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

kiffer

No

clairefontaine wrote: »

No it isnt.

Genuinely, if they cant afford it but they have to be equal then what other option is there?

That's a very good point...
Let's say we have 100 units of funding we are willing to distribute to dealing with cancer...
We have two groups, one of the groups gets cancer 10% more often and dies of cancer more often... how do we allocate the funding?
50/50? Because there are two groups.
40/60? Because one group gets sick more and so needs more attention?
60/40? Because lets give the money to the less vulnerable group because heck we'd need more money to make a real difference to the more vulnerable group and it's harder to spot anyway?

tsiehta

It comes down to what the return on investment is in terms of the health benefits to the general population. You may need to spend more units in order to reduce the death toll from one form of cancer by the same amount as compared to another form.

I mean, fundamentally it's a tricky ethical question. Is saving one person from group A's life worth 200 people dying from group B because you allocated the funds equally rather than to where the greatest RoI was in terms of saving lives?

Icemancometh

No

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think its usually a rectal exam and/or a blood test.

Breast cancer is a mammogram.

The biopsies start as a step 2 if they find something suspicious on step 1.

That's the thing, the blood test for prostate cancer is pretty useless from a diagnostic or screening point of view. Examination is a part of any work-up, but you need more for investigation of prostate cancer.

It's not really a tGC issue, but my own opinion about screening programs is that they're not suitable for the general population, due to the overall low incidence of disease. Targeting at risk groups for investigation has a much higher utility. That said, cervical screening is a perfect storm of a program, unlike other proposed programs.

jaja321

I thought screening for prostate cancer in men who do not show symptoms was not recommended because the testing may detect other non life threatening cancers, that will still be treated and can have a number of negative side effects, including erectile dysfunction.

newport2

tsiehta wrote: »

It comes down to what the return on investment is in terms of the health benefits to the general population. You may need to spend more units in order to reduce the death toll from one form of cancer by the same amount as compared to another form.

I mean, fundamentally it's a tricky ethical question. Is saving one person from group A's life worth 200 people dying from group B because you allocated the funds equally rather than to where the greatest RoI was in terms of saving lives?

This is very true.
However, I think in a large part in it also comes down to a return in investment for polititions. If men's cancer gets underfunded it gets very little, if any, media attention. If women's areas get neglected, there will be a huge media reaction, articles in the Irish Times, NWC on the 6 O'Clock news, etc. So polititions make sure these areas are covered. I'm not blaming women for this, but it's the way things currently are.
Women have numerous lobby groups, many tax payer funded, to fight issues for them. Men have none.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Genuinely, if they cant afford it but they have to be equal then what other option is there?

So, you're suggesting that it cannot be afforded (despite the fact that while there have overall been cuts in each budgets, some areas have seen increased expenditure) and we are left with an all or nothing choice - which is naturally nonsense.

From what I can see in this discussion, having temporarily abandoned the usual 'discrimination against men doesn't exist' tactic, we've now moved onto a 'but it's not practical' rationalization. Yet, for all this rationalization, the fact remains that there is little or no funding placed in men's health issues; even those that have not been mentioned here, such as suicide, go ignored and unfunded.

newport2

newport2 wrote: »

Women have numerous lobby groups, many tax payer funded, to fight issues for them. Men have none.

Why don't men have them, or have more? Movember is pretty popular and seems to do well.
If men got together and started more of these initiatives I think they might be surprised at how well they do

Pawwed Rig

bluewolf wrote: »

Why don't men have them, or have more? Movember is pretty popular and seems to do well.

To be honest I think one of the main obstacles is that men that try to highlight issues are often shot down and called things like sexist, chauvinist, misogynist etc. You even see it alot on here where people are generally more progressive than those in the 'gen pop'. What young educated man making his way in the world wants that kind of label?
This coupled with the lack of gender studies aimed at men and the higher likelihood of educated men being fulltime employed for the majority of their working lives acts as a preventative measure for any concentrated organisation or ground swell movement.
Where men have organised (such as Amen) they have been unable to achieve any real change in government policy as they are facing a hurricane of lobby groups blowing in the other direction.
Many of the female lobby groups are populated by volunteers which more often men are unable to do because of the persistent breadwinner expectation that still hangs heavy around the neck.

Finally, men do not make very good victims. They do not inspire sympathy. A man complaining about not having access to his kids for example is not seen as seriously as a woman not having access. Women and children first so to speak.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, you're suggesting that it cannot be afforded (despite the fact that while there have overall been cuts in each budgets, some areas have seen increased expenditure) and we are left with an all or nothing choice - which is naturally nonsense.

From what I can see in this discussion, having temporarily abandoned the usual 'discrimination against men doesn't exist' tactic, we've now moved onto a 'but it's not practical' rationalization. Yet, for all this rationalization, the fact remains that there is little or no funding placed in men's health issues; even those that have not been mentioned here, such as suicide, go ignored and unfunded.

Well you can't ignore money.

It looks like to me,mid I understand correctly the government funds free breast and cervical exams to private health insurance holders. So yes technically you are right, that under equality legislation they should also provide prostate exams to private health insurance holders. Medical card holders are covered right? Problem is the budget and what funds are available, if they are not available but you want equality then equality would mean scrapping both breast and prostate exams.

Basic premise of economics, you can balance the budget or you can make people happy. Can't so both. Money is sacrifice.

Icemancometh

No

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, you're suggesting that it cannot be afforded (despite the fact that while there have overall been cuts in each budgets, some areas have seen increased expenditure) and we are left with an all or nothing choice - which is naturally nonsense.

From what I can see in this discussion, having temporarily abandoned the usual 'discrimination against men doesn't exist' tactic, we've now moved onto a 'but it's not practical' rationalization. Yet, for all this rationalization, the fact remains that there is little or no funding placed in men's health issues; even those that have not been mentioned here, such as suicide, go ignored and unfunded.

I never meant to provide rationalisation for discrimination against men. I fully support any measures to improve health outcomes for men, and while I like the idea behind Blue September and Movember, I find them a little vague on the practicalities. It's the public health policy nerd in me that has a problem with general population screening programs.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well you can't ignore money.

You did.

You came out with a ridiculously simplistic assessment, whereby somehow, in something as huge and complex as a national budget a few million could not be clawed back for a necessary cause and presented it as an inflexible choice.

You basically ignored the reality of money in fiscal policy.

Macroeconomics is, in reality, not so two dimensional and to present it as such is either basing an argument on an impossible fantasy or a concious attempt to manipulate the argument.

iptba

I'm still not up-to-date with this thread but on the issue of health initiatives, in Ireland we have:

http://www.activelink.ie/content/irish-links/health/womens-health-council

The Women's Health Council

The Women's Health Council is a statutory body set up in 1997 (under statutory instrument No. 278 of 1997) to advise the Minister for Health and Children on all aspects of women's health. Its mission is to inform and influence the development of health policy to ensure the maximum health and social gain for women in Ireland. The membership of the Women's Health Council is representative of a wide range of expertise and interest in women's health.

Background
In 1995 the Department of Health held a nation-wide consultation with women aimed at defining a framework for women's health policy. Out of this process came the Women's Health Plan. The Plan recommended the setting up of the Women's Health Council, a permanent body to ensure effective and appropriate policy for women's health care. The work of the Women's Health Council is guided by three principles:

Equity based on diversity - the need to develop flexible and accessible services which respond equitably to the diverse needs and situations of women
Quality in the provision and delivery of health services to all women throughout their lives.
Relevance to women's health needs.

Mission Statement
The Women's Health Council exists to influence the development of Health Policy at regional, national and international levels in order to ensure the maximum health and social gain for women.

There is no equivalent Men's Health Council.

In this age of equality, I don't see why one for each gender aren't set up if they're set up one.

KrustyUCC

was out in cork city last night

Girl comes over grabs my friends ass

He grabbed her ass back

He got kicked out ... she remained in the club

so it's ok for girl to grab a guys ass but not other way round

not defending friend as he was silly but hate the double standard

Carlos Orange

No

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Girl comes over grabs my friends ass

He grabbed her ass back

not defending friend as he was silly but hate the double standard

I guess it depends on the situation but is it unreasonable to assume a reciprocated ass grab would be welcome? Sounds like he did nothing wrong.

KrustyUCC

psinno wrote: »

I guess it depends on the situation but is it unreasonable to assume a reciprocated ass grab would be welcome? Sounds like he did nothing wrong.

no thats not unreasonable

basically she grabbed first and he then grabbed her

whats annoying is that he got kicked out whilst she remained in the club with no consequences for her actions

evidently a man grabbing an ass means ejecting where a woman grabbing has no consequences

Pawwed Rig

Credit where it is due for this article on RTE

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1029/483258-psni-domestic/

A completely gender neutral report on domestic violence and an acknowledgement that the victim is not necessarily a woman with the agressor being a man.
Progress??

py2006

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Progress??

Yea, apart from the photo!

Guyanachronism

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

To be honest I think one of the main obstacles is that men that try to highlight issues are often shot down and called things like sexist, chauvinist, misogynist etc. You even see it alot on here where people are generally more progressive than those in the 'gen pop'. What young educated man making his way in the world wants that kind of label?
This coupled with the lack of gender studies aimed at men and the higher likelihood of educated men being fulltime employed for the majority of their working lives acts as a preventative measure for any concentrated organisation or ground swell movement.
Where men have organised (such as Amen) they have been unable to achieve any real change in government policy as they are facing a hurricane of lobby groups blowing in the other direction.
Many of the female lobby groups are populated by volunteers which more often men are unable to do because of the persistent breadwinner expectation that still hangs heavy around the neck.

Finally, men do not make very good victims. They do not inspire sympathy. A man complaining about not having access to his kids for example is not seen as seriously as a woman not having access. Women and children first so to speak.

You think all other activists didn't face these, similar or worse issues? I don't think these factors are a sufficient excuse for you not to become to a MRM activist.

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Credit where it is due for this article on RTE

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1029/483258-psni-domestic/

A completely gender neutral report on domestic violence and an acknowledgement that the victim is not necessarily a woman with the agressor being a man.
Progress??

Although when one looks at the full report, there are various mentions of Women's Aid, including meeting with them, but not a single mention of men/males that I can see:
http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/domestic-violence-and-abuse.pdf

For example

Recommendation 12

The PSNI should explore, in conjunction
with Women’s Aid, the possibility of further
co-location of support workers with Public
Protection Units.

Partially achieved

Agency response

This recommendation is an endorsement of existing
good practice in a number of Districts.
A number of Districts have appointed personnel,
however, other Districts may examine this
commensurate with local funding.

The matter was discussed at a meeting on 18 April
2012 between the Assistant Chief Constable Service
Improvement Department and the Women’s Aid
Federation on 18 April 2012. Progress of the
recommendation will be made in line with local funding.

Recommendation assessed as completed and therefore
no further action required.

Inspectors’ assessment

At the time of the follow-up review, Inspectors were
advised that there were Women’s Aid support workers
co-located with two Public Protection Units and a
further two had dedicated workers based out of
station. In ‘A’ District this was found to be very
beneficial, particularly for high risk victims. There was
no corporate approach to this issue however, and
decisions around whether to fund these posts were
left to individual District Commanders to determine
based on their own resources and views around the
benefits of such an approach. Inspectors were also
advised that, at the time of the fieldwork, a further
one District was exploring possible funding for a
co-located Women’s Aid worker. A SLA agreement for
all co-located workers was also being developed by
the PSNI with Women’s Aid groups across Northern
Ireland to ensure consistency of service delivery for
victims of domestic abuse.

laoch na mona

No

having a conversation with someone and they denied lad culture was a problem and denied that rape culture exists

some people are ridiculously opposed to gender equality

awec

This post has been deleted.

kiffer

No

py2006 wrote: »

Yea, apart from the photo!

You mean the fact that the man is in the photo but blurred because his situation is ignored but the woman is in focus because we pay attention to her...

The man is clenching his fist while he restrains himself after his abusive partner finally passed out drunk on the kitchen table after she spent the last hour threatening him with a kitchen knife...



I was once kneed in the balls for being half an hour late for a date...

About a week ago I was in a shop, a woman walked upto me and without so much as a hello started petting my beard. It took a surprising amount to get her to stop.
"What you are doing is really creepy"
"Ohhh it's so soft"
"Seriously you should stop now"
"Oooh it's lovely"
And so on...
They lady on the till reckoned that the woman was drunk but it was lunch time and she didn't seem that drunk to me.

newport2

Very imbalanced letter in today's Irish Times on gender imbalance

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/gender-balance-and-imbalance-1.1577028

Anywhere there is an imbalance in women's favour, it is taken that women have "out-performed" men. Or men didn't see that area as a viable career option.

Anywhere women don't have a balance in their favour it appears there must be a problem.

We reached the stage a long time ago where the only thing it's acceptible for men to "out-perform" at is under-performing.

iptba

newport2 wrote: »

Very imbalanced letter in today's Irish Times on gender imbalance

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/gender-balance-and-imbalance-1.1577028

Anywhere there is an imbalance in women's favour, it is taken that women have "out-performed" men. Or men didn't see that area as a viable career option.

Anywhere women don't have a balance in their favour it appears there must be a problem.

We reached the stage a long time ago where the only thing it's acceptible for men to "out-perform" at is under-performing.

The letter she replied to is here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/gender-balance-and-imbalance-1.1573553

Extract:

Regarding gender imbalances generally, why is it so often the case that when men are in the majority in a particular field this is perceived as an issue, with calls for gender quotas and the like to redress the imbalance, whereas no corresponding perception seems to exist when the reverse is the case – as is the case in areas such as primary school teaching, and is likely to be in the future in fields such as law and medicine?

I see this as an example of sexism men face.

Neon_Lights

That sexist teacher in primary school that always used to favour the girls! *Rage*

iptba

Neon_Lights wrote: »

That sexist teacher in primary school that always used to favour the girls! *Rage*

Can you give an example?

(I think I may have mentioned earlier in the thread a female friend said when she was in primary school (perhaps only 6th class) there was corporal punishment but only for the boys).

py2006

I remember my primary school teacher had a real issue with men and took it out on the boys in the class. Even though I was only 10 years old (and had no concept of sexism or dislike of gender) I could see that she had issues with men.

rumour

Some years ago we had our first baby. After a week or so of getting used to the new routine and being what I would call very happy but nervous new parents we had a visit from the public health nurse. The lady invited herself in and looked at me rather curiously throughout.

Then to my surprise sitting comfortably on my sofa she asked me if I would leave because she needed to speak with my wife without the presence of a male. She said it was policy and with no apology. I have to admit I was caught off guard and really didn't know what to say. Lost for words in my own house I got up and left.

Later my wife said she questioned her about domestic violence and whether or not she was comfortable or not and if there was any threat she should contact her immediately.

I am still years later reeling from this. I was powerless in my own home. What have i done to deserve this from the state I do not know. I know I am treated as a suspect by the state for nothing more than being a dad.

iptba

rumour wrote: »

Some years ago we had our first baby. After a week or so of getting used to the new routine and being what I would call very happy but nervous new parents we had a visit from the public health nurse. The lady invited herself in and looked at me rather curiously throughout.

Then to my surprise sitting comfortably on my sofa she asked me if I would leave because she needed to speak with my wife without the presence of a male. She said it was policy and with no apology. I have to admit I was caught off guard and really didn't know what to say. Lost for words in my own house I got up and left.

Later my wife said she questioned her about domestic violence and whether or not she was comfortable or not and if there was any threat she should contact her immediately.

I am still years later reeling from this. I was powerless in my own home. What I have done to deserve this from the state I do not know. I know I am treated as a suspect by the state for nothing more than being a dad.

The approach could also be to talk to both parents separately (e.g. if it was supposed to be based on concern for the child, say). But no sign of that happening.

rumour

newport2 wrote: »

Once again girls largely outperform boys in the leaving cert, not an eyebrow raised. No questions asked. The education system is not failing the boys, it's just that girls are better.

Anywhere men/boys outperform women/girls there is - without question - sexism afoot. When women/girls outperform men, it's "Well done the girls".

If the supposed salary gap in the workplace was the other way around, I expect there would be just headlines such as "Women continue to outperform men in the workplace", something we would all be supposed to applaud.

My father worked in education in the 80's. Girls were not doing that well. Guess what the curriculum and means of testing was altered. This was done with the sole objective of accommodating girls. You now see the results.

Ultimately it shan't matter that much in the grand scheme of things, state education has become increasingly devalued and a political tool. If the head of an academic institution such as Harvard has to resign because of an alleged sexist comment that which when reversed and presented by a female is considered wisdom, rational thought and analysis is out the window. This was the folly of the ottoman empire and will be that of the west.

rumour

iptba wrote: »

The approach could also be to talk to both parents separately (e.g. if it was supposed to be based on concern for the child, say). But no sign of that happening.

Screw the approach. The feminist ideology is so pervasive that my wife is being warned by a representative of the state that the father of her child is a potential threat with no grounding or basis what so ever.

I resent that.

Furthermore she marched into my house sat herself down and asked me to leave while she delivered the message. This is much more than the day to day example of sexism this is state sponsored. When did that happen and on whose authority?

And contrary to many female contributors here they are complicit in their silence on this issue.

Neon_Lights

I detest that society today has a subservient attitude towards women, and the enlightened who question the status quo are slandered as sexists. This being said when it is in fact the very inequalities that men possess in this female protected society are what get us labelled as sexist.

this is present
-in relationships
-in dating
-in the workplace
-in most if not all forms of media
-in manners
-in the law

While men are labelled as drudging slaves who only crave and chase their sexual desires, society mocks us. Equality will simply not exist due to this, as when humans obtain power more than often comes with oppression. This female power or influence if you like to call it is not visible. It is in fact invisible. So invisible it has been engrained to be the norm. This is not right and I do feel that men deserve better treatment. Not in a domineering way such is commonly portrayed when the opposite is true.

Amirani

rumour wrote: »

And contrary to many female contributors here they are complicit in their silence on this issue.

I completely sympathise with your situation rumour, and agree with your general sentiment. I don't agree with your above assertion though, it's simply the exact opposite of the Una Mullally article in the other thread. You can't blame female contributors for the sexism you experienced any more than you can blame me. There's no obligation on people to go out protesting for gender equality, and they shouldn't be looked on unfavourably for not doing so.

The Corinthian

NiallSparky wrote: »

I completely sympathise with your situation rumour, and agree with your general sentiment. I don't agree with your above assertion though, it's simply the exact opposite of the Una Mullally article in the other thread. You can't blame female contributors for the sexism you experienced any more than you can blame me. There's no obligation on people to go out protesting for gender equality, and they shouldn't be looked on unfavourably for not doing so.

Nice abdication of civic responsibility there.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Perhaps on issues such as abortion, men should increasingly just ignore or vote against legalization and give no support to the protests in favour of it? Or for charities that support breast or cervical cancer, we should just stop donating our help or money? Next time someone asks me to sign a petition on women's rights, perhaps I should suggest that I'd prefer to concentrate on men's rights for a while and once we've done that, perhaps they can come back to me.

All before one considers that many of these 'feminist contributors' here (I'd prefer to identify them on their beliefs rather than their gender myself) have denied the existence of sexism against men - that's not "protesting for gender equality", but against it. Is this what you meant?

But perhaps you're right; men have enough to deal with where it comes to our own rights than to be obliged to protest for gender equality. Maybe the answer is that we ignore women's issues and deal with our own instead.

Amirani

I think there's quite a big difference between inaction and actual denial of sexism. The above case is quite obviously sexism, but since 99% of Boards users haven't come out and said that, does that mean they don't believe it's the case?

The Edmund Burke quote is a good one and I wholeheartedly agreed with it. However, it doesn't by extension mean that if good men do nothing then they are indeed evil. I just thought it fairly harsh to be attacking a fairly broad grouping because they haven't come out voraciously in support of his case. You can't logically conclude that that's because they don't think it's a valid case of sexism. As I said, there's no obligation on people to support every single instance of every single cause. I've never been on a pro-abortion march, does that mean I'm anti-women's rights?

The Corinthian

NiallSparky wrote: »

I think there's quite a big difference between inaction and actual denial of sexism. The above case is quite obviously sexism, but since 99% of Boards users haven't come out and said that, does that mean they don't believe it's the case?

I'm sorry, but you were specifically defending contributors, not lurkers.

I just thought it fairly harsh to be attacking a fairly broad grouping because they haven't come out voraciously in support of his case. You can't logically conclude that that's because they don't think it's a valid case of sexism.

You'll note that I did not cite contributors who did not agree with a particular case as sexist, but who have come out on this and other threads and denied the existence of any case as sexist.

There's been a number of examples in this and other threads that I don't feel constitute sexism either, but what we're talking about is stuff like this:

laoch na mona wrote: »

then don't let people cal non sexist things sexist or imaginary things like female privilege real

Or who come in and insist with falsehoods such as that feminism represents gender equality when it really only represents, at best, selective gender equality (i.e. not actually equality).

Amirani

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you were specifically defending contributors, not lurkers.

I'm defending the large group of people that the original poster attacked for their silence on this issue and pointing out that silence does not equal disagreement.

You'll note that I did not cite contributors who did not agree with a particular case as sexist, but who have come out on this and other threads and denied the existence of any case as sexist.

There's been a number of examples in this and other threads that I don't feel constitute sexism either, but what we're talking about is stuff like this:

We're obviously in agreement here. The post you cited was clearly out of order and entirely deserving of the ban its source received.

If the original poster is attacking just people who post things like this, people who deny the existence of any case of sexism, then I'm in agreement. I'd also go a step further and use the collective noun people rather than females, as I've come across men too who've denied that sexism against males exists.

I didn't get that impression though from the OP's claim though, my impression was that he was equating silence with disagreement. Obviously if he clarifies this then it's a moot point.

The Corinthian

NiallSparky wrote: »

I'm defending the large group of people that the original poster attacked for their silence on this issue and pointing out that silence does not equal disagreement.

Then why did you defend the contributors in your posts?

We're obviously in agreement here. The post you cited was clearly out of order and entirely deserving of the ban its source received.

I'm not sure we are, given you specifically defended contributors, given this was one of them. Or would you like to change your position a bit more and only defend some contributors?

As for that post, it did not earn them a ban, just an infraction; a subsequent post got them banned.

I didn't get that impression though from the OP's claim though, my impression was that he was equating silence with disagreement. Obviously if he clarifies this then it's a moot point.

Well if this is all based upon an 'impression' then I see where the disagreement is occurring.

In the case of rumour's comment, to me it echo's the words of Edmund Burke I quoted earlier. As you said, silence does not make someone evil, but neither does it make them innocent - do you disagree with that?

Amirani

I think we may taking a different view of "contributors" here. I'm not talking about contributors to the discussion of rumour's situation, rather just people who contribute to the forum in general? Only 1 poster contributed directly to rumour's discussion before us.

The only people I'm defending are those who haven't voiced an opinion but have been vilified. I never said I was defending all contributors. Anyone who has posted an opinion is fair game essentially.

I don't disagree with your point on Burke. It should follow though that people who haven't posted shouldn't be considered "complicit in their silence" as rumour stated initially.

The Corinthian

NiallSparky wrote: »

The only people I'm defending are those who haven't voiced an opinion but have been vilified. I never said I was defending all contributors. Anyone who has posted an opinion is fair game essentially.

As I said, while silence may not make you guilty, neither does it make you innocent. Much of the reason that clerical sexual abuse persisted in Ireland was that laypeople (and other members of the clergy) remained silent, for example.

That doesn't make them guilty of the abuse, but without their silence that abuse would never have continued for as long as it did.

Remaining silent on such gender inequities when you know they are there is no better.

IK09

Hey guys,

Wouldnt have thought anything of this "incident" if I had not read this thread. Arrived to work, noticed that there was an office supplies delivery at the door. Asked the secretary why the delivery guy didnt drop it upstairs at reception. She didnt realise that there even was a delivery. She asked would I mind giving a hand bringing it up stairs. Of course I said no problem. She then asked everyone in the office to give a hand in bringing it up, fair enough, many hands and all that. But when the female staff got up to help she said, "no its ok, the guys have it".

You can look at this a few different ways. Personally, I believe in sexism, I feel that it is there for a reason, males and females are not equal. Men are generally stronger than women, women are generally more caring than men(i agree with this). I disagree with some of the inequalities i.e. men have no rights as a father, women have all the rights as a mother(i personally disagree with this).

I heard a phrase which made me laugh "I am a strong independent women...until something heavy needs to be lifted", it rings somewhat true in this instance.

The sexes are not equal in physical make up, they never have been, so why try and make them equal by forcing women to endure the same physical "responsibilities" of the male. However, I believe that on an intellectual level we are all equal. The idea that a man should be picked over a woman for a job when they both have the same cv and experience, based on the idea that he is a man, is simply Neanderthal.

When I see a lady with a heavy bag, I carry it, because I am a man and assume myself to be able to carry heavier items than a woman. If she turns around and starts spouting feminist BS, I laugh, I am not laughing at her because she is inferior/weaker/dumber than I am, I am laughing because she will not except help from me on the basis that I am a man. It is the female who is in fact the sexist in this case and in her reaction she is further ingraining the idea of sexism.

Incomprehensible rant over

Much Thanks

Carlos Orange

No

IK09 wrote: »

Hey guys,

Wouldnt have thought anything of this "incident" if I had not read this thread. Arrived to work, noticed that there was an office supplies delivery at the door. Asked the secretary why the delivery guy didnt drop it upstairs at reception. She didnt realise that there even was a delivery. She asked would I mind giving a hand bringing it up stairs. Of course I said no problem. She then asked everyone in the office to give a hand in bringing it up, fair enough, many hands and all that. But when the female staff got up to help she said, "no its ok, the guys have it".

Surprised you have not noticed that before. It has been like that in any small office I have worked for. Much the same as the way I'm pretty sure I have never seen a woman change the water in a water cooler.

Mister R

To counter that kind of thing I'll ALWAYS ask a woman to help carry something with me over a man, to make a point really seeing as in secondary school the guys were always dragged out of class to carry stuff like tables etc.

Most stuff is awkward to carry but not heavy and I've only skinny arms anyway

runawaybishop

No

IK09 wrote: »

When I see a lady with a heavy bag, I carry it, because I am a man and assume myself to be able to carry heavier items than a woman.

That is sexist though, if you see someone carrying something too heavy for them you should offer assistance regardless of their sex.

Mister R

Yeah I'm the same, if someone is really struggling their gender is irrelevant. Just like if I see a woman with a box or something that she looks fine with I'm not going to run over and take it from her cause she is a "delicate flower"

iptba

IK09 wrote: »

Men are generally stronger than women, women are generally more caring than men(i agree with this).

Don't agree with this, although agree women may be better at reading emotions on average.

IK09 wrote: »

However, I believe that on an intellectual level we are all equal. The idea that a man should be picked over a woman for a job when they both have the same cv and experience, based on the idea that he is a man, is simply Neanderthal.

Given the thread you're writing on, it should probably be:

IK09 wrote: »

However, I believe that on an intellectual level we are all equal. The idea that a woman should be picked over a man for a job when they both have the same cv and experience, based on the idea that she is a woman, is simply Neanderthal.

The Corinthian

IK09 wrote: »

When I see a lady with a heavy bag, I carry it, because I am a man and assume myself to be able to carry heavier items than a woman.

Incorrect. Men are on average stronger than women. This does not mean that:

1. You are stronger than the lady with the heavy bag, or
2. that the lady with the heavy bag is too weak to carry her heavy bag.

And that's basic logic there for you. Unfortunately, what it means is that you cannot assume yourself to be able to carry heavier items than a woman, all you can do is take each case individually and based upon whether they're struggling or not make our assessment of whether a woman, or man, needs your help.

If she turns around and starts spouting feminist BS, I laugh, I am not laughing at her because she is inferior/weaker/dumber than I am, I am laughing because she will not except help from me on the basis that I am a man.

She's spouting 'feminist BS' because you've been condensing. Were a woman to turn around and make a simelar presumption based on nothing more than my gender, I'd also react verbally, because I don't like being talked down to on something I am more than capable of dealing with - often more so than the idiot trying to 'correct' me.

The idea that a man should be picked over a woman for a job when they both have the same cv and experience, based on the idea that he is a man, is simply Neanderthal.

Actually it's based on exactly the same presumptions regarding abilities and roles as you use. Men are stronger, thus go out and earn to provide for their families. As a result they need the job and the extra money, given they have a family to support. All broad and overgeneralised presumptions - just like yours - so you can't really call it Neanderthal without accusing yourself of the same.

Incomprehensible rant over

And irrational. Had you ended your post with "personally, I believe in sexism, I feel that it is there for a reason", then it would have made more sense, because that's all it comes down to; you "feel" this.

There's nothing rational in that, nothing special, nothing really thought out beyond the most superficial level. You just feel something is a certain way, then apply presumptions around you based on it.

But don't worry about it, it's normal. We were all brought up to behave in a certain way, to instinctively act in a certain manner, without thinking if it made sense or not. As children we're essentially 'trained' and most never question this 'training', even in adulthood - we even go on to apply it to our own children.

So, can you roll over too?

Amirani

I never understand why it has to be: "men should carry the heavy things". Why not: "the strongest people should carry the heavy things"?

If there's a female Olympic weightlifter in the office, should she not help out with heavy stuff? Gender is irrelevant really. The fact that the average man is stronger than the average woman means nothing, you don't have the "average man" and "average woman" working in your office.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

NiallSparky wrote: »

I never understand why it has to be: "men should carry the heavy things". Why not: "the strongest people should carry the heavy things"?

If there's a female Olympic weightlifter in the office, should she not help out with heavy stuff? Gender is irrelevant really. The fact that the average man is stronger than the average woman means nothing, you don't have the "average man" and "average woman" working in your office.

You're contradicting yourself. As you say, on average, men are stronger than women so when members of both genders are present, it's probable that the strongest people in the vicinity will be the men.

Carlos Orange

No

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself. As you say, on average, men are stronger than women so when members of both genders are present, it's probable that the strongest people in the vicinity will be the men.

That is pretty much irrelevant anyway. Most stuff you move is either so light anyone could do it or so heavy/bulky that you should have multiple people moving it. There isn't much stuff that needs one super strong person.