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

Galwayguy35

Yellow121 wrote: »

Well it's true isn't it? Women face far more sexism than men. Real sexism.

Seats been given up. Come on, what a non-issue.

Well this is a mens forum were we can talk about things from our point of view.

beano345

No

Randy Shafter wrote: »

What sort of game show is about belittling people? At least he sued them.

i know to be slapped then retaliate,then be beaten and have your family abused,ah sure according to some posters on here there not issues....usually followed by man up.

Galwayguy35

The reality is that it's just not taken seriously when a woman slaps a man for no reason like on the clip there.

I've seen it happen in real life as well, was in a nightclub years ago and this woman wanted to get to the bar, the guy in front told her to wait her turn and she gave him a whack across the jaw.

beano345

No

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The reality is that it's just not taken seriously when a woman slaps a man for no reason like on the clip there.

I've seen it happen in real life as well, was in a nightclub years ago and this woman wanted to get to the bar, the guy in front told her to wait her turn and she gave him a whack across the jaw.

i think we've all met little miss all up in your face who knows that your phsically stronger than her and keeps pushing it no matter how much you try diffuse the situation,because (a) she knows you wont retaliate or (b) other men will come to her aid.a few years ago a girl skipped a nightclub queue in front of me when i pulled her up on it asking do you mind? theres a queue here her answer was a snotty no,if this was happening between males there would be fists thrown.

The Corinthian

Yellow121 wrote: »

Well it's true isn't it? Women face far more sexism than men. Real sexism.

Increasingly, I'd have to say much of this 'real sexism' against women is not all that real or even a product of traditional patriarchal privileges that women hold that feminism seems reluctant to oppose.

Legally, of course, men face far more sexism than women - name me any laws that discriminate against women solely on the basis of gender, and we'll see how many I can quote that discriminate against men (Hint; a lot more).

jaffacakesyum

Frogeye wrote: »

You can take your whataboutry to the ladies lounge please.

We're well used to it there from the opposite end :pac:

I've been watching big brother (I know, the shame!) and there was an episode a good while ago now between Hazel O'Sullivan (Irish model) and some boxer called Daley. They were having a mess fight, both of them being quite intense in terms of flirting but then crossing the line to aggressiveness. It ended with Daley gripping her by the neck and threatening her, so he ended up getting kicked out of the house. Anyway, amongst the shenanigans, Hazel jocked Daley and he got really angry about it, given it was on live tv. Can you imagine what would happen if a guy pulled down some girls underwear, on live tv no less? I really think they should have both been evicted for their behavior, but only Daley was, and Hazel got a warning.

Anyway, I know it's big brother, and I'll get a hazing on here for watching it :pac:, but the incident stood out to me.

Daveysil15

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

We're well used to it there from the opposite end :pac:

I've been watching big brother (I know, the shame!) and there was an episode a good while ago now between Hazel O'Sullivan (Irish model) and some boxer called Daley. They were having a mess fight, both of them being quite intense in terms of flirting but then crossing the line to aggressiveness. It ended with Daley gripping her by the neck and threatening her, so he ended up getting kicked out of the house. Anyway, amongst the shenanigans, Hazel jocked Daley and he got really angry about it, given it was on live tv. Can you imagine what would happen if a guy pulled down some girls underwear, on live tv no less? I really think they should have both been evicted for their behavior, but only Daley was, and Hazel got a warning.

Anyway, I know it's big brother, and I'll get a hazing on here for watching it :pac:, but the incident stood out to me.

Fecking Big Brother. It's nearly as bad as Tallafornia and Corcaigh Shore.

Hazel O'Sullivan has savage knockers all the same.

Frogeye

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

We're well used to it there from the opposite end :pac: QUOTE]

Sorry I couldn't resist!


As for big brother....can't comment on it. I'm too busy propping up the patriarchy and peddling on-line misogyny to watch reality TV. In fact I spend so much time propping, I hardly have time to polish the glass floor...that would be the ceiling for you wimins.....

jaffacakesyum

Frogeye wrote: »

Sorry I couldn't resist!

Ssh you. You know what I meant :pac:

iptba

Frogeye wrote: »

Sorry I couldn't resist!

As for big brother....can't comment on it. I'm too busy propping up the patriarchy and peddling on-line misogyny to watch reality TV. In fact I spend so much time propping, I hardly have time to polish the glass floor...that would be the ceiling for you wimins.....

Down at my local patriarchy club, we watch it a lot.

Stabshauptmann

My previous employer gave funding to a women's only department night out. While I can see some point to it, the department was 90% female at that level and I think if there was a men's only night out it would make the papers (the lad's only email did :pac:)

TBH though, I have witnessed some real, serious, and even scary sexist against women, so I'm not going to gripe about these small issues.

Frogeye

Yellow121 wrote: »

Ok some one got it lol Will all the guys leave the ladies lounge alone now? It's very annoying having someone come in with their whataboutery and all that stuff isn't it?

Indeed. Its also very frustrating to read people making weak,unsupported or non existent arguments and not being able to challenge them! anyways enough of this on line banter, back to propping up the patriarchy for me....where ever did I put it..

iptba

Frogeye wrote: »

back to propping up the patriarchy for me....where ever did I put it..

When is your shift over?

I haven't got my timeline for the coming week. Hope the patriarchy management haven't lost it. I was hoping for a promotion in the organisation but it won't look good if I miss some work.

py2006

Yellow121 wrote: »

That's true, hopefully there might be improvement in posting standards in the gentlemans club someday soon.



Why is that strange?
It is whataboutery.

Lucky for you, your comments are welcome here! For the most part similar comments are clearly not welcome in the LL.

Frogeye

Yellow121 wrote: »

That's true, hopefully there might be improvement in posting standards in the gentlemans club someday soon.



Why is that strange?
It is whataboutery.

the thing about whataboutery is its so damn hard not to do it...you read a post its completely wrong or reeks of BS , and you think your point is so valid it couldn't be whataboutery, so you post and once you do it, you just have to keep coming back to make that last point.....

I didn't have a problem with your post. It was just a nice opportunity to use an oft quoted phrase!

Panthro

maybe

Mod Note:
Stop comparing TGC to TLL.
We are separate forums with separate Charters, the next poster to comment on what is/is not acceptable here, or comments on TLL will be carded.
Any problems report the offending post or PM a Mod.

py2006

Its tiring when a topic relating to men is being discussed and certain people feel obliged to pop in to tell us all how wrong we are etc

Panthro

maybe

py2006 wrote: »

Its tiring when a topic relating to men is being discussed and certain people feel obliged to pop in to tell us all how wrong we are etc

As has been said, if you are unhappy with a post, report it.

Now please folks, stay on topic.

py2006

With respect and with experience, that leads nowhere... but I hear you.

Anyway, back on topic. In a recent position I was 'encouraged' to recruit more females in order to balance the gender quota. This was a line of work which traditionally attracts more men than women. So in order to balance things, I was forced to disregard male applicants (over 90%) and cold call potential female applicants.

Nothing wrong with a balance of genders but it was quite clear that this female boss had an agenda and was totally oblivious to the irrationality of the whole thing.

ahnowbrowncow

No

What about sexism in sport?

For the Dublin marathon, if an Irish man runs it in 2 hours and 30 minutes he gets €200 in prize money but if an Irish woman runs it in the same time she'll get €10,000. Obviously there are differences in the male and female physique but men getting less prize money for the same performance is not equality.

Female tennis players get paid the same despite playing less sets and men's tennis also have far higher tv audiences i.e. they earn more revenue for the tournaments.

awec

This post has been deleted.

A Neurotic

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

What about sexism in sport?

For the Dublin marathon, if an Irish man runs it in 2 hours and 30 minutes he gets €200 in prize money but if an Irish woman runs it in the same time she'll get €10,000. Obviously there are differences in the male and female physique but men getting less prize money for the same performance is not equality.

Female tennis players get paid the same despite playing less sets and men's tennis also have far higher tv audiences i.e. they earn more revenue for the tournaments.

It's not really the same performance though, due to the differences in physique you mentioned.

I stand to be corrected on this, but I would imagine that the parameters were designed so that a roughly equal amount of men and women earn the same amount in prizes?

ahnowbrowncow

No

A Neurotic wrote: »

It's not really the same performance though, due to the differences in physique you mentioned.

I stand to be corrected on this, but I would imagine that the parameters were designed so that a roughly equal amount of men and women earn the same amount in prizes?

They are the same results though and once you change the reward for the same result just because of someone's gender you are creating an inequality, no?

This would not be acceptable in the workplace so where do you draw the line?

Fukuyama

A Neurotic wrote: »

It's not really the same performance though, due to the differences in physique you mentioned.

I stand to be corrected on this, but I would imagine that the parameters were designed so that a roughly equal amount of men and women earn the same amount in prizes?

Unfortunately it doesn't matter.

In many sports, female versions are heavily subsidized by the male version. Such as Tennis and football. I (and I might get flamed for this) do think it's a good idea so long as it's not too extreme as it encourages young girls to get more involved in sport.

However, it has to work both ways. So if women get equal prize money in Tennis, then they should have to do the same amount of sets. And if they run a marathon in a certain time, then they should get the same €200 prize money.

If for no other reason that a female athlete being so obviously over compensated makes me lose all respect for that side of the sport.

Arawn

maybe

In all of sports I have only ever heard of one woman ever been ranked number 1 in the world that included the males too. Men watch the vast majority of sports, pay for the vast majority of tickets and merch. and lets be honest we pay to watch men play as 99.999999999% men are superior athletes to women and more skillful.


So honestly I don't think female sports stars should earn the same as the men especially if they do less

Femme_Fatale

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

what's to pick up on, men are basically disposable. *shrug*

Nnnnnno they're not. Most powerful people in the world are men. Embittered hyperbole is unhelpful.

Woodward

No

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Nnnnnno they're not. Most powerful people in the world are men. Embittered hyperbole is unhelpful.

The you cant judge men by the top 0.000001%, thats known as the Apex Fallacy. Think of any job or social role that comes with an aspect of disposability and you will find it is a male dominated field. Far more men die in coal mines than become CEO's and that is just one profession

Fukuyama

Woodward wrote: »

The you cant judge men by the top 0.000001%, thats known as the Apex Fallacy. Think of any job or social role that comes with an aspect of disposability and you will find it is a male dominated field. Far more men die in coal mines than become CEO's and that is just one profession

I think men work more physical jobs which are inherently more dangerous.

I don't think men are disposable. Especially not in this century anyway...

Far more men become coal miners than CEOs because there's more demand for coal miners than CEOs.

Far more men become CEOs than women because in general men are more driven, go further in education and don't stop to have a family or if they have a family the woman will likely go part-time or put the brakes on work full stop.

On the back of this, suggesting some kind of quota system for women to be CEOs is stupid as they wouldn't have gained the necessary skills, experience to do so (on average). What we need to do is divide child care. And if you want to be a CEO (m or f) then don't have a kid. Simple.

py2006

Dean0088 wrote: »

Far more men become CEOs than women because in general men are more driven, go further in education and don't stop to have a family or if they have a family the woman will likely go part-time or put the brakes on work full stop.

.

Ehhhhhh, come on now!

The Corinthian

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Nnnnnno they're not. Most powerful people in the world are men. Embittered hyperbole is unhelpful.

As are the poorest and most exploited - as has been pointed out men don't simply occupy the best jobs, but also the worst and most dangerous ones (9/10 of workplace fatalities are male).

Given that fuller picture (which may well not suit your narrative) - what's your point?