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

ligerdub

fly_agaric wrote: »

the vertically challenged do be terrible angry alright, short man syndrome I'm sure you'd term it. There's only a few groups you can mock in public with abandon today and not get some social media witch-hunt of the righteous on your tail. Women are off limits (fat and ugly or no), but its always open season on male "midgets" and "ginger-mingers" etc.
The remaining "safe" male target groups serve a useful purpose for both men and women because people would go mad without someone that they could mock without fear of being pulled up on it.

You're absolutely right. An example I'm thinking of in that regard is as follows, and I think of a few people I know who seem to share behavioural traits in this regard.

These people are hellbent on sharing their social causes, hashtags, and generally being keen on showing everyone they are standing for the right things. Now, what they also seem to have done is to say "Could you imagine what people would think of us when he's meeting someone like Barack Obama? We'd be a laughing stock" - the man I refer to is Michael D Higgins.

Now let us first consider what they are saying there. They are suggesting that we should be ashamed of our head of state, a man who is eloquent, even tempered, dignified, but diminutive, when meeting somebody who liberally bombs civilians of other nations.........how embarrassing! I wonder what these people would think if Higgins were an actual dwarf! They'd probably be all up in arms about anybody criticising him for his height!

Arcade_Tryer

PucaMama wrote: »

I'm short so why would I mock a man for being the same kinda height as me? It wouldn't make sense. Same as I'm no oil painting so why would I feel right in having a go at how someone looks wether it's too fat or too skinny. So many supposedly adult people on here can't seem to think like that.

Because expectations are different for men and women concerning height. The analogy doesn't make sense.

Height for men is more comparable to size (overweight or normal weight) for women in terms of how they are judged aesthetically.

Eric Cartman

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Because expectations are different for men and women concerning height. The analogy doesn't make sense.

Height for men is more comparable to size (overweight or normal weight) for women in terms of how they are judged aesthetically.

+1 , even further on that, I've known women who are even quite short for a woman who will dismiss almost any lad under this magical 6ft barrier (I say this as a lad who's 6'2" ), I have mates who I would consider much better prospects than myself who are completely dismissed for being even as few as 4-5 inches shorter than I.

py2006

In the past I've had women turn their nose up at me because :

I'm not tall enough (5'9)
Ive a few extra pounds on me.
I'm not in a top job
I'm not good looking enough
I didn't have my own house
I don't score every night out (believe it or not)

Goes both ways ladies, unfortunately

fly_agaric

ligerdub wrote: »

Michael D

I don't remember reading anything about people being embarrassed about him but yes, he was on my mind as an occasional subject of "jokes" online about his height.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/squee/

I do think some need an object to mock (an unsavoury part of human nature?). PC (or progress if you want to put it that way) has put a lot of targets off limits for most people. A good thing, but it has resulted in some double standards...or perhaps I've no sense of humour.

pucamama wrote:

I'm short so why would I mock a man for being the same kinda height as me? It wouldn't make sense

Sorry my reply was a bit sarcastic. I'm sure you would not mock someone about their height (to their face!).
As others posted, height is more of a thing to get under mens' skins about; more equivalent to insulting a woman by passing remarks about her looks or weight I think.

ahnowbrowncow

No

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0306/857604-gender-pay-gaps/

Irish women in UK earn 17.5% than Irish and British male counterparts.

"But this is largely due to generational factors as they are more likely to be older, working full-time or in senior or managerial roles," Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said in a statement.

It's only gender inequality when males earn more.

py2006

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0306/857604-gender-pay-gaps/

Irish women in UK earn 17.5% than Irish and British male counterparts.

"But this is largely due to generational factors as they are more likely to be older, working full-time or in senior or managerial roles," Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, said in a statement.

It's only gender inequality when males earn more.

Interestingly it gives the factors as to why they earn more. Whereas they leave the factors out when the mention men earning more. Not just in that articles but generally.

ahnowbrowncow

No

py2006 wrote: »

Interestingly it gives the factors as to why they earn more. Whereas they leave the factors out when the mention men earning more. Not just in that articles but generally.

That was what I was hinting at, they explain the difference when it suits their agenda but always choose to ignore the legitimate reasons why men earn more.

It's no longer about equality, it's about furthering women's rights and privileges, even at the cost of men's.

red ears

py2006 wrote: »

Interestingly it gives the factors as to why they earn more. Whereas they leave the factors out when the mention men earning more. Not just in that articles but generally.

Its a celebration when women earn more than men.

py2006

red ears wrote: »

Its a celebration when women earn more than men.

Or when they out do 'the boys' in the leaving cert

red ears

py2006 wrote: »

Or when they out do 'the boys' in the leaving cert

At the minute society, the media, politicians, academia etc are fully behind feminism. Very few are going against the grain. But eventually they will. Unfairness always raises objections at some point. I just wonder how long it's going to take for issue facing men and boys to go mainstream.

Lemming

red ears wrote: »

At the minute society, the media, politicians, academia etc are fully behind feminism. Very few are going against the grain. But eventually they will. Unfairness always raises objections at some point. I just wonder how long it's going to take for issue facing men and boys to go mainstream.

To be frank, we've already had studies & articles published in mainstream UK newspapers (BBC, Guardian, etc.) about the increasing marginalisation of boys in education and that the single most disadvantaged group in education circles today is working class boys. And all that is reported in return is purile commentary of bathing in male tears. Or reports about how self-identified feminist actresses are being attacked for making a choice of photo-shoot of their own will whilst again the media fails to connect the dots.

We - as society - are a long, long, long way from ever recognising the steaming rank hypocrisy inherent in third-wave feminism, or that it is no longer about equality for all but a supremacy movement.

Lemming

I just got told (well known female boardsie via facesh1te) that "coming from a place of privilege, any equality must seem like oppression" in response to challenging the right & wrong of a feminist-friendly Ohio bookstore promoting female [book] authors by "silencing male authors" as part of women's book month or some such.

Irony & objectivity are both asleep in bed today so it seems.

edit.
Rough version for breveity:
person A shares article about book store turning male-authored books upside down and back to front in an attempt to make female authored books obvious, and quote unquote "silencing" male authors.
I disagree and ask a bunch of questions around numbers & figures when told that way more books are published by men than women.
Person A replies again, all good. I ask for reputable source so I can see the figures that she's working from so I understand where she's coming from.
person B jumps in with both boots with the above.

__Alex__

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+1 , even further on that, I've known women who are even quite short for a woman who will dismiss almost any lad under this magical 6ft barrier (I say this as a lad who's 6'2" ), I have mates who I would consider much better prospects than myself who are completely dismissed for being even as few as 4-5 inches shorter than I.

Thing is, I don't really consider this shallow much like I find it fine if a guy won't go out with an overweight woman. Yeah, it's brutal, but such is life. People have preferences and some women love tall guys and some guys like slim women. I think a woman being short has little relevance to the fact that she likes tall guys really.

Pawwed Rig

There is having a preference and ridiculing someone. I guess it is the double standard here rather than the preference or not that annoys people.

givyjoe

__Alex__ wrote: »

Thing is, I don't really consider this shallow much like I find it fine if a guy won't go out with an overweight woman. Yeah, it's brutal, but such is life. People have preferences and some women love tall guys and some guys like slim women. I think a woman being short has little relevance to the fact that she likes tall guys really.

Eh, really? I would have thought it was quite relevant. It's kind of like an overweight guy only dating thin women and refusing to date overweight women.. a little hypocritical.

kunst nugget

maybe

givyjoe wrote: »

Eh, really? I would have thought it was quite relevant. It's kind of like an overweight guy only dating thin women and refusing to date overweight women.. a little hypocritical.

Meh… people have preferences as to what they want the want in their partner. As long as they don't slag off anyone that doesn't fit their ideal, let them off, it's their prerogative. Doesn't mean they're going to have any success at it…

ligerdub

__Alex__ wrote: »

Thing is, I don't really consider this shallow much like I find it fine if a guy won't go out with an overweight woman. Yeah, it's brutal, but such is life. People have preferences and some women love tall guys and some guys like slim women. I think a woman being short has little relevance to the fact that she likes tall guys really.

You are correct of course, but overweight women can do something about that, not much a short arse guy can do about being a short arse. However, overweight women are viewed as being stuck in some sort of zone of no hope, which is entirely false.

__Alex__

givyjoe wrote: »

Eh, really? I would have thought it was quite relevant. It's kind of like an overweight guy only dating thin women and refusing to date overweight women.. a little hypocritical.

I don't consider either of those things to be hypocritical. Preferences are preferences. An overweight guy can still prefer slim women. It might make it less likely that he will get with one but just because you are overweight, doesn't mean you won't fancy the same people as if you were not overweight. You can't help who you are attracted to! Same with a 5' 2" woman who likes tall men. She's not going to stop fancying the tall guy once she realises that she is short.

ligerdub wrote: »

You are correct of course, but overweight women can do something about that, not much a short arse guy can do about being a short arse. However, overweight women are viewed as being stuck in some sort of zone of no hope, which is entirely false.

Men can work on social attractiveness and that is something that can combat shortness. Both genders can do something about their shortcomings. Pun intended.

deaddonkey15

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/feminism-worst-female-pedestrian-crossing-lights-stir-debate/

Melbourne installing female pedestrian traffic light signals to avoid unconscious bias. We're losing our privileged position on Melbourne's traffic lights!

ligerdub

__Alex__ wrote:

Men can work on social attractiveness and that is something that can combat shortness. Both genders can do something about their shortcomings. Pun intended.

Not the same thing. Your point is hollow.

Carlos Orange

No

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/feminism-worst-female-pedestrian-crossing-lights-stir-debate/

Melbourne installing female pedestrian traffic light signals to avoid unconscious bias. We're losing our privileged position on Melbourne's traffic lights!

*waits for someone to be triggered by the idea women have to wear dresses*

__Alex__

ligerdub wrote: »

Not the same thing. Your point is hollow.

It's analogous. We see it all the time in society. Shorter or in other ways unattractive men with social currency (and it doesn't even have to be too dramatic like being famous, just being funny, charming or having a good job will do) have little trouble attracting women. So yes, sulking because you are short is the problem. Same with an overweight woman having trouble attracting men. There are things people can do to help themselves. :cool: You don't think the two things are analogous? Grand. I can't convince you any further.

fly_agaric

__Alex__ wrote: »

It's analogous. We see it all the time in society. Shorter or in other ways unattractive men with social currency (and it doesn't even have to be too dramatic like being famous, just being funny, charming or having a good job will do) have little trouble attracting women. So yes, sulking because you are short is the problem. Same with an overweight woman having trouble attracting men. There are things people can do to help themselves. :cool: You don't think the two things are analogous? Grand. I can't convince you any further.

Weight is very, very tough to improve (would not be one to judge anyone because they fail to lose excess weight and if it was easy there would not be so many shysters making money from diet plans and the like). However it is possible, and there are medical routes to go down if one is desperate.

People cannot "fix" a height problem [until a surgery/treatment that grows several inches onto your tibia is invented or something!]. They have to live with it and make the best of it as you point out.

__Alex__

fly_agaric wrote: »

People cannot "fix" a height problem [until a surgery/treatment that grows several inches onto your tibia is invented or something!]. They have to live with it and make the best of it as you point out.

That's kinda my point. Men have other ways to increase attractiveness. And losing a load of weight might not even work so well for a woman, if she's not considered all that pretty. It's not like it's lose weight and then SUCCESS! A man who is short or a woman who is considered homely both have hurdles to cross. I suppose there is plastic surgery for faces but, eh, that often doesn't help and it's a pretty extreme step to take. It's not all about weight for women and I have heard vicious things said about women who are not considered pretty down the years from both men and women, mostly men TBH.

PucaMama

fly_agaric wrote: »

I don't remember reading anything about people being embarrassed about him but yes, he was on my mind as an occasional subject of "jokes" online about his height.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/squee/

I do think some need an object to mock (an unsavoury part of human nature?). PC (or progress if you want to put it that way) has put a lot of targets off limits for most people. A good thing, but it has resulted in some double standards...or perhaps I've no sense of humour.

Sorry my reply was a bit sarcastic. I'm sure you would not mock someone about their height (to their face!).
As others posted, height is more of a thing to get under mens' skins about; more equivalent to insulting a woman by passing remarks about her looks or weight I think.

The way you say "to their face" is stil implying I'd mock someone for their appearance. Stop.

ligerdub

__Alex__ wrote: »

It's analogous. We see it all the time in society. Shorter or in other ways unattractive men with social currency (and it doesn't even have to be too dramatic like being famous, just being funny, charming or having a good job will do) have little trouble attracting women. So yes, sulking because you are short is the problem. Same with an overweight woman having trouble attracting men. There are things people can do to help themselves. :cool: You don't think the two things are analogous? Grand. I can't convince you any further.

You can't.......because you're wrong.

Being a short guy is considered unattractive (I'm of average height btw), being an overweight woman is also considered unattractive. They could both have great personalities and all that yarn, and yes, while that does help, it can only do so much either way. The reality is the woman still has the control to change that. The reality of both is that they absolutely still could still be successful with the opposite sex, it's not a death sentence, but it's not a string to their bow.

You're just making an unconvincing argument to suit a narrative. It's not a narrative I have a particular issue with, it's natural enough, but they still can't be compared in terms of control of the issue.

__Alex__

ligerdub wrote: »

You can't.......because you're wrong.

Well, firstly, an opinion can't be wrong.

And as I said above, it's not like all a woman has to do to be attractive is drop weight. Having a pretty face is, from what I can observe myself, far more important for men, than a man being very handsome is for women. Not that women aren't interested in that at all but throughout history, men have been more concered with beauty and women with power and other social attributes in men. Men can work on those things like women can on their weight. Sometimes the shortness won't be overlooked but often the not-so-pretty face won't be either and men are generally less interested in the social standing of the woman. All this is speaking in generalisations but the thing about generalisations is that there is often a lot of truth in them. So I have very little time for whinging about women's perceived shallowness when it comes to men's height. Look more closely and there is plenty of "shallowness" from both genders in this regard.

ligerdub

__Alex__ wrote: »

Well, firstly, an opinion can't be wrong.

And as I said above, it's not like all a woman has to do to be attractive is drop weight. Having a pretty face is, from what I can observe myself, far more important for men, than a man being very handsome is for women. Not that women aren't interested in that at all but throughout history, men have been more concered with beauty and women with power and other social attributes in men. Men can work on those things like women can on their weight. Sometimes the shortness won't be overlooked but often the not-so-pretty face won't be either and men are generally less interested in the social standing of the woman. All this is speaking in generalisations but the thing about generalisations is that there is often a lot of truth in them. So I have very little time for whinging about women's perceived shallowness when it comes to men's height. Look more closely and there is plenty of "shallowness" from both genders in this regard.

Well that's not true for starters.

Wibbs

maybe

__Alex__ wrote: »

Well, firstly, an opinion can't be wrong.

Ehhh.... Not to point at you A and going somewhat off topic, but not really, though this idea seems to have some currency of late with some, too bloody many IMO(irony and pun intended) on the interwebs and in Real Life™. But yeah, an opinion can most certainly be wrong and wildly eye swivellingly licking windows wrong with it. EG: IMO creationism is a science. IMO we didn't go to the moon. IMO Adam and Eve were the first people. IMO physics can contact my dead relatives. IMO aliens live among us and control us. IMO we live on a flat earth. IMO [insert religion here] is the only path and the only truth. IMO vaccines cause [insert malady here]. IMO horoscopes are accurate. All ideas held by many many people, all ideas at best arguable, but mostly daft with some scattered showers of crazy rolling in.

An opinion is just that, an opinion. It may or may not be right or wrong but that can only be decided after testing in the Real World™.

JRant

Wibbs wrote: »

Ehhh.... Not to point at you A and going somewhat off topic, but not really, though this idea seems to have some currency of late with some, too bloody many IMO(irony and pun intended) on the interwebs and in Real Life™. But yeah, an opinion can most certainly be wrong and wildly eye swivellingly licking windows wrong with it. EG: IMO creationism is a science. IMO we didn't go to the moon. IMO Adam and Eve were the first people. IMO physics can contact my dead relatives. IMO aliens live among us and control us. IMO we live on a flat earth. IMO [insert religion here] is the only path and the only truth. IMO vaccines cause [insert malady here]. IMO horoscopes are accurate. All ideas held by many many people, all ideas at best arguable, but mostly daft with some scattered showers of crazy rolling in.

An opinion is just that, an opinion. It may or may not be right or wrong but that can only be decided after testing in the Real World™.

Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man

__Alex__

Wibbs wrote: »

Ehhh.... Not to point at you A and going somewhat off topic, but not really, though this idea seems to have some currency of late with some, too bloody many IMO(irony and pun intended) on the interwebs and in Real Life™. But yeah, an opinion can most certainly be wrong and wildly eye swivellingly licking windows wrong with it. EG: IMO creationism is a science. IMO we didn't go to the moon. IMO Adam and Eve were the first people. IMO physics can contact my dead relatives. IMO aliens live among us and control us. IMO we live on a flat earth. IMO [insert religion here] is the only path and the only truth. IMO vaccines cause [insert malady here]. IMO horoscopes are accurate. All ideas held by many many people, all ideas at best arguable, but mostly daft with some scattered showers of crazy rolling in.

An opinion is just that, an opinion. It may or may not be right or wrong but that can only be decided after testing in the Real World™.

Well, ya know what, I don't think my posts could be considered outlandish at all and for someone to dismiss them as such is pretty bloody annoying.

You did not even address them either, you just had a rant which fuels that further. It's a shame.

__Alex__

ligerdub wrote: »

Well that's not true for starters.

I'm guessing you couldn't flesh this out or you surely would have.

There is a reason why there are so many more appearance-related products aimed at women rather than men. There is a reason why pretty women adorn so many, probaby a majority of ads. Beauty in women in prized by most, if not all societies. It's not just a matter of 'All women have to do is drop weight to be attractive', not to mention the age factor. I think this is really obvious. It is to me anyway, but I think it's a stretch to claim to that men are worse off when it comes to judgement on appearance. It doesn't ring true.

Wibbs

maybe

__Alex__ wrote: »

Well, ya know what, I don't think my posts could be considered outlandish at all

I didn't say they were A, just the incongruous part about "Well, firstly, an opinion can't be wrong." It most certainly can be. Opinion =/= reality.

__Alex__

Wibbs wrote: »

I didn't say they were A, just the incongruous part about "Well, firstly, an opinion can't be wrong." It most certainly can be. Opinion =/= reality.

Maybe I should have been more clear but yeah, there are clearly outlandish opinions but someone saying "Yeah, you're just wrong" to a not outlandish post is, at best, insulting and at worst, a wee bit trollish. It's a response designed to get backs up and mission accomplished, I guess.

ligerdub

__Alex__ wrote: »

I'm guessing you couldn't flesh this out or you surely would have.

There is a reason why there are so many more appearance-related products aimed at women rather than men. There is a reason why pretty women adorn so many, probaby a majority of ads. Beauty in women in prized by most, if not all societies. It's not just a matter of 'All women have to do is drop weight to be attractive', not to mention the age factor. I think this is really obvious. It is to me anyway, but I think it's a stretch to claim to that men are worse off when it comes to judgement on appearance. It doesn't ring true.

It's more a time issue, and not wishing to waste it.

I never claimed about the relative struggles, and I'm not sure who did. Women are judged on their looks (of which weight is probably the most significant aspect) more than a man, at no point did I argue otherwise.

ligerdub

__Alex__ wrote: »

Maybe I should have been more clear but yeah, there are clearly outlandish opinions but someone saying "Yeah, you're just wrong" to a not outlandish post is, at best, insulting and at worst, a wee bit trollish. It's a response designed to get backs up and mission accomplished, I guess.

Well in my opinion when people are going to just pretend their argument was something else when faced with a problematic suggestion that's a wee bit trollish. Mission accomplished I guess.

Jan_de_Bakker

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/demographically-women-are-going-to-take-over-the-world-quite-soon-so-enjoy-1.2985096

Imagine the uproar if an article "Men are going to take over the world" was written ...

givyjoe

__Alex__ wrote: »

Well, ya know what, I don't think my posts could be considered outlandish at all and for someone to dismiss them as such is pretty bloody annoying.

You did not even address them either, you just had a rant which fuels that further. It's a shame.

I think Wibbs's point just went way over your head.. Wait, how tall are you

FortySeven

I was back in Galway two weekends ago and called up to a woman's house I hadn't spoken to in a while. We had a friend's with benefits thing going last year but I didn't keep up the friend bit after moving to the UK.

Got a royal slap across the face. Reall venom in it. Called all the names under the sun I was.

She was in bed with me 25 minutes later.

Imagine that, role reversed.

citytillidie

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/feminism-worst-female-pedestrian-crossing-lights-stir-debate/

Melbourne installing female pedestrian traffic light signals to avoid unconscious bias. We're losing our privileged position on Melbourne's traffic lights!

Why not go with Walk / Don't Walk simple effect and gender neutral

Jan_de_Bakker

citytillidie wrote: »

Why not go with Walk / Don't Walk simple effect and gender neutral

There would be uproar about English you know in a country where English is the official language - the horror!!

lazybones32

FortySeven wrote: »

Got a royal slap across the face. Reall venom in it. Called all the names under the sun I was.

She was in bed with me 25 minutes later.

Imagine that, role reversed.

So the sex was worth the slap and verbal abuse? Do you need that sh*t to get an erection or something? Genuine question.

lazybones32

citytillidie wrote: »

Why not go with Walk / Don't Walk simple effect and gender neutral

That's offensive to people in wheelchairs...

you need sensitivity training!

givyjoe

lazybones32 wrote: »

So the sex was worth the slap and verbal abuse? Do you need that sh*t to get an erection or something? Genuine question.

If the roles were reversed, and it was a woman on the receiving end (of the slap!), would you ask this? Genuine question..

lazybones32

Yeah, I would. I'd question anyone for sitting there while taking personal insults and ask why didn't they walk away. But if they chose to stay, it must be asked whether they get off on it.

Carlos Orange

No

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yeah, I would. I'd question anyone for sitting there while taking personal insults and ask why didn't they walk away. But if they chose to stay, it must be asked whether they get off on it.

Not really but it is a reasonable question to ask why they did it.
The same as it is reasonable to ask why people stay in abusive relationships. I read a long report years ago on domestic abuse and it seems one of the key reasons men suffer from less domestic abuse is that they tend to get out of the relationships where it happens more than women do.

lazybones32

psinno wrote: »

Not really but it is a reasonable question to ask why they did it.
The same as it is reasonable to ask why people stay in abusive relationships. I read a long report years ago on domestic abuse and it seems one of the key reasons men suffer from less domestic abuse is that they tend to get out of the relationships where it happens more than women do.

But this wasn't a relationship - he called in to a woman he finished with X time ago, had no contact with since, calls in, gets insulted and slapped and sleeps with her 25 mins later, then goes on Boards trying to pass it off as some kind of sexism he's experienced.
For a husband/wife bf/gf to fight, take it too far and go to bed for sex 25 mins later is very different to the story above. He wasn't forced or coerced and as soon as the abuse/slap happened, it was his choice to stay or leave.

Carlos Orange

No

lazybones32 wrote: »

it was his choice to stay or leave.

It is always a persons choice to stay or go.

In some rare circumstances it isn't possible to exercise that decision.

eviltwin

FortySeven wrote: »

I was back in Galway two weekends ago and called up to a woman's house I hadn't spoken to in a while. We had a friend's with benefits thing going last year but I didn't keep up the friend bit after moving to the UK.

Got a royal slap across the face. Reall venom in it. Called all the names under the sun I was.

She was in bed with me 25 minutes later.

Imagine that, role reversed.

Why did you stay around long enough to get into bed after being slapped? I don't understand that. Its not a domestic violence situation, you should have stood up for yourself and walked once she did that.