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

mzungu

iptba wrote: »

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:

Yep, talking strictly about the USA here, but there definitely is a big gap there. A recent study found that "large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted. Prior studies have reported much smaller sentence gaps because they have ignored the role of charging, plea-bargaining, and sentencing fact-finding in producing sentences."

Starr, Sonja B., Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases (August 29, 2012). University of Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper, No. 12-018.

mzungu

Calhoun wrote: »

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.

Things are changing though. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Calhoun wrote: »

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.

I have no idea what they do in those classes. TBH, I doubt they will do much good and it does seem to have the air of a PR move about it. I initially thought they were going to be loaded with "rape culture" ideology, but I recall reading somewhere that all that stuff was being left out. So, I am going to hold off on my final judgement until I can read something in-depth about the ones they conduct in Ireland.

_Jamie_

Calhoun wrote: »

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.

What? No, I mean, it's bizarre that you are not happy that finally there is beginning to be some recognition for male victims of domestic violence. When I saw the ad, it stopped me in my tracks for a moment and I'm sure I wasn't alone in that. This is a good thing. It's a start! Why would you gripe about it?

Calhoun

_Jamie_ wrote: »

What? No, I mean, it's bizarre that you are not happy that finally there is beginning to be some recognition for male victims of domestic violence. When I saw the ad, it stopped me in my tracks for a moment and I'm sure I wasn't alone in that. This is a good thing. It's a start! Why would you gripe about it?

I am not griping about it, i actually never seen it myself. However what i am saying is while its good it has happened it doesnt take away from all the negativity projected at men at the time.

When its a who's who of social justice organizations having a pop and perpetuating the myth of a rape culture in Ireland and worse going on in Ireland what do you expect?

JRant

The add may be a start but it barely scratches the surface when it comes to the sheer volume of material put out by MSM denigrating men in today's society. There are countless domestic abuse ad campaigns (the Man Up one being particularly insidious), articles telling men not to rape and tv programs on a non-existent "rape culture" to name but a few.

I think people are well within their rights to be unhappy about one add being shown. After all as the last 30 years of feminism has shown us you need to make as much noise as possible about these issues and not be placated with token gestures.

Calhoun

mzungu wrote: »

Things are changing though. Rome wasn't built in a day.


I have no idea what they do in those classes. TBH, I doubt they will do much good and it does seem to have the air of a PR move about it. I initially thought they were going to be loaded with "rape culture" ideology, but I recall reading somewhere that all that stuff was being left out. So, I am going to hold off on my final judgement until I can read something in-depth about the ones they conduct in Ireland.

The fact that they are even taking place and how the social justice folk went about getting them in place still annoys me. If this was approached from an inclusive perspective without the need for games or apartment buddies of Una Mulally posting about "this is why we need consent classes" i would have been more open to it.

However that was not to be so i am of course very skeptical about what is being taught. If the US is anything to go by the consent classes are the first step in wider SJW policy that is in ways anti-white male. Surprised we dont have a few safe spaces in Ireland already.

_Jamie_

JRant wrote: »

The add may be a start but it barely scratches the surface when it comes to the sheer volume of material put out by MSM denigrating men in today's society. There are countless domestic abuse ad campaigns (the Man Up one being particularly insidious), articles telling men not to rape and tv programs on a non-existent "rape culture" to name but a few.

I think people are well within their rights to be unhappy about one add being shown. After all as the last 30 years of feminism has shown us you need to make as much noise as possible about these issues and not be placated with token gestures.

It doesn't have to be a token gesture, that's my point. It can be seen as a start. There's a defeatism to calling it tokenism.

JRant

_Jamie_ wrote: »

It doesn't have to be a token gesture, that's my point. It can be seen as a start. There's a defeatism to calling it tokenism.

That is true but at the moment it could be called tokenism. If we start seeing more ads like it then it may be the start of something.

_Jamie_

JRant wrote: »

That is true but at the moment it could be called tokenism. If we start seeing more ads like it then it may be the start of something.

It already is! There is a lot of social conditioning to cut through, in both genders. That will take time.

ligerdub

_Jamie_ wrote:

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.

I am just one guy.....but I have honestly never heard of that case in my life.

Sorry to dig up on what seems to be old ground unnecessarily here but although the man who died in the Annabels case was noted quite a lot, it was clear as day that the story was centred around those who were on trial for killing him. All the talk was about them not the victim. I could remember their names instantly, not his, I think it was Brian after a bit of mental rummaging.

The Maynooth case saw a lot of coverage until they found out the guilty party was other girls, and then it promptly stopped.

mzungu

ligerdub wrote: »

I am just one guy.....but I have honestly never heard of that case in my life.

That case was all over the media.

ligerdub wrote: »

Sorry to dig up on what seems to be old ground unnecessarily here but although the man who died in the Annabels case was noted quite a lot, it was clear as day that the story was centred around those who were on trial for killing him. All the talk was about them not the victim. I could remember their names instantly, not his, I think it was Brian after a bit of mental rummaging.

The Maynooth case saw a lot of coverage until they found out the guilty party was other girls, and then it promptly stopped.

This is false. The Indo printed that article and then admitted it was a mistake a few hours later. The case is still ongoing and the Guards are still looking for information..

ligerdub

Oops. My mistake.

JRant

_Jamie_ wrote: »

It already is! There is a lot of social conditioning to cut through, in both genders. That will take time.

While I admire your optimism I just don't see it yet. Far too many media outlets are still peddling tripe about the inherent flaws in men and telling us all how we need feminism to move on from our Neanderthal ways.

If anything I fear it will get worse before it gets better. There are Gender (women) studies courses in universities and colleges pumping out numpties who believe all the worlds ills are due to men and the patriarch. These clowns are falling straight into government quangos and are directing policy on many issues. They have also taken over many student unions and more and more are been given free reign to write whatever pops into their head for national news outlets.

I would hope this is a start but the information at hand would suggest otherwise.

_Jamie_

ligerdub wrote: »

I am just one guy.....but I have honestly never heard of that case in my life.

Sorry to dig up on what seems to be old ground unnecessarily here but although the man who died in the Annabels case was noted quite a lot, it was clear as day that the story was centred around those who were on trial for killing him. All the talk was about them not the victim. I could remember their names instantly, not his, I think it was Brian after a bit of mental rummaging.

The Maynooth case saw a lot of coverage until they found out the guilty party was other girls, and then it promptly stopped.

Well, I remembered his name was Brian Murphy, I even remembered the name of his girlfriend at the time of his death and a few other details of his life. The focus absolutely wasn't just on the people on trial. It's completely untrue.

ligerdub

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Well, I remembered his name was Brian Murphy, I even remembered the name of his girlfriend at the time of his death and a few other details of his life. The focus absolutely wasn't just on the people on trial. It's completely untrue.

True, but the 4 of trial took the bulk of the discussion and headlines. We're probably not going to get anywhere on this, we have directly opposing views, so I'll just say I disagree.

_Jamie_

ligerdub wrote: »

True, but the 4 of trial took the bulk of the discussion and headlines. We're probably not going to get anywhere on this, we have directly opposing views, so I'll just say I disagree.

Fair enough, but what's the point in ignoring points that are contrary to your belief? It's a bit obdurate.

Pawwed Rig

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Fair enough, but what's the point in ignoring points that are contrary to your belief? It's a bit obdurate.

It's not ignoring the point, it is agreeing to differ rather than argue about it for the next 2 pages.

ligerdub

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It's not ignoring the point, it is agreeing to differ rather than argue about it for the next 2 pages.

Exactly right.

_Jamie_

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It's not ignoring the point, it is agreeing to differ rather than argue about it for the next 2 pages.

Well, let's agree to differ on that then. Nothing wrong with pointing out when someone is being a bit stubborn.

ligerdub

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Well, let's agree to differ on that then. Nothing wrong with pointing out when someone is being a bit stubborn.

You are the one not letting it go Mayor of Stubbornville....winky face.

Pawwed Rig

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Well, let's agree to differ on that then. Nothing wrong with pointing out when someone is being a bit stubborn.

People will not always agree with you and often the same events are seen very differently by different people. It is not stubborness, just a difference of opinion.

Anyway moving on........

Calhoun

I see we are back to the terrible men agenda :P, the article in the independent at the moment fairly horrific and no one deserves that done to them.

However if your not going to go and follow the rule of law then what do you want? Trial by media seems to be all the rage, my concern is not for the scumbag ex who beat her up but what kinda of bad laws they are trying to push with such a loaded article.

What possible impact could it have on future fathers/men if we remove due process.

daithi7

Calhoun wrote: »

I see we are back to the terrible men agenda :P, the article in the independent at the moment fairly horrific and no one deserves that done to them.

However if your not going to go and follow the rule of law then what do you want? Trial by media seems to be all the rage, my concern is not for the scumbag ex who beat her up but what kinda of bad laws they are trying to push with such a loaded article.

What possible impact could it have on future fathers/men if we remove due process.

Exactly this. This is what pisses off men and women who just want equality. Is it really that hard to legislate for, govern for and ultimately achieve!?

If I were in government tomorrow, it would be one of the first things I would introduce, I.e. equality legislation and the principle of equality in all state sponsored endeavours.

So there would be no bodies sponsored exclusively for women's rights, or just for men's rights either for that matter, just people's rights with a mandate that both genders are treated equally. This should be a cornerstone that all information campaigns, advertising campaigns and state sponsored research should be based on imho.

Feminism for me is a chauvinist, sexist and out moded movement, equality of opportunity, rights and treatment is the only way forward for any right minded, informed person imho.

Sadly, even in 2017, individuals, broadcasters, politicians, laws and institutions still seem to struggle with this simple, yet powerful, principle. Why!?

LostinBlanch

maybe

daithi7 wrote: »

If I were in government tomorrow, it would be one of the first things I would introduce, I.e. equality legislation and the principle of equality in all state sponsored endeavours.

How dare you! Don't you know that feminism is all about equality?

daithi7 wrote: »

So there would be no bodies sponsored exclusively for women's rights, or just for men's rights either for that matter, just people's rights with a mandate that both genders are treated equally. This should be a cornerstone that all information campaigns, advertising campaigns and state sponsored research should be based on imho.

Exactly, that is what feminism is all about. Equality.

daithi7 wrote: »

Feminism for me is a chauvinist, sexist and out moded movement, equality of opportunity, rights and treatment is the only way forward for any right minded, informed person imho.

Needs more feminism.

daithi7 wrote: »

Sadly, even in 2017, individuals, broadcasters, politicians, laws and institutions still seem to struggle with this simple, yet powerful, principle. Why!?

No, you're wrong there. Feminism is all about equality. That's why things like revenge porn laws are being brought in to ensure that there is equality before the law. :rolleyes:

Zulu

No

No it's not.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Zulu wrote: »

No it's not.

I think he's taking the p*ss.

Zulu

No

Apologies; I'll recalibrate my sarcasm detector.

midnight city

I've been watching RTE's coverage of the young scientist exhibition. The winners will be announced this evening. I'd bet the farm it will not be boys winning.

kunst nugget

maybe

midnight city wrote: »

I've been watching RTE's coverage of the young scientist exhibition. The winners will be announced this evening. I'd bet the farm it will not be boys winning.

If a girl/girls won I wouldn't have an issue with it. The young scientist competition has always had boy and girl winners throughout its history. I think you might be looking for gender bias where there isn't any.

GLaDOS

Past winners listed here

Plenty of male winners

deaddonkey15

midnight city wrote: »

I've been watching RTE's coverage of the young scientist exhibition. The winners will be announced this evening. I'd bet the farm it will not be boys winning.

You should bet the farm that there will probably be an even split of girls and boys winning.

midnight city

GLaDOS wrote: »

Past winners listed here

Plenty of male winners

I stand corrected. Glad to see it hasn't been compromised. RTE coverage over the last few days has been mainly covering the girls.

DEFTLEFTHAND

midnight city wrote: »

I stand corrected. Glad to see it hasn't been compromised. RTE coverage over the last few days has been mainly covering the girls.

There's a initiative ongoing to get more girls involved in Science.

I think it's a good thing, especially if it helps steer them away from the soft science college courses.

ligerdub

midnight city wrote: »

I've been watching RTE's coverage of the young scientist exhibition. The winners will be announced this evening. I'd bet the farm it will not be boys winning.

Whatever about who wins, if they have a film crew there they will only interview girls.

ligerdub

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

There's a initiative ongoing to get more girls involved in Science.

I think it's a good thing, especially if it helps steer them away from the soft science college courses.

Why?

What if they want to do those courses?

I mean to me I think people have it all wrong. A lot of men have the expectation and drive towards doing courses that maximise their future income. This isn't a scientific post so caveat emptor and all that. However, I suspect that guys are more likely to enter a course they don't particularly love, certainly not a vocational thing for many. Girls seem to be more willing to enter a course because it's closer to their heart. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

The general consensus seems to be that everyone should be targeting high income fields as careers, but that's a rather narrow view of things. If a girl was genuinely interested in engineering, medicine or science then that's exactly what she'll go for. I doubt there are many girls out there thinking "I'm interested in it and could get the points, but I'm a girl so I'm going to put down lesbian studies or some ****". I think a more important metric is how satisfied people are with their career choices rather than how much do you earn. People rarely ask that question though.

Padraig Mor

From Twitter:

@PadraigMcKeon: Girls outscore the boys 96 to 66 in terms of #btyste winners with 4 to go - a good news story in itself

Says it all really. Probably fuming that a boy won it in the end.

Calhoun

You look at his twitter profile and you understand whats happened. He has 3 girls no boys, i have seen this before with an old mate through facebook.

The dad mentality takes over, they its like they have to give their offspring every chance they get so they nearly become hardline feminists in and of themselves.

ligerdub

Padraig Mor wrote: »

From Twitter:



Says it all really. Probably fuming that a boy won it in the end.

Thick rimmed glasses and beard?

kunst nugget

maybe

Calhoun wrote: »

You look at his twitter profile and you understand whats happened. He has 3 girls no boys, i have seen this before with an old mate through facebook.

The dad mentality takes over, they its like they have to give their offspring every chance they get so they nearly become hardline feminists in and of themselves.

I've only girls and I'd never think what he put up would be a thing to celebrate.

Calhoun

kunst nugget wrote: »

I've only girls and I'd never think what he put up would be a thing to celebrate.

I am the same, i have two young girls but if i did have a boy i would like that he have the same opportunity as the girls.

Connacht2KXX

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

Louise O'Neill. This is the last article of her's that I will read for the foreseeable future. As per usual, it is all trash.

This is my only argument I'll put forward. Sexism is an act, not a "complex ideology". Islam is an ideology. Sexism is a by product of Islam. An act is still an act regardless of what society you live in or your own identity. For example, drinking water is an act, whether I drink water in Ireland, Cambodia or a communist nation. Me saying that "women should not be allowed to vote because they're stupid" is a sexist act, whether I'm a straight white male in England or a black woman in America. It's not too difficult to understand.

I can't believe this is regarded as journalism nowadays.

Tigger

midnight city wrote: »

I've been watching RTE's coverage of the young scientist exhibition. The winners will be announced this evening. I'd bet the farm it will not be boys winning.

You would have lost

ligerdub

She's an idiot.

I say that not because I disagree with her on almost everything (which I do), but while I can at least see that some people that fall into that category have made reasonable efforts or used their brain, she's just an idiot.

Aside from this, journalistic standards have dropped massively in recent years. I've noticed that journos are now a lot younger, sheep, idiots and I suspect: cheap!

deaddonkey15

Connacht2KXX wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

Louise O'Neill. This is the last article of her's that I will read for the foreseeable future. As per usual, it is all trash.

This is my only argument I'll put forward. Sexism is an act, not a "complex ideology". Islam is an ideology. Sexism is a by product of Islam. An act is still an act regardless of what society you live in or your own identity. For example, drinking water is an act, whether I drink water in Ireland, Cambodia or a communist nation. Me saying that "women should not be allowed to vote because they're stupid" is a sexist act, whether I'm a straight white male in England or a black woman in America. It's not too difficult to understand.

I can't believe this is regarded as journalism nowadays.

"When Justin Bieber, another former child star, was photographed naked on a beach? He was applauded for being well endowed"

By women.

ligerdub

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

"When Justin Bieber, another former child star, was photographed naked on a beach? He was applauded for being well endowed"

By women.

It's alright for women to rate men's arses and appraise their genitals, positive or negative - this is basically the retort to this, said in a manner which suggests it was surprising it was even questioned.

daithi7

I've never read anything your wan O'Neill has ever written and I never intend to.

But why do people around here read her at all!? I mean it's like some people seem to want their sensitivities to be offended so that they then can give out about it.

As they say on line, do not feed the troll. Just don't read her, and she will go away. (Cos journos must be read to survive)

P.s. ironically posting links to her sexist diatribe articles here, leads to click bait, which leads to her editor giving her more column inches. So stop feeding the troll, if you want the trolling to stop. Simples.

deaddonkey15

daithi7 wrote: »

I've never read anything your wan O'Neill has ever written and I never intend to.

But why do people around here read her at all!? I mean it's like some people seem to want their sensitivities to be offended so that they then can give out about it.

As they say on line, do not feed the troll. Just don't read her, and she will go away. (Cos journos must be read to survive)

P.s. ironically posting links to her sexist diatribe articles here, leads to click bait, which leads to her editor giving her more column inches. So stop feeding the troll, if you want the trolling to stop. Simples.

This thread is about sexism against men and has countless upsetting examples. O'Neill just wrote an article about how sexism against men is impossible. She was paid for that article and the national platform she enjoys. Real people actually read and respect the nonsense she writes. Whilst I agree that always reading her tripe and discussing it doesn't really achieve much sometimes it just can't be ignored.

iptba

daithi7 wrote: »

P.s. ironically posting links to her sexist diatribe articles here, leads to click bait, which leads to her editor giving her more column inches. So stop feeding the troll, if you want the trolling to stop. Simples.

On MensRights on Reddit you are encouraged to use sites such as archive.is for such articles.

Outlaw Pete

daithi7 wrote: »

Just don't read her, and she will go away.

If only...

But we're, unfortunately, long passed that stage as she has been given a platform by our national broadcaster and her first book is soon to be adapted to screen (the big screen).

http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/real-life/irish-author-louise-oneills-novel-to-be-adapted-for-film-and-tv-352875.html

Calhoun

Let's hope it goes the way of that other feminist master piece ghost busters.