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

midnight city

dfeo wrote: »

The EU law was brought in in 2012. It was enacted.

There is no transparency in the figures quoted. Insurance companies can charge you a premium for having blue eyes if they want.

Yeah i think they got around it by charging you more if you do a typically male job like bricklayer or so.

The J Stands for Jay

midnight city wrote: »

They kicked up a whole fuss about razors costing them more than men's ones. Tesco's have reduced the price of them now

http://heatst.com/culture-wars/prices-of-womens-razors-slashed-to-end-sexist-surcharge-but-the-surcharge-doesnt-exist/

When you look at women's razors, they always seem to be bigger with more 'lube strips' or whatever they are. Since they use more materials to make, you'd expect them to cost more.

Minderbinder

dfeo wrote: »

midnight city wrote: »

I thought there was a new eu law brought in a few years back that said it was illegal to charge men more for insurance. Whatever happened to that. Women seem to still have cheaper car insurance.

The EU law was brought in in 2012. It was enacted.

There is no transparency in the figures quoted. Insurance companies can charge you a premium for having blue eyes if they want.

I say just lie to insurance companies about as many things as possible and never claim. Even if you claim you will pay it back on your next premium so there is no point in being honest, unless you're reckless enough to cause a major accident.

_Jamie_

dfeo wrote: »

There is no funding or advertisements for male shelters from domestic abuse.

I literally sat and watched an ad about domestic violence on Irish television over the Christmas season that showed a male victim of a female perpretrator. If I saw it, many others did too. I'll try and find it.

On cancer screening, only women over a certain age get free breast cancer screening despite a fifth of breast cancers happening in under 50s. Breast cancer in men is so incredibly rare, approximately 20 cases in Ireland per year (about 1% of the figure for women) and you can be sure that the majority of those would be in the over 65s like with women. It would make little sense to roll out a large scale screening programme for men. Screening brings risks of its own and it is even beginning to be felt that it is excessive in women even. It involves exposure to radiation once you get past the manual examination. Exposing oneself to radiation when there is such a tiny risk of actually having the cancer being searched for is moving into the realm of the checks being more harmful that what is being searched for. Generally with male breast cancer, physical signs will often turn up early and that can then warrant further screening if requested by a man. What is needed is some information on what men should look for when it comes to changes in their body that might signify breast cancer, much like for women.

Meanwhile over 500 (about a fifth of the yearly cases) under 50 women will get breast cancer every year and I am one of them. Most of us will be diagnosed at a late stage because we are not rushed along for screening despite what you might think, as doctors are very reluctant to do so, EVEN when we present with indicative symptoms. I had classic symptoms and was shooed away until it was far too late. It is not all rosy for women when it comes to screening for breast cancer. Meanwhile, my father has been offered free screening for a number of different cancers in the last year due to his age. The screening offered free to women is usually based on age too. The reason why cervical cancer screening is offered for free to younger women is because it is a cancer of young women. So I think you are being a bit misleading in complaining about the cancer screening being offered to women and I think you need to read up on the whole area of cancer screening and the pros and cons of screening programmes.

Calhoun

_Jamie_ wrote: »

I literally sat and watched an ad about domestic violence on Irish television over the Christmas season that showed a male victim of a female perpretrator. If I saw it, many others did too. I'll try and find it.

On cancer screening, only women over a certain age get free breast cancer screening despite a fifth of breast cancers happening in under 50s. Breast cancer in men is so incredibly rare, approximately 20 cases in Ireland per year (about 1% of the figure for women) and you can be sure that the majority of those would be in the over 65s like with women. It would make little sense to roll out a large scale screening programme for men. Screening brings risks of its own and it is even beginning to be felt that it is excessive in women even. It involves exposure to radiation once you get past the manual examination. Exposing oneself to radiation when there is such a tiny risk of actually having the cancer being searched for is moving into the realm of the checks being more harmful that what is being searched for. Generally with male breast cancer, physical signs will often turn up early and that can then warrant further screening if requested by a man. What is needed is some information on what men should look for when it comes to changes in their body that might signify breast cancer, much like for women.

Meanwhile over 500 (about a fifth of the yearly cases) under 50 women will get breast cancer every year and I am one of them. Most of us will be diagnosed at a late stage because we are not rushed along for screening despite what you might think, as doctors are very reluctant to do so, EVEN when we present with indicative symptoms. I had classic symptoms and was shooed away until it was far too late. It is not all rosy for women when it comes to screening for breast cancer. Meanwhile, my father has been offered free screening for a number of different cancers in the last year due to his age. The screening offered free to women is usually based on age too. The reason why cervical cancer screening is offered for free to younger women is because it is a cancer of young women. So I think you are being a bit misleading in complaining about the cancer screening being offered to women and I think you need to read up on the whole area of cancer screening and the pros and cons of screening programmes.

Oh oh oh wow, one add about male domestic violence victim in what like week 3 or 4 of a fairly aggressive campaign that was targeted against men.

The cancer screening comment is also bunk, the post above were talking about screenings for the comparative age group. In this case the equivalent would testicle check for young men.

Its funny though i also noticed something over the past week or so, a young lad of 16 was killed and maybe its just me but i dont think that the media coverage was nearly as long as that poor girl who was knocked unconscious. To me it looks like the inherit bias and value placed on the life of men and boys.

_Jamie_

One ad on male domestic violence may lead to more. Yeesh, complain that something hasn't happened, then when it has pointed out it has, complain that it hasn't happen enough.

Calhoun wrote: »

The cancer screening comment is also bunk, the post above were talking about screenings for the comparative age group. In this case the equivalent would testicle check for young men.

How can you possibly dismiss my cancer comments just like that? The poster brought up male breast cancer, questioning why men were not widely screened for it, and there was inaccuracies in what was said. Breast screening is NOT freely available to any woman and offering widespread screening for male breast cancer would be counterproductive in that it would likely cause more cancers than it would detect. It is even being questioned at the moment whether woman are being overchecked for it after a certain age and whether regular screening might actually be causing cancer. Calling for widespread screening of men for breast cancer would truly be a pyrrhic victory.

A key difference between cervical and testicular cancer is that testicular cancer is one that can be detected by doing a self-examination, much like women are encouraged to do for breast cancer. You can't do any manual examination yourself for cervical cancer and by the time symptoms show up, it would almost certainly be too late. Testicular cancer is one of the few cancers that is even curable at the metastatic stage and most men who detect it will have done so far before this point. The testing for cervical cancer must be done by a professional but does not require any radiation so it is a fairly easy thing to check for and will not heighten the risk of cancer. For all these reasons, it makes sense to screen for cervical cancer. It is easy to do but you still need a professional to do it.

And you also ignored my point about the age profile of people being offered cancer screening. Men do get offered free screening. And women are not offered breast screening willy nilly until the age of 50, despite a sizeable number of under 50s getting breast cancer year and despite not all kinds of breast cancer being detectable with manual examination.

Calhoun

_Jamie_ wrote: »

One ad on male domestic violence may lead to more. Yeesh, complain that something hasn't happened, then when it has pointed out it has, complain that it hasn't happen enough.

Actually thr complaints were general complaints about bias media demonising men but hey let's calm down as they had one footnote that mentioned men. Had it been the other way around there would have been uproar.

Get to the rest tomorrow it's late.

_Jamie_

Calhoun wrote: »

Actually thr complaints were general complaints about bias media demonising men but hey let's calm down as they had one footnote that mentioned men. Had it been the other way around there would have been uproar.

For the love of gawd. Having an ad is progress, one ad can lead to more. There would have been NO ad at all in the recent past, these things take time.

mzungu

Calhoun wrote: »

Oh oh oh wow, one add about male domestic violence victim in what like week 3 or 4 of a fairly aggressive campaign that was targeted against men.

The cancer screening comment is also bunk, the post above were talking about screenings for the comparative age group. In this case the equivalent would testicle check for young men.

Its funny though i also noticed something over the past week or so, a young lad of 16 was killed and maybe its just me but i dont think that the media coverage was nearly as long as that poor girl who was knocked unconscious. To me it looks like the inherit bias and value placed on the life of men and boys.

I disagree. Personally, and I do not say this flippantly, boys/men being killed/injured in a violent manner is no longer newsworthy as it happens quite frequently. Lets face it, nobody really bats an eyelid at it anymore. On the other hand, a woman being viciously attacked to the point of being left in a coma is not a common occurrence (comparatively speaking) and therefore elicits a much larger shock. Hence why one was reported on more than the other. I do not believe it suggests a bias against the lives of young men.

Pawwed Rig

mzungu wrote: »

I disagree. Personally, and I do not say this flippantly, boys/men being killed/injured in a violent manner is no longer newsworthy as it happens quite frequently. Lets face it, nobody really bats an eyelid at it anymore. On the other hand, a woman being viciously attacked to the point of being left in a coma is not a common occurrence (comparatively speaking) and therefore elicits a much larger shock. Hence why one was reported on more than the other. I do not believe it suggests a bias against the lives of young men.

You are joking right?

blue note

_Jamie_ wrote: »

One ad on male domestic violence may lead to more. Yeesh, complain that something hasn't happened, then when it has pointed out it has, complain that it hasn't happen enough.



How can you possibly dismiss my cancer comments just like that? The poster brought up male breast cancer, questioning why men were not widely screened for it, and there was inaccuracies in what was said. Breast screening is NOT freely available to any woman and offering widespread screening for male breast cancer would be counterproductive in that it would likely cause more cancers than it would detect. It is even being questioned at the moment whether woman are being overchecked for it after a certain age and whether regular screening might actually be causing cancer. Calling for widespread screening of men for breast cancer would truly be a pyrrhic victory.

A key difference between cervical and testicular cancer is that testicular cancer is one that can be detected by doing a self-examination, much like women are encouraged to do for breast cancer. You can't do any manual examination yourself for cervical cancer and by the time symptoms show up, it would almost certainly be too late. Testicular cancer is one of the few cancers that is even curable at the metastatic stage and most men who detect it will have done so far before this point. The testing for cervical cancer must be done by a professional but does not require any radiation so it is a fairly easy thing to check for and will not heighten the risk of cancer. For all these reasons, it makes sense to screen for cervical cancer. It is easy to do but you still need a professional to do it.

And you also ignored my point about the age profile of people being offered cancer screening. Men do get offered free screening. And women are not offered breast screening willy nilly until the age of 50, despite a sizeable number of under 50s getting breast cancer year and despite not all kinds of breast cancer being detectable with manual examination.

On the domestic violence ads - the media and public perception is very heavily biased towards it being a men on women issue. It's good that there was an ad on over Christmas showing the abuse happen the other way around. I didn't see it, but from listening to and reading bits about the recent campaign they do seem to be including mention of violence by women on men. This is a real step forward and hopefully it will seep into the public consciousness too, but there's just so far to go on this issue. And the man up campaign of a couple of years ago did real damage to it - totally reinforced the idea that it was men who were the problem and women the victims. The adds need to become more and more gender neutral (and need to show more gay couples), the discussion needs to become more gender neutral and the supports need to become more gender neutral. Some people seem to think it's men getting their knickers in a twist over a perceived slight, but it's much more to do with men having been in or having seen abusive relationships and having seen the problem dismissed.

On the cancer screening, do we have free prostate screening? I think this is the second most common cancer in Ireland, ahead of breast cancer, but I didn't think we screen for it for free. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm also not sure if you can do a test yourself, I must look that up. But I'm at my work computer now so it'll have to be later! Free screening for men for breast cancer would be utterly ridiculous given it's incidence rate, but not offering free screening for prostate cancer seems similarly ridiculous. I could easily imagine someone thinking that "well, if it was all that likely they'd offer free screening like they do for breast cancer and cervical cancer."

And on your cancer I'm truly sorry and hope you make a swift and full recovery.

_Jamie_

blue note wrote: »

On the domestic violence ads - the media and public perception is very heavily biased towards it being a men on women issue. It's good that there was an ad on over Christmas showing the abuse happen the other way around. I didn't see it, but from listening to and reading bits about the recent campaign they do seem to be including mention of violence by women on men. This is a real step forward and hopefully it will seep into the public consciousness too, but there's just so far to go on this issue.

It's nice to see someone actually be pragmatic about the campaign. Rome wasn't built in a day, to use a big, massive cliché.

blue note wrote: »

On the cancer screening, do we have free prostate screening? I think this is the second most common cancer in Ireland, ahead of breast cancer, but I didn't think we screen for it for free. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Not currently but the Irish Cancer Society are pushing for it. But prostate cancer screening is also not without controversy either. And possibly because the majority of men who get prostate cancer die with it, not of it, that might explain the tardiness in getting free screening set up. The reason why breast cancer charities are so well-funded now is because there was a massive effort put behind bringing it to the fore about 30 years ago. It didn't just happen.

And yes, widespread screening for male breast cancer truly would be ludicrous. It would be no harm publicising to men what they should be looking out for though.

Calhoun

_Jamie_ wrote: »

For the love of gawd. Having an ad is progress, one ad can lead to more. There would have been NO ad at all in the recent past, these things take time.

Sorry took a bit of time as i have been busy all day. Tokenism is not something that should be celebrated and if the shoe was on the other foot i can guarantee that women ect would be up in arms. As they say what is good for the goose is good for the gander, if other groups are entitled to be outraged and call things as they are then so shall i.

As for the cancer piece, i didnt read it correctly seeing that you were actually a sufferer of the terrible disease my apologies its a terrible disease to have. I agree with you on the male breast check as i dont think that is the big killer but as pointed out there are other areas like prostate ect that could definitely be funded and looked into allot more.

The thing is we are talking about equality here and by and large when it comes to the general area of mens health its not taken as seriously in 2017.

Calhoun

mzungu wrote: »

I disagree. Personally, and I do not say this flippantly, boys/men being killed/injured in a violent manner is no longer newsworthy as it happens quite frequently. Lets face it, nobody really bats an eyelid at it anymore. On the other hand, a woman being viciously attacked to the point of being left in a coma is not a common occurrence (comparatively speaking) and therefore elicits a much larger shock. Hence why one was reported on more than the other. I do not believe it suggests a bias against the lives of young men.

So what your saying is we need more women to be attacked on a regular basis and then it will become non news worthy?

Ludicrous question i have asked i know but your statement is very much out of touch. When did it become ok for a 16 year old boy to be stabbed to death in Ireland and it be ok?

Look at the independent.ie right now, the funeral update about the stab victim is now midway down the page, we have an update from the family of the girl unconscious above that a little bit basically saying how hard its being (another story) and one of the top stories right now is 3 woman being attacked on the way to the airport.

It tells you all you need to know about how men and boys are seen in society today. Cannot even hold the top spot for more than an hour, compared to when the young girl was attacked the story was followed for days.

mzungu

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You are joking right?

I'm not saying I agree with the disproportionate media coverage. To my mind, they are both abhorrent crimes. But, there are significant differences between them so I can understand why the media are running more with one from the other.

Looking from a media perspective, which story is more likely to get more news coverage? I hate to talk about these cases in such flippant terms, but in one we have what appears to be an open and shut case. In the other we have a victim found unconscious at the side of the road, severely beaten, no witnesses, no cctv and last we heard she is still in a medically induced coma. Not to mention, the attacker is still at large too. I believe this accounts for the disproportionate coverage.

I would also hazard a guess that they wish to keep the story relevant for the purposes of jogging the memory of anybody who might have been in the Maynooth area at the time. There are plenty of examples of bias against men in the media, but for me this is not one of them.

blue note

On the prostate vs breast cancer I had a quick look for stats on deaths. Cancer.ie say there are about 660 deaths from breast cancer each year. I couldn't find a figure for prostate cancer on the site. From another article, in 2010 10 of the breast cancer deaths were men and there were account 560 prostate cancer deaths. So fairly comparable figures really. There's obviously a need to get men checked, and free testing would really encourage this. Just offering it would help get it into people's brains that they need to get checked.

It's sad that there isn't even a huge push to get few screenings for men. But we don't shout as loud about these things and as a result we don't get them. Also, breast cancer charities are amazing at fund raising. Women along with their brothers and husbands, fathers, sons, boyfriends raise an amazing amount of money for these services every year.

iptba

dfeo wrote: »

There is no funding or advertisements for male shelters from domestic abuse.

The reply to this referred to general ads about domestic violence.
However the point refers to shelters and there is a big difference in what is available to you as a domestic violence victim depending on whether you are male or female. I believe this even applies to male children over a certain age.

Regarding breast cancer, I recall reading that some of the services (perhaps provided by the charity sector, I can't remember) are only available to those who are female. This isn't to do it screening but for those who have been diagnosed with the condition.

mzungu

Calhoun wrote: »

So what your saying is we need more women to be attacked on a regular basis and then it will become non news worthy?

Ludicrous question i have asked i know but your statement is very much out of touch. When did it become ok for a 16 year old boy to be stabbed to death in Ireland and it be ok?

That was not my point at all. I was highlighting how the media works in these cases. No form of violence against anybody is ok. Neither am I advocating for some kind of hierarchy of reporting based on gender, I was merely outlining why I think the Maynooth case is getting a higher amount of coverage. I'll just steal a bit from my last post that explains my position:

mzungu wrote:

Looking from a media perspective, which story is more likely to get more news coverage? I hate to talk about these cases in such flippant terms, but in one we have what appears to be an open and shut case. In the other we have a victim found unconscious at the side of the road, severely beaten, no witnesses, no cctv and last we heard she is still in a medically induced coma. Not to mention, the attacker is still at large too. I believe this accounts for the disproportionate coverage.

Calhoun wrote: »

Look at the independent.ie right now, the funeral update about the stab victim is now midway down the page, we have an update from the family of the girl unconscious above that a little bit basically saying how hard its being (another story) and one of the top stories right now is 3 woman being attacked on the way to the airport.

I am on the Irish news section. The stab story is second last but I can't see the Maynooth one anywhere. On the Irish Times the Maynooth story is fifth down while the stabbing is seventh. From reading the articles I see that files have been sent to the DPP in one case whilst the other is still trying to discover what happened. I don't see a bias here, more a case of one of them being far along in an investigation while the other wants to keep in the public eye so it can hopefully get some information to shine a light on what happened.

Calhoun wrote: »

It tells you all you need to know about how men and boys are seen in society today. Cannot even hold the top spot for more than an hour, compared to when the young girl was attacked the story was followed for days.

Usually I would be the first to point out a bias (and there are quite a few), but in this specific case I do not see it. Do you think we would still be hearing about Maynooth if the attacker had been caught within a few days? Course not.

ligerdub

A lot of the web versions of stories are ranked by clicks not by preferences of the newspaper.

Calhoun

Comparatively when both stories were breaking news which lasted longer ? Which had more public outrage and which had seemingly more policing resources thrown at it.

I think we all know the answer to this and that's my point.

mzungu

Calhoun wrote: »

Comparatively when both stories were breaking news which lasted longer ?

Two very different cases, but IIRC the stabbing was top of news bulletins on RTE Radio 1. Once again, how long it stays top news depends on how far along the investigation is.

Did you have the same concern when the documentary about Club Annabelle's was made, or when the movie loosely based on it was released? Certain crimes stick in the mind of the public, especially when they are still shrouded in mystery. There is no gender bias involved.

Calhoun wrote: »

Which had more public outrage and which had seemingly more policing resources thrown at it.

I think we all know the answer to this and that's my point.

A file has been sent to the DPP. It would appear a lot of resources were used in the case and a court date presumably will follow if the DPP see fit. What makes you think the Gardaí spent less than the necessary amount of time on that case?

Calhoun

They are both about violent crime one of them a young lad is dead the other the female victim is in the hospital.

At the time we had speculation on just about everything commentary at one point was about evil men doing something like this ect. Commentary on society ect which is not there in the same volumes in each case. I get what your saying but at the same time there is an inherent bias towards a female victim.

As for the club annabelle it was at a time in my youth when I didn't follow the media as closely sure folk were shocked at the time but different times.

There was a much more visible effort from the gaurds who were seen to be doing something about the attack case than the stabbing. No condemnation or any senior inspectors on the news like in the other case.

Pawwed Rig

The club annabelles story was all about the perpetrators not the victim.

donkeykong5

It's usually men who beat up women and children. Hence the numerous shelters for vulnerable women and children. How many shelters are there at present for vulnerable beaten up men and children.

Pawwed Rig

donkeykong5 wrote: »

It's usually men who beat up women and children. Hence the numerous shelters for vulnerable women and children. How many shelters are there at present for vulnerable beaten up men and children.

Have a read of this thread.

_Jamie_

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The club annabelles story was all about the perpetrators not the victim.

Really? I heard a hell of lot about the victim.

Pawwed Rig

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Really? I heard a hell of lot about the victim.

Was all about how could well heeled Blackrock boys do such a thing in the Burlington no less. Do you remember as well the guy getting kicked to death in New Ross?

_Jamie_

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Was all about how could well heeled Blackrock boys do such a thing in the Burlington no less. Do you remember as well the guy getting kicked to death in New Ross?

There was plenty on the victim too. Plenty. I don't know of that other case. Couldn't we all pick and choose cases to illustrate our own point of view here?

Pawwed Rig

_Jamie_ wrote: »

I don't know of that other case.

Very similar minus the South Dublin angle.

_Jamie_

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Very similar minus the South Dublin angle.

Well anyway, there was huge focus on the Annabel victim in the media too, I lived here too at the time, I'm not sure why you are trying to tell there wasn't loads of focus on the victim too. The other is interesting because the victim wasn't Irish. There is a good chance there was less focus on the victim because of that. And again, we could all trawl the archives for cases that back up our point. I doubt every murdered woman in the country in the same time period has got lots of attention. There are myriad factors in why one case gets more publicised than other. In the cases discussed earlier, one was a brutal attack that is as yet unsolved. The other was a brutal attack where it was elucidated quickly what happened. We wouldn't still be hearing about the Maynooth case if it was solved.

Calhoun

_Jamie_ wrote: »

There was plenty on the victim too. Plenty. I don't know of that other case. Couldn't we all pick and choose cases to illustrate our own point of view here?

We all could pick many cases but I think as this is the men's thread on discrimation we are talking about cases relevant to us.

We are also talking about media in 2017 not a few years ago. Thing have moved on allot since the annabelle case.

Ferrari3600

Also very little about the young man who was stabbed in Dalkey on Xmas eve. He survived fortunately but was a vicious attack.

_Jamie_

Calhoun wrote: »

We all could pick many cases but I think as this is the men's thread on discrimation we are talking about cases relevant to us.

I understand this is the Gentleman's Club but do you really want there to be no counterpoints to points being made, even if the counterpoint is reasonable? What's the point of that?

There was huge media attention around the murder of Sebastian Crean back in 2009. It was a bonkers case but it also happened to nice middle class people. So I think there is a huge class element to how crimes are publicised in this country too. Any incident involving well-to-do people, the media loses its shít ie. the overkill media attention on the Berkeley balcony case.

Calhoun

_Jamie_ wrote: »

I understand this is the Gentleman's Club but do you really want there to be no counterpoints to points being made, even if the counterpoint is reasonable? What's the point of that?

No but I expect it to be reasonable conversation, we are talking about media coverage in January 2017 about male issues.

You have pretty much dismissed it because of tokenism late in the day that probably came from the push back from men in the first place.

If I went to the ladies lounge and did similar I would be treated with the same scorn.

As for the Sebastian Crean case that one was ridiculous, more time spent on the Killers mother talking about how depression drugs caused him to do it, i felt sorry for Sebastians family. There is of course many elements to the Irish media but of late the narrative as above has been on men = evil.

iptba

I have read before that there is evidence that when there is a female victim, sentencing is more harsh. Here is the first study I found when I searched:

Does Victim Gender Increase Sentence Severity? Further Explorations of Gender Dynamics and Sentencing Outcomes

Theodore R. Curry Gang Lee S. Fernando Rodriguez

First Published July 1, 2004 research-article
Abstract

Theoretical and empirical research pertaining to the influence of gender on sentencing outcomes has focused almost exclusively on the gender of offenders. What this literature has not fully considered is how the gender of crime victims might affect sentencing outcomes. Using data for offenders convicted of three violent crimes in the seven largest metro counties in Texas in 1991, the authors find evidence that offenders who victimized females received substantially longer sentences than offenders who victimized males. Results also show that victim gender effects on sentence length are conditioned by offender gender, such that male offenders who victimize females received the longest sentence of any other victim gender/offender gender combination. However, whereas these effects are observed for sentence length, no victim gender effects are observed on whether offenders received an incarcerative or nonincarcerative sentence. The authors address the implications of their findings for theory and subsequent research.

littlevillage

dfeo wrote: »

The EU law was brought in in 2012. It was enacted.

There is no transparency in the figures quoted. Insurance companies can charge you a premium for having blue eyes if they want.

Seriously? I thought this was enacted into Law. If memory serves me, Women were none too happy about it at the time, either :-( (and of course no media or politician etc. was prepared to support the idea of gender equality, when it actually benefited men)

What is the latest on this ? I expect the insurance companies will probably still try to discriminate against men and charge them more, but cannot do it simply on gender grounds any more.

If women were being over-charged, "Prime Time" would be investigating.

_Jamie_

Calhoun wrote: »

If I went to the ladies lounge and did similar I would be treated with the same scorn.

Well, you don't actually know that, men post in there all the time or at least did when the site was busier.

On the whhole domestic violence thing, there being ads featuring men as the victim is progress but you don't seem happy with that either? Change comes slowly but when moves are made to redress the balance, you dismiss them. That's odd.

Calhoun

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Well, you don't actually know that, men post in there all the time or at least did when the site was busier.

On the whhole domestic violence thing, there being ads featuring men as the victim is progress but you don't seem happy with that either? Change comes slowly but when moves are made to redress the balance, you dismiss them. That's odd.

Men post in there but i have seen the mods rigorously police it to make sure that while its a place for discussion it is more cognitive of its primary audience.

As i have said before tokenism is a start but why should i be happy about 1 ad when the remainder demonizes men.

Its odd that you feel the need to defend the narrative of the media of late. If this discussion was reversed and it was woman being portrayed as the abusers or it not being taken seriously you would be rightly annoyed about it.

_Jamie_

Calhoun wrote: »

As i have said before tokenism is a start but why should i be happy about 1 ad when the remainder demonizes men.

Because it's a start. Social conditioning is strong and it will take a while for attitudes to change. Women often treat violence against men as funny and many men would still hold the view that "Wouldn't ya think he'd man the fúck up?". That's pervasive and it will take time and persistence to change those views. But if persistent, attitudes will change. Be part of it, be encouraged by the new buds of change, agitate for more of the same. That's how the women's shelter movement started 50 years, through a small, determined band of women.

On the bolded bit, does the ad showing female on male violence demonise women? I don't believe so, so why would you think the opposite demonises men? Female on male violence happens, as does the reverse. It's not demonising either gender to point this out. At the moment, male on female violences ads are more common but as said, that can change.

Calhoun

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Because it's a start. Social conditioning is strong and it will take a while for attitudes to change. Women often treat violence against men as funny and many men would still hold the view that "Wouldn't ya think he'd man the fúck up?". That's pervasive and it will take time and persistence to change those views. But if persistent, attitudes will change. Be part of it, be encouraged by the new buds of change, agitate for more of the same. That's how the women's shelter movement started 50 years, through a small, determined band of women.

On the bolded bit, does the ad showing female on male violence demonise women? I don't believe so, so why would you think the opposite demonises men? Female on male violence happens, as does the reverse. It's not demonising either gender to point this out. At the moment, male on female violences ads are more common but as said, that can change.

So what if its a start, i can be both glad on one level that its started but also angry about it.

Its not only the ad#'s themselves that demonise its them combined with social media commentary of the day. As a male i am likely to not only beat my wife and kids but while out on the streets i am likely to rape any unaccompanied female unless i have an anti-rape class.

We wonder why male youth of the day are so disenfranchised.

_Jamie_

Calhoun wrote: »

So what if its a start, i can be both glad on one level that its started but also angry about it.

That's such a bizarre attitude to have. I dunno, I can't really say much more!

mzungu

Calhoun wrote: »

Its odd that you feel the need to defend the narrative of the media of late. If this discussion was reversed and it was woman being portrayed as the abusers or it not being taken seriously you would be rightly annoyed about it.

Primarily, this discussion was about the Maynooth case and the more recent one in Dublin. I may have sidelined things with my Club Annabel example, but the point stands. Different incidents down through the years have been reported differently in the media. This is not a new development.

To my mind, trying to find gender bias in these two cases is the same level of nitpicking that goes on in opinion columns that specifically take shots at men. It is pretty much trying ones damnedest to find oppression where there is none.

_Jamie_

mzungu wrote: »

To my mind, trying to find gender bias in these two cases is the same level of nitpicking that goes on in opinion columns that specifically take shots at men. It is pretty much trying ones damnedest to find oppression where there is none.

It's kinda the MRA version of the most hardline feminists. Both these groups, one feels, will never be happy. Thankfully, many people inhabit something closer the middle ground.

I agree that the cases were publicised differently because one was more easily solved than the other. The latter case, they seem to have caught the perpetrator quickly. Of course the former case was more publicised, it was a vicious assault that they are keen to solve.

mzungu

Calhoun wrote: »

Men post in there but i have seen the mods rigorously police it to make sure that while its a place for discussion it is more cognitive of its primary audience.

As i have said before tokenism is a start but why should i be happy about 1 ad when the remainder demonizes men.

Its odd that you feel the need to defend the narrative of the media of late. If this discussion was reversed and it was woman being portrayed as the abusers or it not being taken seriously you would be rightly annoyed about it.

Lets say if it was a 50/50 split in adverts, would you still call in demonising men? Is it only when we have equal time devoted to perpetrators of both genders that this stops?

_Jamie_

mzungu wrote: »

Lets say if it was a 50/50 split in adverts, would you still call in demonising men? Is it only when we have equal time devoted to perpetrators of both genders that this stops?

My thoughts too. The female on male ad isn't considered to be demonising women so why is the opposite ad demonisation? And like you say, if it was 50/50, would that mean it's not demonisation anymore?

Calhoun

mzungu wrote: »

Lets say if it was a 50/50 split in adverts, would you still call in demonising men? Is it only when we have equal time devoted to perpetrators of both genders that this stops?

No it doesnt and nor should it be equal but both missing the point entirely, its not the ads on their own its the widespread social commentary that make it demonising of men.

We saw such a case earlier in the year used to push the agenda of the mandatory anti-rape classes in two of our prestige (or used to be) Universities.

mzungu

_Jamie_ wrote: »

It's kinda the MRA version of the most hardline feminists. Both these groups, one feels, will never be happy. Thankfully, many people inhabit something closer the middle ground.

Aye. They are two sides of the same coin. Contrarians who simply get off on being offended.

_Jamie_ wrote: »

I agree that the cases were publicised differently because one was more easily solved than the other. The latter case, they seem to have caught the perpetrator quickly. Of course the former case was more publicised, it was a vicious assault that they are keen to solve.

Exactly. From what I gather the Guards had a pretty good idea who was involved in the stabbing from the moment they arrived on the scene. Unfortunately, that was not the case in Maynooth, which, from an investigative point of view must be one of the hardest type of cases to deal with. Comparing the two is chalk and cheese.

mzungu

Calhoun wrote: »

No it doesnt and nor should it be equal but both missing the point entirely, its not the ads on their own its the widespread social commentary that make it demonising of men.

Hold up. When you say "nor should it be equal" do you mean it is fine as it is (more men as perpetrators) or needs to be changed to have more women as perpetrators?

Would you mind explaining the point please?

Calhoun wrote: »

We saw such a case earlier in the year used to push the agenda of the mandatory anti-rape classes in two of our prestige (or used to be) Universities.

I recall they set up consent classes, but to the best of my knowledge they are for both male and female students?

Calhoun

_Jamie_ wrote: »

That's such a bizarre attitude to have. I dunno, I can't really say much more!

I find it bizarre to come into a thread discussing discrimination about men and not to expect to be challenged on it.

Your the equivalent of a man saying shut up and get back in your kitchen.

Calhoun

mzungu wrote: »

Hold up. When you say "not should it be equal" do you mean it is fine as it is (more men as perpetrators) or needs to be changed to have more women as perpetrators?

Would you mind explaining the point please?


I recall they set up consent classes, but to the best of my knowledge they are for both male and female students?

What i mean is you will never have an equal 50:50 balance but the discussion around it needs to be changed so both are regarded with the same seriousness, violence against anyone should be seen as being wrong.

The only ones that believe that they are consent classes targetted equally at male and female students are feminists. Ignoring all the crap that went on around the time to get them in place.