically, if men don't like a tv show, movie, book that stars or is made by a woman, it's sexist.

Or maybe A) broadly speaking the genders may find certain narratives more appealing(more men like Top Gear, more women like The Fall and so forth), or the examples she gives are badly wrought narratives, or C) agenda driven narratives, or any/all of the above.

EG "It deals with many things — race, gender, white privilege". Yeah that sounds like a fcuking laugh a minute alright luv. Break out the overpriced popcorn, while I pull my pud to angst porn. Not. Maybe if there were more explosions and bikinis? Hard to say. Though the title is "White Girl" so you kinda know what's what going in. Just like you'd know "Magnum Force" was unlikely to rival Ibsen.

"When the all-female remake of Ghostbusters was released this summer the disparity between the male and female reaction was telling." Or maybe it was the A, B, C options above? For a start it was a clumsy(and oddly badly made, given the same cast and crews previous flic "Bridesmaids" which was a cracker IMH) rehash of a favourite for many and the cast and director stated publicly that it was an agenda driven flic. Audiences can hardly be blamed for taking some umbrage at that. Especially with the increasing level of imported polarisation of gender nonsense going on. Cue both sides going full retard.

We saw that with Star Wars A New Hope 2 the Force Awakens. If anyone dared to suggest that it was a flashy theme park ride of nostalgia driven fluff for a tentpole frnachise(and a pretty provably so example), one of the goto responses was to suggest that anyone who felt like that was "just a sexist" because a far more Mary Sue Lucille Skywalker was the lead this time. Hell, I enjoyed that flic, but rather like watching a porno where the housewife drops to her knees to help out the visiting handyman you know your buttons are about to be pressed, however enjoyably.

She then goes on to make even more scientifically untrue claims - she believes that women aren't more likely to be empathetic than men, which implies that men and women are the same at birth and only the patriarchy moulds women to being more empathetic. You know, evolution had nothing to do with determining certain characteristics that 2 polar opposite groups (men and women) are likely to exhibit...

The second rule of modern Feminism(after women = always victims/men = always at fault) is "biology has an effect, only if, when and where it suits our purposes".

silverharp

Connacht2KXX wrote: »

irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/do-men-just-instinctively-dislike-movies-and-tv-shows-that-star-women-426999.html

More Louise O'Neill garbage. Basically, if men don't like a tv show, movie, book that stars or is made by a woman, it's sexist. She then goes on to make even more scientifically untrue claims - she believes that women aren't more likely to be empathetic than men, which implies that men and women are the same at birth and only the patriarchy moulds women to being more empathetic. You know, evolution had nothing to do with determining certain characteristics that 2 polar opposite groups (men and women) are likely to exhibit...

she is not far off saying men are horrible because we dont like romance novels or dont like watching soap operas. let me flog myself for being a white male....

The Black Oil

Garbage from O' Neill? I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Up next, we have "I think we live in a society that doesn't want to know about sexual violence" to look forward to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSEulXY7WZg

deaddonkey15

Connacht2KXX wrote: »

irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/do-men-just-instinctively-dislike-movies-and-tv-shows-that-star-women-426999.html

More Louise O'Neill garbage. Basically, if men don't like a tv show, movie, book that stars or is made by a woman, it's sexist. She then goes on to make even more scientifically untrue claims - she believes that women aren't more likely to be empathetic than men, which implies that men and women are the same at birth and only the patriarchy moulds women to being more empathetic. You know, evolution had nothing to do with determining certain characteristics that 2 polar opposite groups (men and women) are likely to exhibit...

I've watched a few episodes of Can't Cope Won't Cope. It's utter trash, and typical of the type of trendy Irish sh*t RTE are trying to pump out lately.

"Described as the Irish Girls, it’s about two young women living in Dublin who haunt Coppers nightclub on a frequent basis, drink too much, have unsatisfactory sex with strangers, and must then endure awkward conversations with their pharmacist to procure the morning after pill."

Great description by Louise there. Hard to believe more men aren't tuning in to this every week. Sexism.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

That sounds like the worst idea for a programme ever.

kunst nugget

maybe

Tea drinker wrote: »

Never see this article wrote about a mother....
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/i-love-my-father-but-i-m-fed-up-with-his-mental-health-issues-1.2821157

Nonsense. There's been a loads written about toxic mothers. Just search Amazon or look at the personal issues forum on here.

Wibbs

maybe

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That sounds like the worst idea for a programme ever.

Not really AC. It's all about the demographics and what certain segments want to watch. I mean I would rather remove a man ball with a rusty corkscrew than watch X-Factor or Britain's got special needs etc. That man ball awaits rusty corkscrew list is a long one, but others like that kinda stuff, quite the number do as it happens and fair play. I'd not be particularly snobbish about that kinda thing, generally speaking. This girly Fear and Loathing in Coppers clearly would find some sort of audience. I haven't seen it nor intend to, but I'd bet I could write the treatment in short order: two girls actual friends, but oddly bitchy with each other. Talk of icky girly stuff and boys. *giggles*(probably one "boy" in particular for one of them. A Mr Big/ex/the One). Slow realisation that girls don't need boys. Throw in some "serious" stuff in a heavyhanded "oh oh here it comes" and simmer.

I'd only get "snobbish" about such things if people started to see and treat them as some insightful social comment, rather than the targeted entertainment mixed in with wish fulfilment/nostalgia that it is.

py2006

So I cam across this article in the 'Men' section (yes there is one) of the Huffington Post. This rather patronising article was written by a man (allegedly). It starts off with:

Hey, fellas!

I’m gonna mansplain something to y’all today. I’m gonna mansplain a) what feminism is and b) why it’s good for you, me, and all the other dudes.

'Hey Fellas' and 'dudes' makes it sound like my old granny trying to be down with the teens. Anyway, he goes on to explain what feminism isn't and what it actually is. He even says you is going to 'mansplain' to us men.

You can read for yourself what he says about what feminsm isn't (does he really think thats what men think it is?). But take a look at his definition of feminism, because this is what men do, right?

This means women get to stop being paid unfairly, harassed in the street, and - bit more serious here - raped and attacked.

This means, yeah, you can’t get paid more just because you’ve got a c*ck. This means you can’t holler out the passenger side of your best friend’s ride at women. This means you can’t slap and punch and stab and assault and murder your wife, daughter, sister, or any woman anywhere in the world ever. And, come on, you don’t honestly believe you deserve all or any of these, right?

Yes, thats right! Those of us who are critical of certain traits of feminism believe we deserve the right to slap our sisters, payed more for our cocks etc etc

He then goes on to say what feminism wants for men themselves (how nice)

Feminism means, fellas, that a man can express his emotions without shame. That no man has to lose someone important because he couldn’t say what he felt.

Feminism wants men to feel comfortable saying to a friend, partner, or doctor: “I feel sad. Help me.”

Feminism wants men to stop killing themselves. And what is man-hating about that?

Now, I have NEVER seen/read/heard anything from the feminism end that relates to men. Other the usual negative sh11te and double standards.

I don't know whether this guy is for real or not.

GLaDOS

The word "mansplain" is a handy indicator of who and what to pay no attention to

py2006

Apparently the following poster has been on display (or was till recently) in the University of Ottawa:

smacl

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That sounds like the worst idea for a programme ever.

Clearly never watched the Late Late or Miriam Meets. Worst programme is a pretty hotly contested item for RTE viewers

smacl

The Black Oil wrote: »

Garbage from O' Neill? I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Aw crap, I've seen that book been passed from the eldest to herself a few weeks back. Can I expect to some day now to be living in a house full of wimmin rather than regular gals.

Wibbs

maybe

py2006 wrote: »

'Hey Fellas' and 'dudes' makes it sound like my old granny trying to be down with the teens.

Aye, that was cringeworthy. I was embarrassed for him. Slightly. If the guy isn't past his middle years and someone who wears slacks and leather(ette) elbow patches without irony then I don't. Get off the stage granddad.

Yes, thats right! Those of us who are critical of certain traits of feminism believe we deserve the right to slap our sisters, payed more for our cocks etc etc

He then goes on to say what feminism wants for men themselves (how nice)



Now, I have NEVER seen/read/heard anything from the feminism end that relates to men. Other the usual negative sh11te and double standards.

I don't know whether this guy is for real or not.

Again pass it through the Wibbsometer 3000 Feminism Filter(™)©. If the readout translates as "women are aways victims with no agency and men are always oppressors with complete agency" then it's sadly all too real for Tumblr feminism. And it passes that test with flying colours.

I might have said scary haired Tumblr feminism, but a quick click onwards reveals he's obsessed with being bald and under thirty(there goes the theory he's an oul lad trying to get with the kidz. Christ I'm nigh on twice his age and I'd not use "dudes" in earnest). Oh and he reckons he has been the recipient of "bald prejudice". I shít thee not gentle reader. Here's a thought manchild, it happens Ted, sack the fcuk up, build a bridge, get over it(or as some lads do fix it with chemistry or surgery if it means that much and cool and the gang if you do). He even reckons he's less "virile" now than when he was younger. Da fcuk? You're under thirty FFS. There must be something in the water. :rolleyes: Check this insane nonsense out:

A bald head looks like the tip of an erect penis without the external urethral meatus2, and one would be foolish to deny that there are few things more masculine than a b*ner. It makes sense for gay men to fetishise the shaven head, as the defining feature of a male homosexual is his eroticisation of the penis.

That's before we get to this gem:

Male pattern baldness is a white man’s disease

Yep. I don't even…

TL;DR? The guys a juvenile minded ivory tower arse and by his own daftness an actual dickhead. *facepalm*

smacl wrote: »

Aw crap, I've seen that book been passed from the eldest to herself a few weeks back. Can I expect to some day now to be living in a house full of wimmin rather than regular gals.

Hopefully not. What pisses me off the most about such works is the tragedy/victim porn aspect to them. All created narratives plug into some deep needs of the psyche and that's fine. Hamlet pushes buttons all over the place. Horror flics are designed to work our deepest most primeval buttons for pleasure. The difference is when it becomes near masturbatory and mistaken for reality. And worse, when people believe it to describe general human experience. Id Est claiming Ireland is a "rape culture".

iptba

A minister is to "positively discriminate" in favour of women who apply for State boards on the grounds that they "tend to be more questioning".

Communications Minister Denis Naughten wants to tip the gender balance on boards under his remit to the point where they are made up of 60pc women.

Continues at:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/minister-will-favour-women-for-state-jobs-35153573.html

JRant

iptba wrote: »

Continues at:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/minister-will-favour-women-for-state-jobs-35153573.html

He wants to discriminate and have the majority of boards under his remit female orientated but

""The difficultly I have had is that I haven't had the qualified women presented to me," the minister added."

So in other words the best candidates are currently being appointed but because they have the wrong type of genitalia then they are in fact the wrong appointments!

Pawwed Rig

The scary part is that in the circles he mixes in this is not seen as idiocy.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Sometimes you would really wonder if you're dreaming.

Carlos Orange

No

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The scary part is that in the circles he mixes in this is not seen as idiocy.

Politicians don't necessarily have to believe what they are selling along as voters are lapping it up.

gizmo555

Pat Leahy had a fairly scathing profile of Minister Mitchell O'Connor in Saturday's Irish Times. Much of the criticism he cited came from her own party colleagues, including other women TDs.

But according to Chief Whip Regina Doherty, "I think I can say this as a woman, I don’t think there’s a single article that has ever been written about a male politician in the same vein, simple as that. She would not be getting half of the criticism she’s currently getting if she was a man. She is ambitious for her role, she is working 24/7, and she is doing the absolute best that she can do, and I think people should just leave her alone and let her get on with it".

Well, I think I can say this a human - that was the point of Leahy's article. She is "doing the absolute best that she can do", it's just not good enough. Male or female, ambition and capacity for hard work don't necessarily equal competence. Nothing sexist about it.

wowy

gizmo555 wrote: »

But according to Chief Whip Regina Doherty, "I think I can say this as a woman, I don’t think there’s a single article that has ever been written about a male politician in the same vein, simple as that. She would not be getting half of the criticism she’s currently getting if she was a man. She is ambitious for her role, she is working 24/7, and she is doing the absolute best that she can do, and I think people should just leave her alone and let her get on with it".

Just off the top of my head, hasn't Shane Ross been getting a lot of negative publicity recently for his performance? I'm sure a quick Google would find scathing criticisms of Ahern, Cowen, Reilly etc.

blue note

gizmo555 wrote: »

Pat Leahy had a fairly scathing profile of Minister Mitchell O'Connor in Saturday's Irish Times. Much of the criticism he cited came from her own party colleagues, including other women TDs.

But according to Chief Whip Regina Doherty, "I think I can say this as a woman, I don’t think there’s a single article that has ever been written about a male politician in the same vein, simple as that. She would not be getting half of the criticism she’s currently getting if she was a man. She is ambitious for her role, she is working 24/7, and she is doing the absolute best that she can do, and I think people should just leave her alone and let her get on with it".

Well, I think I can say this a human - that was the point of Leahy's article. She is "doing the absolute best that she can do", it's just not good enough. Male or female, ambition and capacity for hard work don't necessarily equal competence. Nothing sexist about it.

She also wouldn't get the job if she was a man. They'd look for someone more qualified or a woman.

gizmo555

wowy wrote: »

Just off the top of my head, hasn't Shane Ross been getting a lot of negative publicity recently for his performance? I'm sure a quick Google would find scathing criticisms of Ahern, Cowen, Reilly etc.

Of course - Doherty is either spoofing or she doesn't read much.

There's nothing new in TDs of doubtful experience or competence being appointed because of a perceived political need to have a minister in a constituency. Mitchell O'Connor is just another example of this. But, according to Doherty, questioning her ability is inherently sexist.

Connacht2KXX

gizmo555 wrote: »

Pat Leahy had a fairly scathing profile of Minister Mitchell O'Connor in Saturday's Irish Times. Much of the criticism he cited came from her own party colleagues, including other women TDs.

But according to Chief Whip Regina Doherty, "I think I can say this as a woman, I don’t think there’s a single article that has ever been written about a male politician in the same vein, simple as that. She would not be getting half of the criticism she’s currently getting if she was a man. She is ambitious for her role, she is working 24/7, and she is doing the absolute best that she can do, and I think people should just leave her alone and let her get on with it".

Well, I think I can say this a human - that was the point of Leahy's article. She is "doing the absolute best that she can do", it's just not good enough. Male or female, ambition and capacity for hard work don't necessarily equal competence. Nothing sexist about it.

This is probably the wrong thing to focus on but I think it's important - "I can say this as a woman, I don't think there's a single article that has ever been written about a male politician in the same vein". Firstly, why does being a woman allow you to know whether or not there's been a scathing article written about a man? Anyone with the ability to read should be able to know whether such an article has been written. The fact that you are a woman doesn't give your argument any more potency. I can't stand when people preface a statement with "as a man", "as a Catholic", "as a Munster supporter" etc etc. I made this point in another thread - logical arguments work regardless of your sex, race, gender etc.
Secondly, has she ever read any articles about Enda Kenny, Brian Cowen, Gerry Adams? They get torn to shreds by the media every day. I don't have a problem with it as criticism is important, even vital. Yet, it's considered sexist to criticise a woman.

ligerdub

JRant wrote:

You would be very surprised. I know a couple of large companies who are going down this exact route. "Fast track management training for women only" and active recruitment of mainly women to 'redress the balance' are 2 that I have personally seen and were driven by just such women in senior HR roles.

My last employer had a "Diversity Team". It consisted of all white, female, Irish people. Their primary focus was talks on women's issues and female guest speakers and the like. Occasionally they would mention that men were invited to go, but it was a hollow gesture.

They also offered a scholarship to UCD for a Masters program but it was only available to women.

Finally then they had frequent job postings for transfers and promotions. It was very common to see "we are targeting a 50:50 gender split at management level. Women are therefore invited to apply for this position and are encouraged to do so".

I left.

fly_agaric

gizmo555 wrote: »

But, according to Doherty, questioning her ability is inherently sexist.

That's the way the (western?) world is now. It used to be that women were considered "just not up to the job" intrinsically, and unfair barriers prevented them from getting into important/powerful positions.

Now orthodoxy is that women are usually a better choice for these jobs so should be preferred when female candidate is available.

When women get into these positions, a sort of feminist shield effect can surround their actions. Any criticism of their performance is old fashioned misogyny, which of course all right thinking people have put in the dustbin long ago!

daithi7

Before the last election I listened incredulously to a show on Newstalk, where they had an all woman's, panel discussing women in parliament and government & society in general. The blatantly sexist Fine Gael strategy of positively discriminating for women candidates over men came up, and they all agreed unreservedly that this was e a good idea!? Eh why exactly?? Not one person, the male presenter included, queried whether it might not be better to simply select the best candidate purely on merit say, no , they all agreed, like the programmed myopic muppets that they are that this must undoubtedly be a good thing as it will lead to more women being elected. The fact that it might tavour the wrong kind of women, some of lower ability, dedication &/or experience to other candidate's also seeking these positionsin our national parliament never even came up in the conversation. The fact that in the name of equality(yeah right!) that blatant sexism was being crudely used to actively discriminate against more able, dedicated and experienced male candidates was totally & quite deliberately ignored imho.

I was already livid at this stage, but then the presenter asked some gobshiite from the women's liberty council (or some other such sexist attitudinal crowd) ,' how many of the new female TDs should become ministers?' Her response was that they all should, she couldn't see why not!? No mention of ability, no questioning of track record, ethics, politics, experience of office, running departments, budgets, or anything, our other better TDs seeking these roles, nope, just simply make all these newbie females ministers cos they have a pair of tits!!

None of the panel even posed a question as to whether these newbie female tds might be any good!? I kid u not, You just couldn't make it up.

It's with this kind of blatantly dumb, sexist, discriminatory group think, and critically unchallenged measures like this, that this country will go down the tubes. Again!! I'm all for women in politics, business, leadership positions in organisations, etc, etc, etc but only when they are at least as capable, dedicated and apply themselves as well as all other candidates available. I want the best person for the job regardless of gender. Otherwise they can work for their promotions, jobs and positions of power just like everyone else. Now isn't that a novel idea hey!?

But wtf don't we hear that said more frequently on our airwaves, in our media and in other influencing fora!? Cos feminist lunacy has now taken over the asylum imho, and it's high time it was stopped, and replaced with something far more egalitarian.


P.s. rant over..... for now