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

deaddonkey15

Una's article and Louise O'Neill's Twitter rants make for some depressing if not unexpeted reading. I've a feeling they'll both go to town on this for a while yet, Louise especially. In fact, I think part of her is delighted with this - a lot more fuel for her anti-men fire.

Calhoun wrote: »

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.

I'm also of this opinion. I think Trump is a clown, and shouldn't be anywhere near the presidency of any country but at the same time I'm pleased that it's a big F*ck You to the snowflake generation where anything offensive, or dislikeable should be banned/sacked/disqualified. A brutal reminder of the real world really. I think Trump touched on this a bit in one or two of the debates. He made the point that Hillary wouldn't use the phrase 'Islamic Terrorism' whereas he had no problem calling it what it is, and he was right. Hillary couldn't be seen to be Islamophobic or Islam-shaming or whatever the latest buzzword is.

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.

PucaMama wrote: »

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"

I've noticed this too. I was listening to a clip on the radio this evening of an American girl (Hillary supporter) giving her reaction to the election. She was crying, and claimed that the uneducated white male (she forgot straight) decided this election and that now she no longer feels represented or welcome. I found this quite ironic for a number of reasons. It was as though she thought that the uneducated white male vote shouldn't count, that they didn't understand what they were voting for - unless their vote went to Hillary of course - therefore undermining the very definition of the democracy that is so important to them.

Furthermore we've seen examples of this kind of attitude towards white men(not racist or sexist though) a number of times in this forum, it's quite a prevalent mindset over there so much so that one wonders if it is in fact the white man, who for whatever reason, can't get access to education or a decent job that feels unrepresented and unwelcome in America as they are increasingly surrounded by the SJW type that not only looks down on them, but blames them for practically everything. They are more likely the ones that are losing jobs to illegal immigrants (you know all the dangerous/dirty/manual labour type jobs that the gender quota SJWs choose to ignore) yet if they utter a word about it they will be considered racist bigots who ought to check their white man privilege. It's no surprise that they see Trump as a breath of fresh air. Someone who is bullish about what they want and what they can do, someone who isn't afraid to speak their mind and call things how they see it. Someone who throws all this PC nonsense out the window and appeals directly to them.

Of course, this girl, like Louise and Una and many others, ignores the countless women, blacks, Latinos, and I'm sure muslims and gays that voted for Trump and instead blames it all on white men, especially the uneducated and straight kind. Louise is making women out to be the immediate victims too even though about half of them voted for the man, so it passes the Wibbsometer filter with flying colours. Her Twitter right now is unbearable.

Like the girl on the radio, I've seen so many pictures of Hillary supporters crying today. So many people apologising on social media to blacks and women and gays and muslims and blaming the fact that about half the electorate voted for Trump on the white man. It's interesting that these people see Trump's victory as a victory for sexism, racism, hatred etc. yet the immediate response is to identify and blame a group of people based on the colour of their skin, and their genitalia - not to mention the riots that occurred and middle of the road sit ins to block traffic - because that's mature. If Trump supporters did this and bemoaned the black female voters that helped get Hillary to the White House it would be highlighted as a major reason why Trump shouldn't be anywhere near the White House.

As always with the snow flake generation though the response is to have a good cry, completely overreact and play the helpless victim, trash things and blame someone else. Instead, they should be asking why did so many women still vote for Trump? Why did Hillary not do more to appeal to all these clueless white men? Why did Hillary get less of the female, black, minority votes than Obama did? Why do the American people want a radical change instead of another 4 years of a heavily Obama endorsed Democrat president? Why did the Democrat party put forward such an unpopular and shady candidate?

iptba

I didn't follow the presidential campaign very much. I was watching Sky News last night and they were talking about Hillary Clinton's plans to close the gender pay and the way this was being presented was only as a good thing (as opposed to something that might lead to some discrimination against men).

Was she challenged much about any feminist things she was saying or had said in the past?

One that comes to mind is:

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.

https://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html

FortySeven

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.

Men are the primary victims of rape. It happens to their wives, mothers and daughters.

mzungu

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

As always with the snow flake generation though the response is to have a good cry, completely overreact and play the helpless victim, trash things and blame someone else. Instead, they should be asking why did so many women still vote for Trump? Why did Hillary not do more to appeal to all these clueless white men? Why did Hillary get less of the female, black, minority votes than Obama did? Why do the American people want a radical change instead of another 4 years of a heavily Obama endorsed Democrat president? Why did the Democrat party put forward such an unpopular and shady candidate?

I came across this article earlier, you might find it interesting as it touches on a few things mentioned in your post. Link: http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-political-corr

Basically, he correctly points out that the danger of Trump was diluted because every republican from John McCain to Mitt Romney was branded by Bill Maher (and left US media in general) and the like as being racist and the "devil incarnate" etc. So, when Trump comes along, who spouts racist tripe, the entire threat was diluted because everybody had heard the boy cry wolf before.

I do think the election was more about economic alienation of a sizeable amount of the population, rather than anything else.

The Black Oil

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Why did the Democrat party put forward such an unpopular and shady candidate?

Without wishing to sound like a member of the AAA* by throwing the word establishment into every sentence, that wing of mainstream political institutions/bodies protect themselves to the hilt. It may be, a little like the Oscars, the DNC simply thought 'it's her time'. The latest leader of Ireland's Labour party is Brendan Howlin. The next FG and FF leaders will probably be old, dull and unimaginative, bar say, Leo. Most major parties are probably going to stick with speakers who are polished and surrounded by PR types.

I'm sure plenty of first time voters will feel like never voting again and that's not good. For me, one of the most depressing thing is how effective negative campaigning is in US politics. Criticising military generals (OK, it wasn't personal and was a dig at Obama for being weak on ISIS), but that even seemed way OTT to me. It's far from unique to this election cycle. And I was scratching head thinking if he had talked up American's strengths whilst simultaneously hitting on the economy through the whole campaign he probably would have been further ahead in some states.

But after a while, voters get fed up - I recall a video where someone said they were being sick of told what to think. That voter was not wrong. Hence we get the fringe left and right getting into power.

I hope things remain calm internally in the US, no riots. Come late January it's going to be different picture. Now some people are numb, not all of them are SJW tinged - they're just more vocal. People will sombre up in the next few days. It's his cabinet I'm more worried about, tbh.

midnight city

iptba wrote: »

I didn't follow the presidential campaign very much. I was watching Sky News last night and they were talking about Hillary Clinton's plans to close the gender pay and the way this was being presented was only as a good thing (as opposed to something that might lead to some discrimination against men).

Was she challenged much about any feminist things she was saying or had said in the past?

One that comes to mind is:


https://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html

I wonder what her plan was?

ligerdub

I was one who found Trump winning particularly satisfying. He's basically a sort of throwback figure, a classic masculine type, one which has been beaten down for so long now. It's finally a bit of pushback for that ideal, and it's one which I firmly believe has all parties interests at heart.

He took all sorts of criticism (and dished a fair bit out let's be honest) but handled the vast majority of it like a pro.

It's just nice to see somebody so high profile not being so scripted or artificial, he seems so confident in himself and it has connected well with people. I hope that more guys can embrace that approach to life in saying what's on their mind.

I don't buy that racist tag either.

mzungu

ligerdub wrote: »

I was one who found Trump winning particularly satisfying. He's basically a sort of throwback figure, a classic masculine type, one which has been beaten down for so long now. It's finally a bit of pushback for that ideal, and it's one which I firmly believe has all parties interests at heart.

Oh he's a throwback alright....all the way back to the cold war! :pac:

But seriously, I would not find the Trump brand of masculinity to be anything that should be viewed as something worth emulating tbh. He has some very negative character traits (to put it mildly) and I think these are being conflated incorrectly with masculinity. His loud abrasive manner, attitudes towards women and minorities that come from the 1940s, the narcissism etc.

I just hope we don't get subjected to any topless pics of Trump bear hunting in Siberia (ala Putin). I think we have all suffered enough!

It's just nice to see somebody so high profile not being so scripted or artificial, he seems so confident in himself and it has connected well with people. I hope that more guys can embrace that approach to life in saying what's on their mind.

I am all for people speaking their mind, but it would be better if they did so with tact and decorum, something that Trump showed very little of. This once again comes back to the point that the way he presents himself, and his confrontational style, is a poor role model for younger guys to follow.

TL;DR? The world is full of faux tough guys thinking they are the bees knees copying outdated notions of what the strong masculine type is supposed to entail. Trump in my view is one of those, and one that impressionable youngsters would do best to steer clear of.

ligerdub

Fair enough, we'll disagree on that.

daithi7

ligerdub wrote: »

Fair enough, we'll disagree on that.

No, ye bloody well won't. Ye'll draw pistols at dawn like any decent throwback men should do...... & then ye will duel until one of you is dead.......& then , well then, the world will be a poorer place for your loss...... ah jeez this throwback business is way overrated !!

LostinBlanch

maybe

Shut up you, we might get a drink out of it.

#priorities

Aurum

PucaMama wrote: »

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 right to protest is a central part of any healthy democracy. They weren’t attempting to overturn the election result or stage a coup, just voice their disapproval with the candidate. The fact that Trump won the election (though, surprisingly, lost the popular vote) should absolutely be respected, but people should be free to peacefully voice dissent through public demonstration.

PucaMama

Aurum wrote: »

The right to protest is a central part of any healthy democracy. They weren’t attempting to overturn the election result or stage a coup, just voice their disapproval with the candidate. The fact that Trump won the election (though, surprisingly, lost the popular vote) should absolutely be respected, but people should be free to peacefully voice dissent through public demonstration.

They are not just voicing concerns they do what to change the result.

silverharp

Aurum wrote: »

The right to protest is a central part of any healthy democracy. They weren’t attempting to overturn the election result or stage a coup, just voice their disapproval with the candidate. The fact that Trump won the election (though, surprisingly, lost the popular vote) should absolutely be respected, but people should be free to peacefully voice dissent through public demonstration.

https://twitter.com/CodeAud/status/796631702219034624

newport2

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

I've noticed this too. I was listening to a clip on the radio this evening of an American girl (Hillary supporter) giving her reaction to the election. She was crying, and claimed that the uneducated white male (she forgot straight) decided this election and that now she no longer feels represented or welcome. I found this quite ironic for a number of reasons. It was as though she thought that the uneducated white male vote shouldn't count, that they didn't understand what they were voting for - unless their vote went to Hillary of course - therefore undermining the very definition of the democracy that is so important to them.

Ye, heard this too. Nauseating. Conveniently ignoring the fact that 53% of white women voted for Trump.

NI24

mzungu wrote: »

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.

How many times does it need to be pointed out that the US is not a democracy before it finally sinks in to people's brains? Rightly or wrongly, the United States of America is a democratic constitutional republic. (if you don't believe me look up the term electoral college). In fact, if the US was a straight up democracy, then 2 out of 3 Republican candidates who were elected in the last 20 years would not have become president.

NI24

newport2 wrote: »

Ye, heard this too. Nauseating. Conveniently ignoring the fact that 53% of white women voted for Trump.

Wrong. 53% of the white women who voted, voted for Trump.

um7y1h83ge06nx

NI24 wrote: »

Wrong. 53% of the white women who voted, voted for Trump.

Well maybe it's womens fault than, specifically the women that didn't vote. ;-)

NI24

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

Well maybe it's womens fault than, specifically the women that didn't vote. ;-)

Absolutely! My mother was one of them.

newport2

NI24 wrote: »

Wrong. 53% of the white women who voted, voted for Trump.

Really? I thought they counted the votes of the women who didn't vote.

gizmo555

NI24 wrote: »

How many times does it need to be pointed out that the US is not a democracy before it finally sinks in to people's brains? Rightly or wrongly, the United States of America is a democratic constitutional republic. (if you don't believe me look up the term electoral college). In fact, if the US was a straight up democracy, then 2 out of 3 Republican candidates who were elected in the last 20 years would not have become president.

And we have a Taoiseach whose party got just 25.5% of the popular vote in this year's election - just over half of Trump's percentage support level.

Clinton's supporters are giving out about the popular vote thing because she lost. If the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be happy as Larry.

A picture's worth a thousand words:

mzungu

NI24 wrote: »

How many times does it need to be pointed out that the US is not a democracy before it finally sinks in to people's brains? Rightly or wrongly, the United States of America is a democratic constitutional republic. (if you don't believe me look up the term electoral college). In fact, if the US was a straight up democracy, then 2 out of 3 Republican candidates who were elected in the last 20 years would not have become president.

I am well aware of the electoral college. Although that had nothing to do with my post.

The Obama's seem to think it is a democracy.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-warns-democracy-itself-ballot-160605000.html
http://uk.businessinsider.com/michelle-obama-torches-donald-trump-election-results-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

Good article about it here from the Washington Post. The USA can indeed be labelled a democracy, or a republic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.

Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”

To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level.

Now one can certainly argue that some aspects of U.S. government should become less direct, and filtered through more layers of representation. One can argue, for instance, that the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and that U.S. senators should no longer be elected directly by the people, but should return to being elected by state legislators who are elected by the people. Or one can argue for repealing state- and local-level initiative and referendum schemes. Or one can argue for making the Electoral College into a deliberative body, in which the electors are supposed to discuss the candidates and make various political deals, rather than being elected solely to vote for particular candidates. And of course one can equally argue for making some aspects of U.S. government more direct, for instance by shifting to truly direct election of the president, or by institute a federal-level initiative and referendum.

But there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow “not a democracy, but a republic.” “Democracy” and “republic” aren’t just words that a speaker can arbitrarily define to mean something (e.g., defining democracy as “a form of government in which all laws are made directly by the people”). They are terms that have been given meaning by English speakers more broadly. And both today and in the Framing era, “democracy” has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy.

So, we can still label the US a democracy as representative democracy comes under that definition.

Whether or not the electoral college is outdated, although is another matter entirely and that would be for another thread. But instead rioting at a democratic decision by the electorate, maybe all that energy would be put to much better use by trying to change the electoral college system. Although, something tells me if Hillary Clinton had won we would not be talking about the electoral college system.

ligerdub

"It's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic"

Ha! Not mutually exclusive!

ligerdub

"It's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic"

Ha! Not mutually exclusive!

The Black Oil

If your core occupation in life is Twitter rants about white male privilege (Hi Una, Louise et al) you probably need to get another hobby.

midnight city

The Black Oil wrote: »

If your core occupation in life is Twitter rants about white male privilege (Hi Una, Louise et al) you probably need to get another hobby.

Its not a hobby for them its their actual job. They make a living being a professional troll.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I had to laugh at the uneducated white male thing. Surely a qualified plumber or carpenter is of more use to the world than a Gender Studies graduate. See how well they get on in a world without skilled tradesmen.

Also the white thing amuses me, as has already been mentioned, Trump secured votes from the "uneducated" minorities also, particularly hispanics who are living in the States legally and fear the cost of labour being driven down from illegal immigration.

DEFTLEFTHAND

This is part of the reason Trump won also, he connected with the working classes.

Hillary was seen as an elitist. It's hard to argue with that now when you see the kind of derisory bile put forward about the working classes by some of her supporters.

Pepe LeFrits

I think a lot of the reasons people are coming up with for Trump's victory are being significantly overstated. Looks like he's the least popular major-party candidate in terms of share of the eligible voting population since probably Bob Dole in 1996.

Bush & Gore both took a larger share of the vote in 2000, as did Bush and Kerry, Obama and McCain, Obama and Romney, and sadly Clinton. I think it's much more about Clinton's issues as a candidate and voter turnout in general than anything in particular Trump did. The Republicans could have rolled out a dancing monkey and done almost as well. The benefits of a two party system.

ligerdub

Sadly Clinton? Speak for yourself!

Pawwed Rig

ligerdub wrote: »

Sadly Clinton? Speak for yourself!

I would think that everyone here is speaking for themselves.

Pepe LeFrits

ligerdub wrote: »

Sadly Clinton? Speak for yourself!

That's kind of implied by my username to the left of my post

ligerdub

Great.

Encountered any sexism then? The topic being discussed.

Calhoun

I am quite amazed at the dislike for Clinton across the board, even in Ireland bar the super hardcore SJW folk dont seem surprised he has beaten her.

I would tend to agree with the sentiment that im glad to see some pushback against the near communist left who have stifled debate of recent times.

Be interesting times seeing how the inevitable referendum on the 8th will go, will men be treated as equal partners in the discussion or will the mud slinging and misogyny tactic win the day.

daithi7

.... it's like the whole world are addicted to coverage of US politics, we can't seen to get enough of it, don't take away the media fuelled habit.....we'll all go cold turkey!!

So back to sexism anyway

Parked the car this evening in a spot marked for mother & child , as signified with a graphic of each, with the mother depicted in a skirt.

Only thing is, surely this should be parent & child!?

daithi7

Picture this.....tell me, where do all the daddies and kids park!?

silverharp

daithi7 wrote: »

.... it's like the whole world are addicted to coverage of US politics, we can't seen to get enough of it, don't take away the media fuelled habit.....we'll all go cold turkey!!

So back to sexism anyway

Parked the car this evening in a spot marked for mother & child , as signified with a graphic of each, with the mother depicted in a skirt.

Only thing is, surely this should be parent & child!?

use the "im trans and Identify as a woman, do you have a problem with that?" :pac:

silverharp

stumbled over this.......sure why not

http://www.accident-claim-expert.co.uk/compensation-amounts/facial-scarring-compensation.html

Do women receive more compensation for scarring than men?

"Yes" - the law regards facial looks to be more important to women than men and the pain and suffering from facial disfigurement to be far greater for a woman than a man.

Pawwed Rig

daithi7 wrote: »

Picture this.....tell me, where do all the daddies and kids park!?

Was that in Ireland? Any I have seen say parent and child (in Dublin at least).

kunst nugget

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Was that in Ireland? Any I have seen say parent and child (in Dublin at least).

I'd be sure that any sign nearby probably says parent and child - I think he's finding the symbol showing only a mother and child sexist. A tad sensitive I think…

Liam McPoyle

No

daithi7 wrote: »

Picture this.....tell me, where do all the daddies and kids park!?

A guy I know recently complained to the Square in Tallaght about the family parking signs being Mother & Baby signs.

They changed them to parent and baby in less than a week.

DamoKen

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

A guy I know recently complained to the Square in Tallaght about the family parking signs being Mother & Baby signs.

They changed them to parent and baby in less than a week.

Noticed they've changed them in a few places. Lidl as far as I remember used to have the mother and baby, they're now parent and child so presume the same happened. Indicator of changing attitudes maybe, that or people more likely to highlight it?

Few places still have them, my local Supervalu for one. Must admit I find it a tad irritating to needlessly attach a gender to the sign, one of those thoughtless assumptions that doesn't see the fathers role in a childs life as worth acknowledging. It's hardly a rarity to see a father shopping with kids in tow.

On it's own it's not a biggie but when you combine it with the countless other subtle ways fathers are removed from the picture (Mum knows best would be one of the less subtle ones) they do add up reinforcing the view that fathers are not that important despite all research pointing to the contrary.

ligerdub

It's still fairly common in advertising.

There is an ad going on at the moment, I think it's for SMA or one of those other baby food things. The footnote to it is "Mums, you're doing great".

The growing use of the word "Mum" or "Mom" in Ireland is another irritant I have, although not relevant to this discussion.

FortySeven

ligerdub wrote: »

It's still fairly common in advertising.

There is an ad going on at the moment, I think it's for SMA or one of those other baby food things. The footnote to it is "Mums, you're doing great".

The growing use of the word "Mum" or "Mom" in Ireland is another irritant I have, although not relevant to this discussion.

There is a distinct lack of fathers in advertising.

silverharp

FortySeven wrote: »

There is a distinct lack of fathers in advertising.

that and they run with the idiot dad meme far too often, even a 5 year old kid is able to out smart him. They aint selling the job to the next generation.

mzungu

ligerdub wrote: »

It's still fairly common in advertising.

There is an ad going on at the moment, I think it's for SMA or one of those other baby food things. The footnote to it is "Mums, you're doing great".

The growing use of the word "Mum" or "Mom" in Ireland is another irritant I have, although not relevant to this discussion.

AFAIK "Mum" has always been used in this country. The onset of wall-to-wall US TV shows has now lead a lot of people to ape the terminology and hence we now have "Mom" used in some quarters.

DamoKen

mzungu wrote: »

AFAIK "Mum" has always been used in this country. The onset of wall-to-wall US TV shows has now lead a lot of people to ape the terminology and hence we now have "Mom" used in some quarters.

Don't know about that. Like Mom I think Mum is an import, this time from the UK. First I heard it in use here would have been mid 80's, in Dublin at least. The ole skool crowd used Mam or if shouting it would be the time honoured favourite MAAAAA!!!

LostinBlanch

maybe

Pfft you are all amateurs with your Mother and Child parking spaces.

I bet you didn't even know Gender Neutral Snow Clearing was a thing.

What is it? Well apparently women prefer to walk instead of drive or take public transport to work like men, so obviously women should have the footpaths cleared before the roads, as not doing so disadvantages them. Never mind the fact that when roads are cleared the snow goes to the sides and you would have to clear the paths or cycle lanes again.

Well, what do you expect? It's Sweden.

Jeez, what a time to be alive. :P

silverharp

^^^^


the first call will be about why the traffic was so bad after the change in snow clearing priorities :pac:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sweden-mansplaining-hotline-woman-get-to-report-patronising-male-colleagues-a7418491.html

Swedish women get hotline to report mansplaining


Mansplaining is when 'a man explains something to a woman without being asked, particularly something which she might already know more about than him'

Women who have things mansplained to them in the workplace can now report it to a dedicated hotline.

Unionen, Sweden’s largest union, is encouraging members to call up when male colleagues give them unsolicited lectures on things they already understand.

The organisation, which represents 600,000 private sector workers, launched the advice line on Monday and said it will be open from 10am to 4pm everyday for a week as part of a campaign to highlight and stamp out the insidious and damaging practice.

Calhoun

Lol and people wonder why the likes of Trump winning or Brexit. When this is the crap your faced with from establishment i think its time to burn it all down and reset.