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

red ears

gizmo555 wrote: »

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 . . .

Trish is a woman she has no business saying how it would affect a man. Besides her logic and reasoning is so lacking she shouldn't be advising anyone anything.

ligerdub

It seems that the male comparison was used as a throwaway reason as to why they were focusing solely on women. There was no reason to do that.

Eric Cartman

ligerdub wrote: »

It seems that the male comparison was used as a throwaway reason as to why they were focusing solely on women. There was no reason to do that.

We also have to remember that the first person in the UK to be convicted under revenge porn laws was a lesbian woman. Framing this as an 'only men can perpetrate, only women are victims' issue is a bad road to go down.

py2006

Hysterical woman ranting on RTE1 radio right now. 1 in 5 victim of sexual violence. Now ranting about the 14% pay gap.

Orla O'Connor the Director of Womens Council of Ireland. Missed most of it

newport2

py2006 wrote: »

Now ranting about the 14% pay gap.

Not a word about the education gap I expect

The J Stands for Jay

py2006 wrote: »

Hysterical woman ranting on RTE1 radio right now. 1 in 5 victim of sexual violence. Now ranting about the 14% pay gap.

Orla O'Connor the Director of Womens Council of Ireland. Missed most of it

Any mention of the pay gap for under 30s where women are ahead?

py2006

newport2 wrote: »

Not a word about the education gap I expect

Nope

McGaggs wrote: »

Any mention of the pay gap for under 30s where women are ahead?

Nope

ligerdub

py2006 wrote: »

Hysterical woman ranting on RTE1 radio right now. 1 in 5 victim of sexual violence. Now ranting about the 14% pay gap.

Orla O'Connor the Director of Womens Council of Ireland. Missed most of it

There is a serious issue with somebody like that coming out with that stuff. You could understand somebody with only a fleeting grasp of the area to be fooled by something like that, but this is a person with a position of authority on the subject.

So she is either unaware that she is peddling lies, and therefore incompetent, or is aware of the truth and pushing her own preferences at the sake of the truth, and therefore dishonest. I dare say we all know which one it is.

Carlos Orange

No

ligerdub wrote: »

So she is either unaware that she is peddling lies, and therefore incompetent, or is aware of the truth and pushing her own preferences at the sake of the truth, and therefore dishonest. I dare say we all know which one it is.

I think the womens council page about the negative wage gap between men and women with no children has been taken down. Make of that what you will.

red ears

McGaggs wrote: »

Any mention of the pay gap for under 30s where women are ahead?

In sporting terms the gender battle in society today is basically women competing against men but the referee is a woman and a confirmed feminist

silverharp

red ears wrote: »

In sporting terms the gender battle in society today is basically women competing against men but the referee is a woman and a confirmed feminist

still yet to see a woman in a snooker final :pac: even though they had a woman referee at the recent Gran Prix , don't know if she was a feminist though

WarpAsylum

McGaggs wrote: »

Any mention of the pay gap for under 30s where women are ahead?

I've seen the arguments for debunking the pay gap; women's career choice's, working hours etc
What are the reasons for the "pay gap" in the other direction? Think reading somewhere it's 17% under 30 ... Is it a knock on from the education gap?

red ears

WarpAsylum wrote: »

I've seen the arguments for debunking the pay gap; women's career choice's, working hours etc
What are the reasons for the "pay gap" in the other direction? Think reading somewhere it's 17% under 30 ... Is it a knock on from the education gap?

It will probably be the same story where its isn't like for like work. More women are getting a third level education so they are getting better paid jobs.

iptba

py2006 wrote: »

Hysterical woman ranting on RTE1 radio right now. 1 in 5 victim of sexual violence. Now ranting about the 14% pay gap.

Orla O'Connor the Director of Womens Council of Ireland. Missed most of it

Get many tough questions? I don't listen to radio much these days but have previously been frustrated by RTE and their lack of willingness to challenge feminists/feminist claims even on political/current affairs programmes.

py2006

iptba wrote: »

Get many tough questions? I don't listen to radio much these days but have previously been frustrated by RTE and their lack of willingness to challenge feminists/feminist claims even on political/current affairs programmes.

I only caught the tail end of it. She was speaking a mile a minute. Maybe they will podcast it.

Shtanto

I was packing up heading home from work on Wednesday evening. Jennifer was minding the till for the few minutes it took me to get my gear on for the motorbike trip home. I came back down. The boss said something very sexist on the way out. I won't repeat it, or what he said about the handicapped. She was standing right there doing the tally at the till. I haven't formally reported it yet because I doubt the place could afford the fine. What should I do?

um7y1h83ge06nx

Shtanto wrote: »

I was packing up heading home from work on Wednesday evening. Jennifer was minding the till for the few minutes it took me to get my gear on for the motorbike trip home. I came back down. The boss said something very sexist on the way out. I won't repeat it, or what he said about the handicapped. She was standing right there doing the tally at the till. I haven't formally reported it yet because I doubt the place could afford the fine. What should I do?

Hard to know without the details. If you were to report it, it would (I believe) be an issue for HR, so I cannot see how someone or the company would get fined. Your boss could get reprimanded so you need to decide if you want that to happen and how would it affect your professional relationship and career there.

That's the unfortunate realities I think.

Shtanto

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

That's the unfortunate realities I think.

I'm having a look at the employment equality act. It's a pretty small company. He's actually one of the directors. One of these days he's going to let slip and that'll be the end of everyone there.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Shtanto wrote: »

I'm having a look at the employment equality act. It's a pretty small company. He's actually one of the directors. One of these days he's going to let slip and that'll be the end of everyone there.

Balls, that makes it extra difficult, you guys may not even have a dedicated and qualified HR person. If HR didn't resolve it to your satisfaction you could escalate by reporting to the Workplace Relations Commission.

I know it's not the ideal world answer but I would be slow to rock the boat even for a good cause unless you deem it very serious.

I'm not at all an expert in that area but that's just my honest opinion.

Shtanto

Yep, LRC for me it is. HR is basically 1 other person. I do deem it to be very serious. He'd be the type to vote against repealing the 8th. Truth be told he gets everyone's back up, and the best days are when he's out all day and we've got the lovely lady boss to keep things ticking over. The bins get emptied, the shop gets a good vacuum and sweep and all the customers come in with problems and leave with smiles. You might be familiar with the term seagull manager. Well this guy seems like a feckin albatross compared to that.

</rantvent>

Win or lose, the crows never go hungry.

Pawwed Rig

Was the comment aimed at you? Not really clear from your post.

silverharp

Oz story - Another example of fk men and fk the economy, equality is a one way street Bruce. 90% of graduate vets are women, which is all cool , free market and all that but female vets want comfort so they only tend to work in city small animal practices. This will affect the rural economy in the future as they avoid large animal farming based practices. As a tiny aid to help potential male vets a donor offering a scholarship wanted a preference for male and a rural background. Of course it couldnt be let go as something very reasonable. I believe its 70/30 in ireland but I have read that farmers fear a shortage of vets in the future.
So are we still there that to help an industry by helping men and not even for its own sake will cause a REEEEEE response?



https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

The Prof Marsh Edwards AO scholarship, offered for the first time this year, is available to students enrolled in the postgraduate doctor of veterinary medicine degree at the University of Sydney. The successful applicant will receive $6,750 a year for four years.

The release states that “preference will be given to male applicants who are from rural and regional areas with an interest in large animal practice and intended to work in rural veterinary science”.

“The inclusion of males as one of a number of preferences by the donor is to address the current underrepresentation of males in the student cohort.

“As such it is consistent with the university’s support of actions to address and encourage diversity and [address]underrepresentation in certain disciplines or professions.”

The university offered a number of scholarships aimed at increasing the participation of women in subjects where they were underrepresented, and “was satisfied it is complying with the law”.

red ears

silverharp wrote: »

Oz story - Another example of fk men and fk the economy, equality is a one way street Bruce. 90% of graduate vets are women, which is all cool , free market and all that but female vets want comfort so they only tend to work in city small animal practices. This will affect the rural economy in the future as they avoid large animal farming based practices. As a tiny aid to help potential male vets a donor offering a scholarship wanted a preference for male and a rural background. Of course it couldnt be let go as something very reasonable. I believe its 70/30 in ireland but I have read that farmers fear a shortage of vets in the future.
So are we still there that to help an industry by helping men and not even for its own sake will cause a REEEEEE response?



https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

Thankfully that's a pretty solid reason to favour getting more men into vet science, if it wasn't so clear cut as in 90 percent being women and them avoiding rural practice the feminists would have been apoplectic. It was only done out of necessity though, it wasn't done for truly equality reasons.

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

Oz story - Another example of fk men and fk the economy, equality is a one way street Bruce. 90% of graduate vets are women, which is all cool , free market and all that but female vets want comfort so they only tend to work in city small animal practices. This will affect the rural economy in the future as they avoid large animal farming based practices. As a tiny aid to help potential male vets a donor offering a scholarship wanted a preference for male and a rural background. Of course it couldnt be let go as something very reasonable. I believe its 70/30 in ireland but I have read that farmers fear a shortage of vets in the future.
So are we still there that to help an industry by helping men and not even for its own sake will cause a REEEEEE response?



https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males

Figures from the US:

Scholarship Study: The Real Chances of Getting Free Money for College

[..]

There are 4 times as many scholarships for females as there are for males.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/student-loans/nerdscholar-scholarship-study-5000-private-scholarships-analyzed/

ahnowbrowncow

No

I've read about a few male murder victims now were the women use self defence as their defence and get a lenient sentence.

This women even lied first, claiming a man came into the apartment and stapped the victim but then changed it to accidentily stabbing him in the heart.

The judge goes on to say that she felt the killing was at the lower end of the scale so only gives her 3 and a half years in prison

I really can't see a judge buying this story and giving such a lenient sentence if the genders were reversed

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0220/853993-norma-phillips-stefan-neanu-sentencing/

Calhoun

To be fair to the Irish justice system while it is inherently sexist it's also a soft touch across the board. The feeling of Justice not being served can be seen across the spectrum, generally having a good sob story and you will literally get away with murder.

ahnowbrowncow

No

I agree the justice system in Ireland is a soft touch but it seems to be incredibly lenient on women, it would be nice if all criminals were given consistent sentences regardless of their sex.

Here's another case were a woman stabs and kills her ex boyfriend, hides his body in her back garden for days and lied to the gardai about it.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0221/854346-monika-matracka/

It would seem it's very hard to convict a woman of murder, all they have to do is claim self defence and get manslaughter and be out in a few years.

Similar to domestic abuse, people don't seem to believe a woman can attack a man unless he provoked her/deserved it.

Eric Cartman

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

I agree the justice system in Ireland is a soft touch but it seems to be incredibly lenient on women, it would be nice if all criminals were given consistent sentences regardless of their sex.

Here's another case were a woman stabs and kills her ex boyfriend, hides his body in her back garden for days and lied to the gardai about it.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0221/854346-monika-matracka/

It would seem it's very hard to convict a woman of murder, all they have to do is claim self defence and get manslaughter and be out in a few years.

Similar to domestic abuse, people don't seem to believe a woman can attack a man unless he provoked her/deserved it.

+1 , even when they do get convicted, womens prisons are basically a block of nice flats with a wall around them.

iptba

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

I agree the justice system in Ireland is a soft touch but it seems to be incredibly lenient on women, it would be nice if all criminals were given consistent sentences regardless of their sex.

Here's another case were a woman stabs and kills her ex boyfriend, hides his body in her back garden for days and lied to the gardai about it.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0221/854346-monika-matracka/

It would seem it's very hard to convict a woman of murder, all they have to do is claim self defence and get manslaughter and be out in a few years.

Similar to domestic abuse, people don't seem to believe a woman can attack a man unless he provoked her/deserved it.

I find it hard to forget this Irish case where the killer spent no time in jail:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0302/5856-comerford/

In a statement to Gardaí Caroline Comerford said her husband was battering her with a shoe after he awoke from a drunken sleep on August the 9th in 1998. She went downstairs, picked up a steak knife and returned upstairs where she stabbed Peter. He was stabbed in the chest, back and in the legs. Caroline said in her statement that she was defending herself.

jcon1913

iptba wrote: »

I find it hard to forget this Irish case where the killer spent no time in jail:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0302/5856-comerford/

Google 'Ben Curran' and read about a man who pleaded guilty to manslaughter for killing his partner and hiding her body.

He got 7 years.

red ears

Check out the latest nonsense on the subject of gender pay gaps from some 'journalist' called Sean Duffy in the independent. I notice the comment section is closed too, i wonder why. He talks of average pay for men and average pay for women. No mention of hourly pay rates, no discussion of why there may be a gap at all. What do these people want. Do they want a higher hourly rate for women to take account that they work less hours. How would that be fair. Do they want women working longer hours, if so they come out and say it. Does he realise he is peddling propaganda.

His analysis is incredibly weak, can you imagine the likes of him working in science or statistics where he was required to carry out a legitimate scientifically sound experiment and he missed out on a variable like hourly pay. He would be sacked before lunch time. Its clear these people aren't interested in truth or facts they are working to an agenda.

http://www.independent.ie/business/in-the-workplace/ireland-revealed-as-one-of-the-worst-places-for-women-to-work-in-damning-new-report-35471216.html

iptba

red ears wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/in-the-workplace/ireland-revealed-as-one-of-the-worst-places-for-women-to-work-in-damning-new-report-35471216.html

Anyone know the percentage for men?

Data released yesterday by the Central Statistics Office show that female unemployment in Ireland is now running at 6.0pc, well below the rate of men who are without jobs.

johnnyskeleton

red ears wrote: »

His analysis is incredibly weak, can you imagine the likes of him working in science or statistics where he was required to carry out a legitimate scientifically sound experiment and he missed out on a variable like hourly pay. He would be sacked before lunch time. Its clear these people aren't interested in truth or facts they are working to an agenda.

http://www.independent.ie/business/in-the-workplace/ireland-revealed-as-one-of-the-worst-places-for-women-to-work-in-damning-new-report-35471216.html

It says Ireland is 25th out of 34 in terms of the gender pay gap and shows a graphic of Ireland being 15% as compared to South Korea with 35% and it is colour coded to show Ireland converging in 20 years if current trends continue as opposed to 100-300 years in South Korea. Being 25th is better than being in 1st place, because the 34th Country, Luxembourg, has hardly any wage gap.

So leaving aside the inaccuracies of the wage gap that you point out, a report that shows that we are at the bottom end of the table of countries with massive gender disparity is somehow presented as being evidence that Ireland is a worse place for women than the other countries.

Mr.H

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It says Ireland is 25th out of 34 in terms of the gender pay gap and shows a graphic of Ireland being 15% as compared to South Korea with 35% and it is colour coded to show Ireland converging in 20 years if current trends continue as opposed to 100-300 years in South Korea. Being 25th is better than being in 1st place, because the 34th Country, Luxembourg, has hardly any wage gap.

So leaving aside the inaccuracies of the wage gap that you point out, a report that shows that we are at the bottom end of the table of countries with massive gender disparity is somehow presented as being evidence that Ireland is a worse place for women than the other countries.

My girlfriend works in I.T and she is paid slightly more than her colleagues

I work in a cafe and all my female co workers are paid the same as I was when I started.

If my girlfriend one day gets pregnant she will go on leave. Her wages will stay the same for the 6 months and she will not recieve pay increases like her co workers. She will go back to work but could be on parity with some co workers or be worse off than others depending on pay increases.

I work hard and despite my gender I try to show my worth to the company. Since I started I have been promoted twice and given a slight pay rise. Now you could claim that its because of my gender as my female co workers were there longer than me. But the fact is I made myself available to cover shifts on short notice. Often did extra work for no pay to learn skills to help my future roles. I worked harder so I deserved it more.

My point is that figures and research dont give facts and reasons why the pay gap exists.

Calhoun

Mr.H wrote: »

My girlfriend works in I.T and she is paid slightly more than her colleagues

I work in a cafe and all my female co workers are paid the same as I was when I started.

If my girlfriend one day gets pregnant she will go on leave. Her wages will stay the same for the 6 months and she will not recieve pay increases like her co workers. She will go back to work but could be on parity with some co workers or be worse off than others depending on pay increases.

I work hard and despite my gender I try to show my worth to the company. Since I started I have been promoted twice and given a slight pay rise. Now you could claim that its because of my gender as my female co workers were there longer than me. But the fact is I made myself available to cover shifts on short notice. Often did extra work for no pay to learn skills to help my future roles. I worked harder so I deserved it more.

My point is that figures and research dont give facts and reasons why the pay gap exists.

Pretty much this the wage gap spiel is myth and doesn't look into lifestyle choices made by the sexes.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

Pretty much this the wage gap spiel is myth and doesn't look into lifestyle choices made by the sexes.

Having a child is a choice... not something that women have no control over. Why should men (or women who choose not to have kids) be penalised because a woman makes a different life choice? Women might advocate that during the period of having a child they should receive an equal treatment, but it's not realistically equal. Those left behind still need to work and naturally are working towards promotions or pay rises, and often by covering for a pregant co-worker.

At mid-management level, I've had the experience of women going out for maternity leave, and then getting a promotion on their return, while I had worked during the same period... a fault of the company, true... but that fault is there because of pressure to "insure" a womans position in a company, and the negative publicity if a female employee feels that she was "punished" for being pregnant.

Mr.H

Deleted User wrote:

Having a child is a choice... not something that women have no control over. Why should men (or women who choose not to have kids) be penalised because a woman makes a different life choice? Women might advocate that during the period of having a child they should receive an equal treatment, but it's not realistically equal. Those left behind still need to work and naturally are working towards promotions or pay rises, and often by covering for a pregant co-worker.

That's the thing. We should realise that if someone takes a career break by choice even for maternity reasons they dont deserve to be promoted. Only what you do at work should factor in on promotions.

Having a child is a choice and if you have one then there are draw backs such as falling behind at work. This is natural and shouldn't be seen as punishment

Pawwed Rig

Mr.H wrote: »

That's the thing. We should realise that if someone takes a career break by choice even for maternity reasons they dont deserve to be promoted. Only what you do at work should factor in on promotions.

Even if they are the best candidate?

deaddonkey15

Mr.H wrote: »

My point is that figures and research dont give facts and reasons why the pay gap exists.

That's true. I wonder if part of the reason for the apparent pay gap is men possibly being more aggressive in seeking/negotiating pay rises and promotions?

Calhoun

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Even if they are the best candidate?

We need to be careful of the word promotion it can mean promoted within existing role based on merit but also can mean applying outright for another job and getting promoted that way. In the former then they should be not promoted in the latter it comes down to best person for the job.

Pawwed Rig

Calhoun wrote: »

In the former then they should be not promoted in the latter it comes down to best person for the job.

I don't see why they should not be promoted. If they are coming back and are better than all the other candidates then it absolutely makes sense. Just coz you goto work everyday doesn't mean you are a suitable candidate for promotion.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Even if they are the best candidate?

Maybe. But from business management and executive levels, generally promotions are given to the people who put in the time. The long hours. The early to work and late home. I used to sleep in my office 2-3 nights a week especially when the Quarterly reports were due. A commitment to the company.

Sometimes it boils down to experience, skills or connections...

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't see why they should not be promoted. If they are coming back and are better than all the other candidates then it absolutely makes sense. Just coz you goto work everyday doesn't mean you are a suitable candidate for promotion.

In my experience, promotions are advertised. They're the hanging carrot to work harder. So the requirements are known. Aptitude is indeed important and some people will be passed by... a minority. Business especially corporate is extremely competitive.. I assume most industries are the same. Most of those unsuitable for the promotion/position aren't likely to go for it.

I got as far as mid-management in an upcoming Fortune 500 company, and knew I didn't have the skils/talent/endurance to go any higher. A few years later, I burnt out and left. Generally, people will get to a certain level and hang there.. some go higher, but most reach a comfortable peak... Getting credit for work that others have done simply because you chose to have a child isn't really fair. How come I couldn't head off to <insert foreign adventure> for months, returning later as if I'd never left and been there the whole time? (and that I'd probably be late for work, distracted or other problems which might arise from that choice.. for years afterwards)

Calhoun

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't see why they should not be promoted. If they are coming back and are better than all the other candidates then it absolutely makes sense. Just coz you goto work everyday doesn't mean you are a suitable candidate for promotion.

Yup agree with that i meant from the perspective of all things being equal, if they left and were just average but a co-worker went above and beyond. I just meant that we should promote on merit and not keep an artificial promotion in place to make up for time missed.

It is equally plausible that woman could have led a strong project before she left which was successful in the 6 months she was gone nad on her return based upon the foundation she put in place would be promoted.

iptba

I have said for a long time that I think a lot more gender research should experimentally look at how males and women are treated, controlling for everything else. Here's a 2016 study:

Moral Chivalry
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4952565/

Behavior in footbridge dilemma. (A) When faced with either pushing a male or female bystander, participants overwhelmingly choose to sacrifice a male bystander.

Not sure why it is not letting me post the image but it can be found here:

http://imgur.com/a/lRBYE

deaddonkey15

I came across this article this morning that a friend liked on Facebook:

http://rosemarymaccabe.com/conor-mcgregor-problem-machismo/

It describes how Conor McGregor's latest interview in which he said he would like to see Khloe Kardashian's ass is an example of his misogyny, his objectification of women, and of course, #rapeculture.

Rather ironically, I came across this article a few minutes later that another friend liked:

http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a25591/justin-trudeau-butt-meme/

It's written by a woman, for a women's magazine, and focuses purely on a recent picture of Justin Trudeau's ass. Now some might say that McGregor's comments were particularly disrespectful, but read through Phoebe Robinson's Instagram post within the article. Not much of a difference in my opinion. Of course sexism can only go one way though.

mzungu

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

I came across this article this morning that a friend liked on Facebook:

http://rosemarymaccabe.com/conor-mcgregor-problem-machismo/

It describes how Conor McGregor's latest interview in which he said he would like to see Khloe Kardashian's ass is an example of his misogyny, his objectification of women, and of course, #rapeculture.

Rather ironically, I came across this article a few minutes later that another friend liked:

http://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a25591/justin-trudeau-butt-meme/

It's written by a woman, for a women's magazine, and focuses purely on a recent picture of Justin Trudeau's ass. Now some might say that McGregor's comments were particularly disrespectful, but read through Phoebe Robinson's Instagram post within the article. Not much of a difference in my opinion. Of course sexism can only go one way though.

There is a thread in After Hours about the blogger who wrote that piece on McGregor, albeit over a very different article. I won't derail this thread by bringing that discussion here, however I will point out a case of blatant double standards. Here is a quote from that article:

But I went through an incredibly promiscuous phase. It was as if I thought that if I could let him do that, then why not just let everyone else do it? I’m not saying I slept with 20 men per weekend (I didn’t), but I definitely slept with men I didn’t particularly want to sleep with, and who definitely didn’t warrant being looked at twice.

So, when Conor McGregor objectifies women it is "rape culture". She objectifies men on account of their lack of good looks and this would be ...............???? She is guilty of the exact same thing that she is (supposedly) opposed to. For somebody who is part of the body positive movement, it is a tad hypocritical of her to objectify and sneer at men who don't score highly in the handsome department.

Calhoun

Doesn't the feminist narrative insist that there is no reverse sexism? Women because they are the victims can be sexist and men being so privileged get no defense.

ligerdub

mzungu wrote: »

There is a thread in After Hours about the blogger who wrote that piece on McGregor, albeit over a very different article. I won't derail this thread by bringing that discussion here, however I will point out a case of blatant double standards. Here is a quote from that article:

So, when Conor McGregor objectifies women it is "rape culture". She objectifies men on account of their lack of good looks and this would be ...............???? She is guilty of the exact same thing that she is (supposedly) opposed to. For somebody who is part of the body positive movement, it is a tad hypocritical of her to objectify and sneer at men who don't score highly in the handsome department.

The body positive movement is exclusively for the benefit of women. I recall a prominent actress who is very much behind defending curvy women getting into a twitter spat with a guy and suggested he was just angry because he had a useless tiny penis.

ligerdub

ligerdub wrote: »

The body positive movement is exclusively for the benefit of women. I recall a prominent actress who is very much behind defending curvy women getting into a twitter spat with a guy and suggested he was just angry because he had a useless tiny penis.

Ouch! that's just plain nasty. I get that we have to deal with sexism from women (we hardly stopped all those laws from being passed), but i see no reason any guy has to accept such behavior directed towards him. That's just common decency, and if groups are advocating that kind of behavior, they need their legs kicked from under them. It's not even a issue of equality. :mad:

JRant

ligerdub wrote: »

The body positive movement is exclusively for the benefit of women. I recall a prominent actress who is very much behind defending curvy women getting into a twitter spat with a guy and suggested he was just angry because he had a useless tiny penis.

Well the sooner this myth that "big is beautiful" is dispelled the better. Anyone (male or frmale) who thinks they can carry around an extra 5/10 stone on them is a numpty. It's not beautiful, it's dangerous, and gob****es going around promoting it are not doing anyone any favours.