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

red ears

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

It really shows the poisonous times we live in when someone can make a decent living out of being anti men, and in particular anti white men. Both racist and sexist.

um7y1h83ge06nx

One thing I have noticed over the last few days are these women's marches against Trump.

Whatever you think about Trump the issues I believe are much, much bigger than just a case of gender, which is sort of what these marches want people to believe. If it wasn't a female that ran against him, would people try to draw gender lines on this?

I just caught the tail end of a bit on Morning Ireland this morning where they go through the newspapers. It was mentioning an article saying that although white men have traditionally been in power, women's and LGBT groups etc. have been better recently at fighting for their rights than men's groups.

Now maybe that is a fair point but I get the feeling that some women's groups would like to make out that I have more in common with an American billionaire that is now POTUS as we are both white and male, than say my wife as we are different genders.

The way things are going these days you could be told you are "privileged" as you are a white man even if you happen to be homeless.

Wibbs

maybe

red ears wrote: »

It really shows the poisonous times we live in when someone can make a decent living out of being anti men, and in particular anti white men. Both racist and sexist.

Didn't you get the memo RE? Apparently it's impossible to discriminate against men, particularly white men.

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

The way things are going these days you could be told you are "privileged" as you are a white man even if you happen to be homeless.

And you're far more likely to be homeless of you're a man.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

Crazy gets clicks and advertisers and editors and the media in general know this. Her film, should it escape development hell, will have a small, but big enough ready audience among the Perpetual Victim class. This goes double in America, because of the larger population and the increasing cultural "battle lines" drawn. If it gains traction at the various film festivals with the usual "you really should stick to scripts written by other people" celebs* oohing and ahhing over it the producers could make a nice enough sum on the back of it.



*QV Meryl Streep and not just recently. Apparently an oaf like Trump is fair game, but she played and praised and quotes Maggie Thatcher, someone whose politics and career raised multiple issues. But that's OK, cos she had ovaries. The joke is Maggie was quick to throw open scorn at feminists.

newport2

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.

Only those holding the power can be sexist or racist? So a white woman and black man. Who holds the upper hand? Does gender privilege override white privilege or vica versa? By her logic a black man can't be sexist to a white woman because whites hold all the power. Or is it that a white woman can't be racist towards a black man because she's more oppressed?

And if someone says they hate all people with a certain coloured skin, they are only being racist if their own skin is a certain colour? ie judging their actions based on their skin colour, eh racist?

Meh.

To suggest that an individual cannot be responsible for something because they've been lumped into a group (women/blacks/etc) is ridiculous in the extreme.

DEFTLEFTHAND

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.

She's not a troll though. She believes in what she writes and she's entitled to express her views.

Just as we the readers have an entitlement to critique her line of thinking and challenge some of those views.

newport2

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

She's not a troll though. She believes in what she writes and she's entitled to express her views.

Just as we the readers have an entitlement to critique her line of thinking and challenge some of those views.

I find it hard to believe she genuinely thinks women cannot be sexist. That's just a cop-out to excuse what she says about men.

Carlos Orange

No

newport2 wrote: »

I find it hard to believe she genuinely thinks women cannot be sexist. That's just a cop-out to excuse what she says about men.

I don't find it hard to believe. People are trying to redefine what words mean to achieve political aims.

daithi7

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

She's not a troll though. She believes in what she writes and she's entitled to express her views.

Just as we the readers have an entitlement to critique her line of thinking and challenge some of those views.

You're missing the point completely. I never even hinted that she doesn't have the right to express her opinions, or indeed that others don't have the right to critique her.

What I did point out that it was ironic that people moaning on here about her latest article (with links, etc) is just adding exposure (& clicks)for her articles which ironically just helps to promote her output further. So if you want her to go away, just ignore her output..Simples!!

Carlos Orange

No

daithi7 wrote: »

So if you want her to go away, just ignore her output..Simples!!

I don't read the articles but I don't know if ignoring stuff just means it goes away. If kids are being thought in school and university that only white people can be racist and only men can be sexist than just ignoring it might not be the best idea long term.

LostinBlanch

maybe

That archive.is site is great. You can view articles without giving them clicks.

This "article" rambles all over the place and is full of such muddled thinking that any first year tutor at University would send it back.

Women can, as Melissa A. Fabello writes in her excellent essay, Why Reverse Oppression Simply Cannot Exist, make stereotypical assumptions about men, they can be prejudiced towards men, they can discriminate against men based on those prejudices.
“However,” she writes, “only oppressed people experience all of that and institutionalised violence and systematic erasure... That’s why it’s not possible to be sexist against men.”

So women can make assumptions about and discriminate against men but just because some feminist academic justifies it by saying it ain’t so, it ain’t so. Glad that’s cleared up then. I was getting worried for a minute there. I’m sure history has plenty of examples of people writing articles justifying slavery, discrimination of Jews in Germany etc and history looks on them differently now.

newport2 wrote: »

Only those holding the power can be sexist or racist? So a white woman and black man. Who holds the upper hand? Does gender privilege override white privilege or vica versa? By her logic a black man can't be sexist to a white woman because whites hold all the power. Or is it that a white woman can't be racist towards a black man because she's more oppressed?

And while of course, a wealthy white woman is likely to have more privilege than a working class man of colour, when all things are equal - race, economic status, sexuality, etc - our culture rewards men for their achievements more while simultaneously excusing their misdemeanours in a way that is unfathomable for their female peers.

Note she dodges the question here by that wonderful leap of logic of when all things are equal.

newport2 wrote: »

And if someone says they hate all people with a certain coloured skin, they are only being racist if their own skin is a certain colour? ie judging their actions based on their skin colour, eh racist?

people of colour using disparaging terms to describe white people does not have any of the same political and historical weight that the N-word or other racial slurs possess. It is preposterous to equate the two.

Right, tell that to the mentally disabled white man attacked in Chicago by two black classmates and accomplices. The cook county district attorney has charged them with a hate crime.

But to say that women can be sexist about men, that it’s ‘the same’ when a woman makes an offensive joke about a man as when the situation is reversed, is to be wilfully blind to the deeply imbalanced world that we live in. Women cannot be ‘as sexist as men’ because that would suggest that women would somehow benefit from sexism, that they are the ones who hold the political, economic and cultural power in our society. It’s ignoring the importance of context.

I’m getting confused now, is it they can’t be sexist or just not as sexist. And don’t women’s groups & quangos etc benefit directly from such sexism?

The idea of reverse sexism fails to acknowledge the wildly different consequences of prejudice against men and that against women.

Reverse what? I thought that women couldn’t be sexist against men.

I am not indifferent to the issues that disproportionally affect men. Mental health difficulties, depression, suicidal ideation - these are problems that too many men struggle with on a daily basis, problems that require urgent assistance and support.

All this from someone that wrote an article on suicide without mentioning that young men are most likely to commit suicide?

I agree that men are discriminated against, socially and culturally, by the expectation that they conform to a stifling idea of masculinity, a toxic model of manhood that insists talking about their feelings is ‘girly’.

Ah so it's men's fault. Isn't that victim blaming?

Of course, this failure to express themselves is what is driving suicide rates in young men, but it is the patriarchy that is to blame for this

Oh quick everyone duck. It's the patriarchy. You know that undefined thing that is to blame for all the ills in the world. So the world needs more feminists to fight this undefined thing . . . at taxpayers expense of course. :rolleyes:

Actually the whole thing probably was a cut and paste from a first year essay.

Sleepy

There's no such thing as "reverse" sexism.

To paraphrase a woman who could acurately have been called "powerful" in her time: sexism, is sexism, is sexism.

daithi7

psinno wrote: »

I don't read the articles but I don't know if ignoring stuff just means it goes away. If kids are being thought in school and university that only white people can be racist and only men can be sexist than just ignoring it might not be the best idea long term.

I'm not at all suggesting ignoring the issues raised ,or the misinformation spouted, by biased commentators like this, just not inadvertently promoting them (and hence their campaigns of misinformation) by continually posting links to the trash they publish.

I mean who wants a link to read this type of shiite anyhow!? I don't anyway, life is just way too short.

steddyeddy

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.

What's stopping them now?

Sleepy

Idiots like O' Neill making fortunes and being praised as heroes in the national press while most scientists are terribly paid.

Besides, like, if you read Science in university, you might, like, y'know, have to visit the library for more than the week before your exams?!

DEFTLEFTHAND

newport2 wrote: »

I find it hard to believe she genuinely thinks women cannot be sexist. That's just a cop-out to excuse what she says about men.

I wouldn't be too sure to be honest. I've been studying the 'regressive left' for a while now.

I am aware that many of their theories fall down when tested with facts and logic but they will simply ignore this. Instead they back themselves with pseudo science or various studies and reports produced in the soft science departments of third level institutions.

deaddonkey15

steddyeddy wrote: »

What's stopping them now?

Absolutely nothing.

red ears

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I wouldn't be too sure to be honest. I've been studying the 'regressive left' for a while now.

I am aware that many of their theories fall down when tested with facts and logic but they will simply ignore this. Instead they back themselves with pseudo science or various studies and reports produced in the soft science departments of third level institutions.

Gender studies departments are basically anti-science, they are an insult to the great scientists past and present. If science doesn't stand up to testing and logic it fails. Gender studies doesn't seem to apply these standards.

py2006

Ironically, in my life experience, women are generally far more sexist then men.

Now for the most part the level of sexism is relatively harmless, laughed off by men or indeed not noticed.

I think men (nowadays) are generally more cautious and aware particularly in the work place.

The O'Neil types make huge issues of it when men do it and particularly in her case say that women don't do it at all.

Calhoun

That's why we must remain vigilant against the likes of her, she is not the thought police or authority on this stuff.

Worse thing I find about this all is she is basically copying verbatim liberal thought from across the water, she doesn't have an original thought in her head.

GLaDOS

As a biologist, I've found the gender balance tips about 60/40 in favour of women.

py2006

GLaDOS wrote: »

As a biologist, I've found the gender balance tips about 60/40 in favour of women.

In what regard? Sexism?

The Black Oil

O' Neill wrote:

I am not indifferent to the issues that disproportionally affect men. Mental health difficulties, depression, suicidal ideation - these are problems that too many men struggle with on a daily basis, problems that require urgent assistance and support.

~

I agree that men are discriminated against, socially and culturally, by the expectation that they conform to a stifling idea of masculinity, a toxic model of manhood that insists talking about their feelings is ‘girly’.

~

Of course, this failure to express themselves is what is driving suicide rates in young men, but it is the patriarchy that is to blame for this

Let's look at the suicide situation through a few minutes of searching for evidence.

From the National Suicide Research Foundation: Second Report of the Suicide Support and Information System, 2013.

In line with the first SSIS report, men were overrepresented among those who had died by suicide (80.1%), and men were significantly younger (mean=39.5 years, SD=15.7) than women (mean=46.2 years, SD=17.1).

~

Among men who had died by suicide, the majority were single (57%), and nearly half had been working in the construction/production sector (48.6%).

~

Specific risk factors associated with suicide among men under 40 years were unemployment (39.5%), drug abuse (29.4%) and history of non-fatal self-harm (31.3%). Risk factors more strongly associated with suicide among men aged >40 years included history of alcohol abuse (76.5%), physical illness (38.3%) and diagnosis of depression (31.5%). At time of death younger men more often had opiates and benzodiazepines in their toxicology (62% and 58% respectively), while those aged >40 years more often had used antidepressants (45.5%)

But shure, blame the patriarchy.

And from The National Office of Suicide Prevention's 2015 Annual Report

During 2015, the Men’s Health Forum in Ireland (MHFI) received funding from the NOSP to undertake a second year of the Engaging Young Men Project (EYMP). This initiative seeks to develop an evidence-based training programme and appropriate resources to support organisations to connect more eectively with young men around mental health issues. In 2015, MHFI developed the Connecting with Young Men programme. This was delivered to more than 110 workshop participants. The aim of Connecting with Young Men is to assist a broad range of local practitioners to effectively engage with young men on mental health issues.

GLaDOS

py2006 wrote: »

In what regard? Sexism?

The number of women working/studying in the field, in relation to previous posts about getting more women into science.

Outlaw Pete

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Right, tell that to the mentally disabled white man attacked in Chicago by two black classmates and accomplices. The cook county district attorney has charged them with a hate crime.

Jaysus, wtf is it with Chicago?

That's where our own Natasha McShane was beaten with a baseball bat a few years ago by a guy who seemingly had something against white women:

Viramontes picked up a baseball bat to go looking for “white hos” to beat and rob. He was back in the van with two purses after about three minutes.

Calhoun

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/teenager-jailed-after-20-000-mistakenly-lodged-into-account-1.2933483

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pictured-mum-who-went-on-25k-spending-spree-on-stupid-things-after-banking-blunder-35399490.html

Two similar stories interesting tone and approach from the judiciary in both cases. Maybe there are more to it than I can see but illustrates to me the inherent sexist built into our system of law.

red ears

Calhoun wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/teenager-jailed-after-20-000-mistakenly-lodged-into-account-1.2933483

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pictured-mum-who-went-on-25k-spending-spree-on-stupid-things-after-banking-blunder-35399490.html

Two similar stories interesting tone and approach from the judiciary in both cases. Maybe there are more to it than I can see but illustrates to me the inherent sexist built into our system of law.

That's a shocking double standard, something that pops into my mind too is he got 4 years with 2 suspended. That's a similar sentence to those savages who beat dale Creighton to death got.

Sleepy

I think the following line from the first article may have had a large impact on the sentancing tbh:

"17 previous convictions including one theft, assault, making threats and criminal damage."

Pawwed Rig

Sleepy wrote: »

I think the following line from the first article may have had a large impact on the sentancing tbh:

"17 previous convictions including one theft, assault, making threats and criminal damage."

And he spent a good portion of the stolen money on drugs.

jcon1913

Sleepy wrote: »

I think the following line from the first article may have had a large impact on the sentancing tbh:

"17 previous convictions including one theft, assault, making threats and criminal damage."

So because he

got money accidentally and

spent it on things that the judge did not approve of and

also had previous convictions totally unrelated to the accidental lodgement to his bank account he gets four years with two suspended?

Compares to the other person who is probably going to get probation.

That's a farce in my book

Sleepy

One of the two is a habitual criminal, the other a first-time offender. Of course the sentancing is going to reflect that.

ligerdub

Sleepy wrote: »

One of the two is a habitual criminal, the other a first-time offender. Of course the sentancing is going to reflect that.

He was a habitual criminal but in this instance he was presented with something entirely out of his control and he is being punished severely for it! His vulnerability is another issue.

Putting him in prison is sending him what message: "don't spend money that somebody made a huge mess up in giving to you? in future."

jcon1913

Sleepy wrote: »

One of the two is a habitual criminal, the other a first-time offender. Of course the sentancing is going to reflect that.

And his crime this time was?

Sleepy

Well, he was sentenced for theft. Take from that what you will...

Pawwed Rig

I would guess that is not the worst crime he committed. Generally they are allowed alot more convictions before they actually goto a jail.

jcon1913

Sleepy wrote: »

Well, he was sentenced for theft. Take from that what you will...

Fair Point.

However As another poster has pointed out someone with other problems when presented with the temptation like that is pretty like a kid with a box of sweets.

Maybe his legal team could have made more of his vulnerabilities and of his attempt to put his life back on the straight and narrow.

ligerdub

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

And he spent a good portion of the stolen money on drugs.

Drug addicts spend most of the money they get on drugs, and while technically it was stolen money, it was not something he sourced maliciously.

I understand he probably isn't exactly a squeaky clean kind of guy, and his behaviour in the investigation leaves a lot to be desired, but I think a lot of the criticisms thrown at him are harsh on him. I dare say there'd only be maybe one out of a thousand people who would not act in an at least somewhat opportunist nature if put in his shoes there.

Calhoun

Theft is theft and a substantial sum at that. The poor mother in one case who thought that the heavens open up and provided a windfall V the gurier who knew he was thieving.

They both knew what they were doing and while one has no convictions should there be no jail time in one case compared to four years in another.

Pawwed Rig

ligerdub wrote: »

I dare say there'd only be maybe one out of a thousand people who would not act in an at least somewhat opportunist nature if put in his shoes there.

Seriously? 999/1,000 would steal large sums off someone else money given the opportunity? I'll put up a poll later to see if you're correct.

eviltwin

jcon1913 wrote: »

Fair Point.

However As another poster has pointed out someone with other problems when presented with the temptation like that is pretty like a kid with a box of sweets.

Maybe his legal team could have made more of his vulnerabilities and of his attempt to put his life back on the straight and narrow.

He's had 17 previous chances to do that in fairness. No sympathy for him, it stands to reason that someone who has a string of convictions will be treated more harshly than a person on their first offence.

ligerdub

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Seriously? 999/1,000 would steal large sums off someone else money given the opportunity? I'll put up a poll later to see if you're correct.

Key point being "HIS" shoes there.

jcon1913

eviltwin wrote: »

He's had 17 previous chances to do that in fairness. No sympathy for him, it stands to reason that someone who has a string of convictions will be treated more harshly than a person on their first offence.

Yeah just re read the article in question there - 17 previous convictions. I'm beginning to see why he got the sentence he did. Sympathy almost totally evaporated

gizmo555

Another example of the gross injustice of the laws around consensual sex between minors.

In summary: a 13 year old boy & girl start going out together. At the age of 16, the boy decides to break it off. It's only then that the boy's parents become aware that with the knowledge and approval of the girl's parents, the children had been in a long-term consensual sexual relationship.

Because the girl's parents are upset about the breakup, they have reported the matter to the children's school and are threatening to report the matter as sexual abuse to the Child and Family Agency.

Words fail me. :mad:

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/my-son-is-being-castigated-for-having-consensual-underage-sex-1.2947821

ligerdub

If anything those examples would support a patriarchal society where the man makes the decisions and is the dominant character where the female can't take control or make a decision. The silence on that is deafening though.
There is no movement by feminists to place equal status in law to redress this inequality.

matrim

gizmo555 wrote: »

Another example of the gross injustice of the laws around consensual sex between minors.

In summary: a 13 year old boy & girl start going out together. At the age of 16, the boy decides to break it off. It's only then that the boy's parents become aware that with the knowledge and approval of the girl's parents, the children had been in a long-term consensual sexual relationship.

Because the girl's parents are upset about the breakup, they have reported the matter to the children's school and are threatening to report the matter as sexual abuse to the Child and Family Agency.

Words fail me. :mad:

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/my-son-is-being-castigated-for-having-consensual-underage-sex-1.2947821

Could her parents be charged with being accessories if they knew and allowed it to happen in their house?

mzungu

ligerdub wrote: »

There is no movement by feminists to place equal status in law to redress this inequality.

TBH I think it is parent groups that should start to lobby against that one.

iptba

mzungu wrote: »

ligerdub wrote:

There is no movement by feminists to place equal status in law to redress this inequality.

TBH I think it is parent groups that should start to lobby against that one.

I don't see why it should have to be either one or the other. We're all part of society: different groups can be concerned about the same issue.

ligerdub

Feminists are as vocal a pressure group there is. They are always banging on about how they are about equality of the sexes.

Nothing on that though.

Panthro

maybe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4204306/Married-mum-admits-striptease-sex-schoolboys-16.html


Be interesting to see how things pan out.
If it were a male for some strange reason I'd almost expect to see such words such as "evil" and "Peado" etc.

If the story's true, lock her the hell up.

fullstop

Panthro wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4204306/Married-mum-admits-striptease-sex-schoolboys-16.html


Be interesting to see how things pan out.
If it were a male for some strange reason I'd almost expect to see such words such as "evil" and "Peado" etc.

If the story's true, lock her the hell up.

If true? She admitted to it. I await the inevitable lenient sentence.

gizmo555

In yesterday's (10/02/17) Irish Times "Tell Me About It" advice column, the psychotherapist Trish Murphy offers advice to a "professional woman in her 30s" who has had revenge porn pictures of her posted online, to which she believes her colleagues have had access and as a result are "whispering" about her and "smirking". An awful situation for the woman, no doubt, and one could only sympathise with her.

However, Ms Murphy begins her response with the following:

"If it was a man in these photos, it would not have the same effect; indeed it might increase his status (though of course not always and not if he is married) but when it is a woman, her whole career and capacity comes into question. Your reputation in the professional world is invaluable and this exposure leaves you with little chance of rebuttal or justice."

Apart from the fact that whether true or not, the notion that it wouldn't be as bad for a man has no relevance to the pain and stress the woman is herself feeling, the above begs a whole series of questions:

• Why would it not have the same effect on a man?
• In what conceivable circumstances could having revenge porn photos posted online without one's knowledge or consent increase a man's status?
• Why would such revenge porn pictures relating to a "professional man in his 30s" not have a similar effect on his career?
• Isn't a man's professional reputation just as "invaluable" as a woman's?

Of course, Ms Murphy answers none of these questions - she just makes baldly sexist assertions for which she offers no supporting evidence.

It seems the Irish Times takes a similar position to Louise O'Neill - it's not possible for the Irish Times to be sexist about men . . .