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

midnight city

She made some comment that boys are always listened to and girls aren't. I don't know where she gets that idea from. Utter nonsense.

mrkiscool2

So the male contraception trial being halted has been making the rounds, but obviously a lot of sites have only talked about how some men are feeling down and stuff, such as this article here. The reason according to the feminist media?

From the study: "Of these 20, 6 men discontinued only for changes in mood and 6 men discontinued for the following single reasons: acne, pain or panic at first injections, palpitations, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction." The other eight men dropped out because of mood changes.

When, in actual fact, there was more than just a "change of mood" or "acne, pain". Some men were experiencing some severe depression (more so than on the female pill) and some men are now infertile while others sperm count dropped by 75%.

They also claim the contraception was scrapped, which isn't true. The dug is being taken back to solve those issues and is actually seen as a massive step forward for a male contraceptive with a lot of positives (as well as a few severe negatives) been taken from the trial. Like, pretty much every pharmaceutical treatment with today's regulations will go through numerous trials before being approved. Feminists just want to seem superior and bully those men who have issues after the trial.

silverharp

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So the male contraception trial being halted has been making the rounds, but obviously a lot of sites have only talked about how some men are feeling down and stuff, such as this article here. The reason according to the feminist media?



When, in actual fact, there was more than just a "change of mood" or "acne, pain". Some men were experiencing some severe depression (more so than on the female pill) and some men are now infertile while others sperm count dropped by 75%.

They also claim the contraception was scrapped, which isn't true. The dug is being taken back to solve those issues and is actually seen as a massive step forward for a male contraceptive with a lot of positives (as well as a few severe negatives) been taken from the trial. Like, pretty much every pharmaceutical treatment with today's regulations will go through numerous trials before being approved. Feminists just want to seem superior and bully those men who have issues after the trial.

there was also one suicide put down to the trial and one case of permanent infertility or so I heard anyway

mzungu

py2006 wrote: »

But when I hear the phrase rape culture I am thinking, eh no, we do not support it, enjoy it, accept it as part of a night out, meet like minded rapists to converse and joke about it. We don't celebrate it. It is not the culture of Ireland. It happens unfortunately but that doesn't mean there is a culture of it.

Am I mad with that comparison?

The problem with the entire "rape culture" mantra is that like all theories, it can be moulded to mean whatever one wants it to mean. The scale starts at the act itself but then casts the net wide enough so that any form of the "male gaze" can be viewed as a part of it. This is where it runs into problems (and there are many), almost everybody (asexuals aside) buys magazines, watches movies, tv shows, adverts, music videos, video games etc where the gaze will be present, and this goes for both sexes. So, when you follow it down that rabbit hole, you find out that pretty much everybody who is living today is part of this grand conspiracy to normalise rape. As other posters have pointed out, rapists are outcasts in prisons and kept separate from the population for their own safety. So, can there really be a normalisation and acceptance of rape in Irish society, when even those who don't play by societies rules, think it is a horrific act?

It is a loaded term and used in a weaponised fashion to stifle debate. If one dares to question anything about it, then they are "part of the problem" and an example of rape culture. The fact is, it is only vested interests pushing the whole idea. It is no surprise, that the idea has been largely discredited and even rape crisis networks do not subscribe to it. For example RAINN has suggested that by pushing the myth of rape culture, it makes their job harder to help victims.

In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “rape culture” for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses. While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime.

While that may seem an obvious point, it has tended to get lost in recent debates. This has
led to an inclination to focus on particular segments of the student population (e.g.,
athletes), particular aspects of campus culture (e.g., the Greek system), or traits that are
common in many millions of law-abiding Americans (e.g., “masculinity”), rather than on the
subpopulation at fault: those who choose to commit rape. This trend has the paradoxical
effect of making it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the
individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own actions.

https://www.rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Task-Force-RAINN-Recommendations.pdf

mrkiscool2

silverharp wrote: »

there was also one suicide put down to the trial and one case of permanent infertility or so I heard anyway

Haven't read anything on the suicide but it's so hard to find non-biased information anywhere! I know there was one case of infertility and a lot of men have had their sperm count greatly reduced.

silverharp

on a lighter note, what mainstream publication do we get the female version of this?

silverharp

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Haven't read anything on the suicide but it's so hard to find non-biased information anywhere! I know there was one case of infertility and a lot of men have had their sperm count greatly reduced.

The suicide was mentioned in a Mundane Matt Youtube video I watched yesterday, otherwise havnt read anything apart from the headlines being tweeted around

py2006

No biggy but reverse the genders etc etc etc

The host walked up and down the three men - all sporting tight white boxers - and giggled away, 'Look at these smooth babies,' she said as she stroked the chest of one tall blonde.

more

The Black Oil

midnight city wrote: »

She made some comment that boys are always listened to and girls aren't. I don't know where she gets that idea from. Utter nonsense.

A number of times she said boys are taught X, girls taught Y. She didn't really say where this "we teach" was coming from, I took it to mean society. If it's sex ed she's on about mine was biology, neither gender was told to embrace their sexuality as being superior or awful. Sex ed in this country is still patchy at best and that needs to change. She spoke to Lynn Ruane re an article Ruane had written and O' Neill seemed surprised that most (90%) of the flack received was from women. There are times when some women's attitudes to each other don't seem to help. But of course, this is probably all down to the patriarchy.

JRant

Panthro wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3900414/Mother-two-37-naked-boy-14-her.html


Ah Shure she was drunk so it's fine.
FFS.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/24/adam-johnson-should-be-jailed-for-up-to-10-years-court-told

The disparity in sentencing is sickening.

PucaMama

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So the male contraception trial being halted has been making the rounds, but obviously a lot of sites have only talked about how some men are feeling down and stuff, such as this article here. The reason according to the feminist media?



When, in actual fact, there was more than just a "change of mood" or "acne, pain". Some men were experiencing some severe depression (more so than on the female pill) and some men are now infertile while others sperm count dropped by 75%.

They also claim the contraception was scrapped, which isn't true. The dug is being taken back to solve those issues and is actually seen as a massive step forward for a male contraceptive with a lot of positives (as well as a few severe negatives) been taken from the trial. Like, pretty much every pharmaceutical treatment with today's regulations will go through numerous trials before being approved. Feminists just want to seem superior and bully those men who have issues after the trial.

How was it measured to come to the decision that the man experienced more depression than women on the pill did?

mrkiscool2

PucaMama wrote: »

How was it measured to come to the decision that the man experienced more depression than women on the pill did?

Some of the men in the trial started having suicidal thoughts, hell apparently one man even killed himself. Again, I don't know how clinical psychologists determine how someone is more or less depressed, but they said they were so gotta believe them. Anyway, the real point of that story is how some parts of the media twisted it to be men vs women and how men should have to suck it up because women do. Hell, the men in the trial were more likely to want to take it after the trial then before, as long as the side-effects were made less dramatic and harmful.

PucaMama

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Some of the men in the trial started having suicidal thoughts, hell apparently one man even killed himself. Again, I don't know how clinical psychologists determine how someone is more or less depressed, but they said they were so gotta believe them. Anyway, the real point of that story is how some parts of the media twisted it to be men vs women and how men should have to suck it up because women do. Hell, the men in the trial were more likely to want to take it after the trial then before, as long as the side-effects were made less dramatic and harmful.

I agree the media twisted it.

But that level of depression can be seen with the female pill too. It's unfortunately a side affect of messing around with hormones.

DamoKen

PucaMama wrote: »

But that level of depression can be seen with the female pill too. It's unfortunately a side affect of messing around with hormones.

True, although don't think you're likely to see the media telling them to "man up" and stop being a crybaby.

Article was just nasty. No-one suggested woman have it easy with the pill. However the premise of this article seems to be as women have suffered side effects with a well established medicine, men should just suck it up and ignore side effects experienced in a comparative medication still in clinical trials. Inconsequential things like depression, impotence, reduced fertility.

The same things that in any other new medical trials would raise rather large red flags.

Usual pointless pop at a stationary target. I hardly even notice these anymore

PucaMama

DamoKen wrote: »

True, although don't think you're likely to see the media telling them to "man up" and stop being a crybaby.

Article was just nasty. No-one suggested woman have it easy with the pill. However the premise of this article seems to be as women have suffered side effects with a well established medicine, men should just suck it up and ignore side effects experienced in a comparative medication still in clinical trials. Inconsequential things like depression, impotence, reduced fertility.

The same things that in any other new medical trials would raise rather large red flags.

Usual pointless pop at a stationary target. I hardly even notice these anymore

Whoever wrote it should be ashamed of it.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Wibbs wrote: »

"The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is 'What does a woman want?'"


Sigmund Freud. While he was talking daft about women there, he unknowingly hit the nail on the head with regard to many modern public feminists and modern feminism itself. Though my take is that what they want is all the perks possible, with as few of the responsibilities as possible. Like children playing as adults.

Just asking for a wee bit of consistency here. No more than that. FFS.

Connacht2KXX

irishtimes . com/opinion/una-mullally-toxic-sexism-becomes-the-new-normal-1.2856682

I have read some thrash in my time but this is absolutely comical. Mullaly gives out about sexism, racism and hatred yet she does the exact same.

She talks about how white straight men are never belittled (lol) and the hate crimes in the UK post Brexit as if it truly means anything. In this day and age, criticising someone who isn't a straight white male is considered a hate crime.

She then moans about the Harvard soccer team who rated the female members of the soccer team on their attractiveness, as if it is a felony worthy of execution. I think it is morally wrong and quite stupid to rate your peers on their looks but is nowhere near as bad as these nutjobs make it out to be. When I was in college, there were female group chats set up which rated lads but none of the men in my course gave a shít.

The funniest argument in the whole piece is that there are men out there who claim that there isn't a widespread culture of misogyny in the west which proves that there is a culture of misogyny in the west. It's akin to saying that people who say the sky isn't green actually proves that the sky is green.

She said that men have lived in safe spaces for centuries. What. The. Fúck. Yeah, living in the faeces infested trenches in WW1 where your friend's corpse rots beside you is a safe space compared to women staying at home. Living in Auschwitz was great craic altogether, you know, where the women and children were separated at the ramp and were effectively spared as they went straight to the gas chamber, while the men were tortured with slave labour and forced to eat a minuscule amount of food along with drinking toxic water.

Finally, she cherry picks a few headlines in the news to prove how misogynistic we are. The only issue I see with these headlines is that the jail sentences are too short, as with every Irish sentence. The main point is that these disgusting animals get tried and prosecuted, which shows we don't stand for the abuse of women in our society. I think she might also be making the point that these headlines show that the abuse of women occurs so frequently in our society and that nothing bad happens to men. Can't even begin to think of how to address that point.

What a sheltered moron she is.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I think it's a reaction to the rising "star" that is Louise O'Neill, Mullally needs to up the hatred and general craziness.

kunst nugget

maybe

I find if you don't read the likes of Jessica Valenti or Una Mullaly, your life improves immensely and you are closer to achieving a state of zen like calm. Well, I have been since I stopped paying any attention to them. I'm not even going to bother clicking on that link because life is too short.

newport2

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

I think it's a reaction to the rising "star" that is Louise O'Neill, Mullally needs to up the hatred and general craziness.

Exactly, competition is on for Irish Journalist's Misandrist of the Year award. She thought she had it in the bag until RTE backed O'Neill to boost their advertising revenue.

Eric Cartman

Una mullally and Louise O'Neill are nothing more than misandrist biggots, they represent the absolute gutter of Irish Journalism.

py2006

It amazes me (but shouldn't really) how these two women get away with it. Surely any rational woman and even those that walk the feminist road would see the flaws in her writings?

When you try to offer reasons to feminists as to why you are critical of some of them they tell you its all in your head or whatever yet we for the Irish Times and the Guardian....Una and Louise!!

Pawwed Rig

py2006 wrote: »

It amazes me (but shouldn't really) how these two women get away with it. Surely any rational woman and even those that walk the feminist road would see the flaws in her writings? !

To be fair most women do not agree with either of them same as most men would not agree with the male equivalent. You read them because they stir emotion. The aim of many journalists now is to stir shyte rather to generate meaningful debate.
As an Irish person living today we are the most privileged human beings (outside of aristocracy) ever born. Some people will always need something to rage against though.

py2006

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

To be fair most women do not agree with either of them same as most men would not agree with the male equivalent. .

Do they though? To me the critical comments under their articles/blogs are from men. It appears to be men on here that are critical of them too.

Who are the male equivalents that spout similar articles about women? They are hardly in the Times and Guardian?

givyjoe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

To be fair most women do not agree with either of them same as most men would not agree with the male equivalent. You read them because they stir emotion. The aim of many journalists now is to stir shyte rather to generate meaningful debate.
As an Irish person living today we are the most privileged human beings (outside of aristocracy) ever born. Some people will always need something to rage against though.

You'd be surprised, twitter was alight with 'right on sister' and the likes while askingforit was showing.

The Black Oil

Irish feminism, or indeed third wave feminism, could do with a David Simon type figure. Someone who can write, someone who is firm, sometimes firebrand, but knows their subject intimately and is interested in critiquing institutions as well as making progress and yet doesn't need to shout. Instead we get agents of self-promotion, clicks and identity politics.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

The Black Oil wrote: »

Irish feminism, or indeed third wave feminism, could do with a David Simon type figure. Someone who can write, someone who is firm, sometimes firebrand, but knows their subject intimately and is interested in critiquing institutions as well as making progress and yet doesn't need to shout. Instead we get agents of self-promotion, clicks and identity politics.

Such things make money, though and this is the end game. Challenging and insightful content is no good if people don't want it. We're seeing across the board with many issues affecting society. This is just one facet but it is suffering from the same stupefication as the others.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I see white, non-college educated women are being blamed for letting Trump become President on Sky News.

I'm waiting for Trump's win to be blamed on the patriarchy and that us nasty men didn't want to see a woman as US President.

I think I can hear the guttural, visceral howls of Louise O'Neill in the distance...

Connacht2KXX

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

I see white, non-college educated women are being blamed for letting Trump become President on Sky News.

I'm waiting for Trump's win to be blamed on the patriarchy and that us nasty men didn't want to see a woman as US President.

I think I can hear the guttural, visceral howls of Louise O'Neill in the distance...

You should read her 20000 twitter posts from this morning. It is hilarious. She (and other nutjobs) blamed Trump's election directly on white, straight men.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the corruption in the democrats screwing over Bernie nor everyone's intellect being eroded away on a consistent basis by Clinton and Obama nor Clinton being the most scandalous politician to ever run for office nor the population as a whole being completely fed up with the establishment...

FortySeven

Generation snowflake just got grabbed by the pussy!

silverharp

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

I see white, non-college educated women are being blamed for letting Trump become President on Sky News.

I'm waiting for Trump's win to be blamed on the patriarchy and that us nasty men didn't want to see a woman as US President.

I think I can hear the guttural, visceral howls of Louise O'Neill in the distance...

the smarminess of some of the commentary last night on the Beeb etc, not going to university was referred to as "uneducated" on several occasions. Also the idea of grouping Hispanics and African Americans together like they all should have identical views is just moronic. Anecdotally legal Hispanic construction workers for example were voting Trump because they didn't want to be underbid by illegals....oh wait "illegal" is a microaggression , oh wait this kind of nonsense will hopefully be on the decline after a death rattle in the next few months :pac:

Pepe LeFrits

While there were a myriad of different factors at play in this election, sexism was clearly one of them.

FortySeven

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

While there were a myriad of different factors at play in this election, sexism was clearly one of them.

Yes, hopefully trump can roll back the sexism of third wave feminism a bit.

ligerdub

FortySeven wrote: »

Yes, hopefully trump can roll back the sexism of third wave feminism a bit.

Wibbs

maybe

silverharp wrote: »

oh wait this kind of nonsense will hopefully be on the decline after a death rattle in the next few months :pac:

Actually IMH all that is going to go way up in the next few years in the media. Mark my words, the professionally offended see something like that orange haired muppet's election as a bonanza for their nutty notions and more importantly their wallets.

Pepe LeFrits

FortySeven wrote: »

Yes, hopefully trump can roll back the sexism of third wave feminism a bit.

Well, every force 5 hurricane has a silver lining I suppose.

Pepe LeFrits

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually IMH all that is going to go way up in the next few years in the media. Mark my words, the professionally offended see something like that orange haired muppet's election as a bonanza for their nutty notions and more importantly their wallets.

Aye, much in the same way Obama was a bonanza for Fox.

Grrrrreat.

Wibbs

maybe

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Aye, much in the same way Obama was a bonanza for Fox.

Exactly. All this gender/race/sexuality/whatever division stuff will keep amping up. Keeps the plebians from thinking too much about things that might actually be affecting them. It would have been similar if Clinton had gotten in. She would have been Obama Part 2, with extra genderism and the Nays would be saying Trump would have done so much better. Now he's been elected watch that notion go south and rapidly.

mzungu

silverharp wrote: »

the smarminess of some of the commentary last night on the Beeb etc, not going to university was referred to as "uneducated" on several occasions. Also the idea of grouping Hispanics and African Americans together like they all should have identical views is just moronic. Anecdotally legal Hispanic construction workers for example were voting Trump because they didn't want to be underbid by illegals....oh wait "illegal" is a microaggression , oh wait this kind of nonsense will hopefully be on the decline after a death rattle in the next few months :pac:

I wish it was. My forecast is that it will get ramped up to 11. Same with identity politics.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

Exactly. All this gender/race/sexuality/whatever division stuff will keep amping up. Keeps the plebians from thinking too much about things that might actually be affecting them. It would have been similar if Clinton had gotten in. She would have been Obama Part 2, with extra genderism and the Nays would be saying Trump would have done so much better. Now he's been elected watch that notion go south and rapidly.

It will be interesting to see the rowback on all those promises. Of course, he can weasel out of the wall thing by blaming Mexico for not coughing up the cash. But for all the others, he may not get a free ride. Could be a very angry electorate in 2020!

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually IMH all that is going to go way up in the next few years in the media. Mark my words, the professionally offended see something like that orange haired muppet's election as a bonanza for their nutty notions and more importantly their wallets.

I think its fair to say that race relations got worse under Obama, "gender relations" would get worse under Clinton. I was being optimistic that a less pandering President would take some of the wind out of their sails but maybe is does go into overdrive.
The US media came out very bad out of this, lost credibility and turned a lot of people onto alternative media. My sense was that they would be in repairing damage mode, either way bring it on.

Pepe LeFrits

I'd say perceptions of race relations got worse, actual race relations worsening is far more debatable.

LostinBlanch

maybe

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

I see white, non-college educated women are being blamed for letting Trump become President on Sky News.

I'm waiting for Trump's win to be blamed on the patriarchy and that us nasty men didn't want to see a woman as US President.

I think I can hear the guttural, visceral howls of Louise O'Neill in the distance...

I don't know about that, my ears aren't as good as yours

But for anyone that's interested the howling from Una Mullally today is beautiful.

It's women being misogynist slaves fluffing their masters pillows while he shouts abuse at them. Over reaction much, whatever happened to women having agency and the ability to make their own choices? :rolleyes:

Clinton won large swathes of the African-American and Latina vote, but more white women voted for Trump than her. What does that mean? It should certainly plunge many women into an existential crisis about why their sisters would vote for a man who delights in sexism, chauvinism and misogyny. Maybe they aren’t sisters after all

Is that the no true Scotswoman fallacy?

The fact that many white women voted for Trump shows how embedded misogyny is in western society.

OK so what do we do, send those women off to re-education camps? Maybe we need someone to point out this embedded misogyny - any ideas who could do that? :rolleyes:

But wait,

Among many women, there was a sense that, while one shouldn’t automatically vote for a woman purely on the basis of her gender

I'm a little confused were they not internally misogynised, or did they just think she was a bad candidate who didn't represent their views?

She is also throwing around ageism by calling Bernie Sanders, a white male pensioner. How old is Hillary again? He's 75, she's 69 btw, both pensioners.

Maybe in a patriarchal society where women remain marginalised, Clinton’s slogan, “I’m With Her”, was too overt. Yet she didn’t face some of the traditional sexist criticism we’re used to when it comes to female politicians.

Wait, so she didn't get the right kind of sexist criticism? Of course Trump was the bitchy, whiny, hysterical and shrill one.
But that's probably just the patriarchy playing the long game to lull us into a false sense of security.

But Clinton was demonised for being corrupt and crooked - my God you'd swear it was an election for President. Candidates always point out their opponents weak points.

TL;DR - It's always mens fault because

no matter how hard a woman tries, she will still be dogged by the bad behaviour of men in her orbit

mzungu

I think what that article shows is that Una Mullally, herself, is actually the one who is sexist towards women. So, these "white women" decided not to vote for who she wanted, so therefore they are brainwashed stepford wives doing the bidding of the evil patriarchy. It would appear Una's unique brand of feminism is not about empowerment to make independent choices, but rather the empowerment to make choices that she would deem suitable.

Calhoun

On one level it's like oh **** but on another level I'm pleased in a way with the result. I hope this is the tide turning for the liberal militant sjw who agressively goes after any that disagree with them.

Una's article just goes to illustrate this point.

PucaMama

When I read this morning about the proportion of white women who voted for trump, I knew straight away who would get the blame and what would be said.

I see people protesting his election. Do they realise they are basically protesting others right to vote. Like a "how dare you vote different to me"

The Black Oil

Both Una and Louise were hammering away on the Twitter machine this morning. Last night a fellow feminist, an AAA member, called her out on Twitter - that was good to see. Una was ranting about Thatcher, men and the Diet Coke ad, quelle surprise.

Mullally's articles - I only catch wind of her work here, I don't waste clicks on them. Political analysis from her, I'll stick to the professional political junkies.

mzungu

PucaMama wrote: »

When I read this morning about the proportion of white women who voted for trump, I knew straight away who would get the blame and what would be said.

I see people protesting his election. Do they realise they are basically protesting others right to vote. Like a "how dare you vote different to me"

Exactly. It's like their irony sensors are permanently askew. I think people like that should really ask themselves if they actually want a democracy where people of all genders and races will have differing views and can exercise free-choice at the ballot box, or whether they want their "democracy" to be more of the one-party state variety where everybody drinks the kool-aid.

PucaMama

mzungu wrote: »

Exactly. It's like their irony sensors are permanently askew. I think people like that should really ask themselves if they actually want a democracy where people of all genders and races will have differing views and can exercise free-choice at the ballot box, or whether they want their "democracy" to be more of the one-party state variety where everybody drinks the kool-aid.

Exactly. Democracy only when it suits. I'm no big trump fan but he was voted in.

The Black Oil

PucaMama wrote: »

Exactly. Democracy only when it suits. I'm no big trump fan but he was voted in.

Same. Fair dose of hysteria knocking around. Twitter was like a mixture of people failing their Leaving Cert, someone cancelled their holiday just as they reached the airport and Liveline on steroids.