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

One eyed Jack

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.

I'm imagining it, roles reversed, and I'm still not seeing what point you're trying to make? Did you want her to be in bed with you 25 minutes later?

There's an awful lot missing from that story.

FortySeven

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.

Personally I'd say she was justified. After all, you did say friends with benefits rather than a simple ****buddy. You disappeared and reappeared later without a word. Seems reasonable to think you're a <insert whatever you feel like here>

She was in bed with me 25 minutes later.

You're equalling sex with what here? A deep emotional connection? :rolleyes: She used you for sex. I highly doubt she'll consider you for a friend anymore. She might use you again for sex or not. Probably she'll find someone else, because it's generally easy for a girl to get a sex partner, and harder to find someone capable of filling two roles. Frankly I'm amazed you see this as a victory. You've lost something important and it's not the sex.

Having sex for simply the sake of having sex gets old fast.

Imagine that, role reversed.

Err. No. It might shock you to realise that there are many types of male behavior. While I do prefer "friends with benefits" compared to other relatonships, your behavior is not mine. Never will be. I see no advantage in behaving that way.

Calhoun

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

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 ...

When we inevitably have our next large scale war it will be interesting to see how things go.

Be also interesting if items like the above triggered selective birthing in certain cultures. Was reading an article lastnight about India and how they arent allowed identify the sex of the child as parents are selectively choosing males.

lazybones32

psinno wrote: »

It is always a persons choice to stay or go.

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

Yes but the situation described by the OP isn't the same as the rare circumstances you speak of. If he was in fear of his life/safety, he didn't say so and if he was, I'd still criticise him for posting it to Boards first and not the Gardai.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

When we inevitably have our next large scale war it will be interesting to see how things go.

It's interesting how with all these discussions about employment equality, and not enough women in particular fields or levels of those fields... there's very little talk about a requirement for women to serve in the military frontline troops (rather than simply logistics, support etc). To balance the ratio a little... :rolleyes:

Lemming

Deleted User wrote: »

It's interesting how with all these discussions about employment equality, and not enough women in particular fields or levels of those fields... there's very little talk about a requirement for women to serve in the military frontline troops (rather than simply logistics, support etc). To balance the ratio a little... :rolleyes:

I seem to recall that the US forces - I believe USMC - have accepted their first women in front-line roles (i.e. infantry, not support that happens to end up on the front-line). Plenty of US/UK female soldiers have found themselves at the sharp end, but almost all were not designated infantry roles. That distinction might be lost at the sharp-end of the stick mind you, but it does have an important bearing on recruitment, training & logistics, not to mention carries social & political baggage.

Zulu

No

eviltwin wrote: »

Its not a domestic violence situation

Really? Why do you say that?

you should have stood up for yourself and walked once she did that.

Advice you'd offer a battered wife no doubt?

Calhoun

Be interesting to see what happens, we live in a world where its expected by default the man fights and dies to maintain the status quo in civil liberties but at the same time is told that he is privilege and in some cases id discriminated against because of his sex.

All things being equal i think that we should see equality on the battlefield front lines, so all get to fight and die to uphold civil liberties.

Be interesting to see the state of demography had we not lost million of males during two world wars.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's interesting how with all these discussions about employment equality, and not enough women in particular fields or levels of those fields... there's very little talk about a requirement for women to serve in the military frontline troops (rather than simply logistics, support etc). To balance the ratio a little... :rolleyes:

Why would you expect there would be any talk about it at all? Why would any women's groups argue that we should put more women in the front lines so that they too have as equal a risk of being killed as men? Why do men's groups not argue that there should be less men on the front lines? That would be more like the kind of equality men's rights groups should be arguing for, instead of always being on the back foot more concerned with their transparent anti-feminist agenda that does nothing to promote men's position in society, only makes them look as bad as some "modern feminists" IMO, neither group doing their respective "causes" any favours.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would you expect there would be any talk about it at all? Why would any women's groups argue that we should put more women in the front lines so that they too have as equal a risk of being killed as men? Why do men's groups not argue that there should be less men on the front lines? That would be more like the kind of equality men's rights groups should be arguing for, instead of always being on the back foot more concerned with their transparent anti-feminist agenda that does nothing to promote men's position in society, only makes them look as bad as some "modern feminists" IMO, neither group doing their respective "causes" any favours.

Wishful thinking/day dreaming yes we should look to reduce war in all its form but lets be pragmatic that isnt stopping soon so unless you create combat robots its a valid discussion to have.

Why wouldnt mens groups discuss female participation in combat situations? why should i fight and die for a society that casts me as a privilege villain who will rape any female i come across if given the chance?

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

Wishful thinking/day dreaming yes we should look to reduce war in all its form but lets be pragmatic that isnt stopping soon so unless you create combat robots its a valid discussion to have.

Why wouldnt mens groups discuss female participation in combat situations? why should i fight and die for a society that casts me as a privilege villain who will rape any female i come across if given the chance?

We don't have conscription in Ireland, I think you're safe.

Calhoun

We are talking about the principle of the conversation but ok stay in your dreamland.

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

We are talking about the principle of the conversation but ok stay in your dreamland.

So your solution to war is then to send more people to die, just in equal numbers to even up the gender quotas, as long as they're women?

What sort of dreamland do I have to be in where subjective principles have any bearing on objective reality?

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So your solution to war is then to send more people to die, just in equal numbers to even up the gender quotas, as long as they're women?

What sort of dreamland do I have to be in where subjective principles have any bearing on objective reality?

Its not a solution more a question, if we have wars of the future why should it only be male lives on the line. It should be both should it not or what do you suggest if we do have a war?

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

Its not a solution more a question, if we have wars of the future why should it only be male lives on the line. It should be both should it not or what do you suggest if we do have a war?

Wouldn't it be much more in our line to avoid any casualties of war, rather than suggest that more women should be forced into something they don't want to do, because men want to do it? You're completely ignoring the fact that men volunteer to join the armed forces. Nobody is being forced to join the armed forces, so the numbers of men killed is simply due to the fact that more men than women join the armed forces in the first place.

This isn't an example of sexism against men at all, like a good many of the last few posts haven't been examples of sexism against men, but are more the sort of stuff I'd expect to hear from people who need to be victims, regardless of their gender.

ligerdub

Most of the wars fought by the west are done in a relatively low-risk, almost cowardly war nowadays. They fight against low power militia groups and drop bombs on them. There aren't that many people in real danger spots with hand to hand fighting so to speak. The idea of this frontline thing is relatively minor regardless of gender.

I'd be more interested in the lack of calls for more women in waste management and the like.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wouldn't it be much more in our line to avoid any casualties of war, rather than suggest that more women should be forced into something they don't want to do, because men want to do it? You're completely ignoring the fact that men volunteer to join the armed forces. Nobody is being forced to join the armed forces, so the numbers of men killed is simply due to the fact that more men than women join the armed forces in the first place.

This isn't an example of sexism against men at all, like a good many of the last few posts haven't been examples of sexism against men, but are more the sort of stuff I'd expect to hear from people who need to be victims, regardless of their gender.

Obviously yes there should be more done to prevent casualties of war but that is not the reality of war. Should we not question why more woman arent stepping up to do their duty?

I believe it is an example of the dual standards that are in place for men and woman and if we believe their is a societal duty in some countries to go and fight in war then we should should have similar standards for woman.

eviltwin

Zulu wrote: »

Really? Why do you say that?
Advice you'd offer a battered wife no doubt?

Because it's not and its an insult to genuine victims to refer to it as such.

__Alex__

givyjoe wrote: »

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

I'll sum it up with a few points as the thread has moved on.

a) people have preferences
b) that doesn't mean they will stick rigidly to them (ie. my hubs prefers blondes and I am definitely not one)
c) if tallness gets a woman going, you can't tell her she's wrong in that. Just like pretty much any physical attribute that turns someone on. That is something you literally cannot help.
d) yes, it's all a bit brutal and can feel unfair.

That's it really.

Zulu

No

eviltwin wrote: »

Because it's not and its an insult to genuine victims to refer to it as such.

I note you avoided the second question.

Because "you say so" isn't sufficient.

Apparently: Domestic violence is the physical, emotional, sexual or mental abuse of one person by another within close, intimate or family relationship.

They are in a relationship of sorts, are they not?
It is intimate and close, is it not??
There is at least one example of physical abuse, is there not???

Perhaps you follow feminist dogma; perhaps men can't be the victims of domestic abuse, I don't know, but what I do know is that your very quick to ignore the possibility, and very eager to move past it. Why is that?

Carlos Orange

No

Zulu wrote: »

Apparently: Domestic violence is the physical, emotional, sexual or mental abuse of one person by another within close, intimate or family relationship.

There are going to be a million definitions. That is one of them.

Zulu

No

psinno wrote: »

There are going to be a million definitions. That is one of them.

It's reasonably succinct isn't it?
Do you disagree with it?
If so, what's wrong with the definition?

__Alex__

ligerdub wrote: »

I'd be more interested in the lack of calls for more women in waste management and the like.

There are plenty of unglamorous jobs to go round for both genders. Women seem to be much more represented in cleaning. Does each 'thankless' task have to be staffed 50/50? Because some skew female.

Zulu wrote: »

They are in a relationship of sorts, are they not?
It is intimate and close, is it not??

From his description, no it doesn't sound like they are. Sex doesn't equal intimacy otherwise numerous new relationships would be spawned every Saturday night. A hallmark of domestic violence is that the the victim has become beaten down mentally as much as physical by the abuse. It is usually insidious and long-term. Arguing that this is domestic violence is contrarian and you probably know it. If what is described happened, she sounds hideous. But it's not domestic violence based on what we have been told.

Carlos Orange

No

Zulu wrote: »

It's reasonably succinct isn't it?
Do you disagree with it?
If so, what's wrong with the definition?

Where terms have a legal meaning I usually defer to that or at least acknowledge its primacy. I'm not sure it meets the legal definition of domestic abuse. It clearly is violence between sexual partners who have a relationship of some description and I generally think initiating violence is wrong irrespective of the genders of people and whatever personal slight they perceive.

ligerdub

__Alex__ wrote: »

There are plenty of unglamorous jobs to go round for both genders. Women seem to be much more represented in cleaning. Does each 'thankless' task have to be staffed 50/50? Because some skew female.



From his description, no it doesn't sound like they are. Sex doesn't equal intimacy otherwise numerous new relationships would be spawned every Saturday night. A hallmark of domestic violence is that the the victim has become beaten down mentally as much as physical by the abuse. It is usually insidious and long-term. Arguing that this is domestic violence is contrarian and you probably know it. If what is described happened, she sounds hideous. But it's not domestic violence based on what we have been told.

No jobs should have to be split down the middle or anywhere near it in gender terms.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

I seem to recall that the US forces - I believe USMC - have accepted their first women in front-line roles (i.e. infantry, not support that happens to end up on the front-line). Plenty of US/UK female soldiers have found themselves at the sharp end, but almost all were not designated infantry roles. That distinction might be lost at the sharp-end of the stick mind you, but it does have an important bearing on recruitment, training & logistics, not to mention carries social & political baggage.

Considering the nature of modern warfare, we're not going to have months to prepare and train troops. No country can anymore. There needs to be a standing army. That's just the way the world is although European countries have allowed themselves to lapse in this area... relying far too much on the US.

If/When war comes, the majority of troops brought into active service or applied to combat situations will be male.

I wouldn't consider being a soldier or being conscripted a reward for being male. Yay! And yet, considering the numbers of women in the military, it must be a reward somehow.

from 2014: http://www.thejournal.ie/defence-forces-gender-breakdown-1799391-Nov2014/

"This comprises 7,413 Army personnel, 757 in the Air Corps and 1030 Naval Service members. Some 556 (6.04%) are women."

My point is that there is a lot of talk about women being under-represented in politics, top management, academic areas, etc and it just strikes me as funny, that few are talking about how under-represented they are in the military.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We don't have conscription in Ireland, I think you're safe.

We've also never been at war either (not including the civil war). Should a major war hit Europe, you really think Ireland will be able to remain neutral? You really think Russia or another major power will respect our neutrality if it means hitting Britain too?

Just because we haven't been put in the situation before, doesn't mean it won't happen in our lifetimes. The outside world is changing rapidly, and nationalism is getting strong in many major countries.(Inside and outsde of Europe)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So your solution to war is then to send more people to die, just in equal numbers to even up the gender quotas, as long as they're women?

You just contradicted yourself in the your leading question.

No. I, for one, am not demanding that women fight/die in equal numbers to men. I do, however, believe that if women want equality in other careers, then they should also be encouraged for the less appealing positions too.

Right now society and our culture seeks to protect women as being vulnerable and yet, also give them benefits beyond what a man has. That's punishment for men... not seeking equality.

__Alex__

__Alex__ wrote: »

There are plenty of unglamorous jobs to go round for both genders. Women seem to be much more represented in cleaning. Does each 'thankless' task have to be staffed 50/50? Because some skew female.

You really think that women would ask for gender balance or advantages starting from the bottom upwards? They're calling for advantages in most normal nice industries since there's more male directors, managers, CEO's, CFO's, etc than there are women. And since there are currently more men in these positions, then therefore it must be sexism.

Give them time. I'm sure they'll get to the cleaning jobs eventually. Take the nicer jobs first though.

Don't you notice a type of trend with Gender discrimination? Feminists or womens rights groups call for changes to laws, the laws are changed over time which ultimately both protect women and give them more rights than before. How is it that you can't see the same happening here. You really think they'll stop at equal numbers? They haven't before.

Lemming

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering the nature of modern warfare, we're not going to have months to prepare and train troops. No country can anymore. There needs to be a standing army. That's just the way the world is although European countries have allowed themselves to lapse in this area... relying far too much on the US.

I'm not really sure what your point was with that timeframe of months reference, or why you felt the need to mention it given that there is already a standing army and the need for a standing army isn't going to disappear any time soon. Every newly minted private in the Irish army has undergone seventeen weeks of basic training, then whatever additional training they require for their role, along with unit-training when they get there. Seventeen weeks. What was that about "not having months" to train people?

I wouldn't consider being a soldier or being conscripted a reward for being male. Yay! And yet, considering the numbers of women in the military, it must be a reward somehow.

There are a lot of women in the armed forces. Just because you don't see them on the TV in Afghanistan & Iraq because they aren't all steely-eyed dealers of death doesn't mean they aren't there. And in some cases literally right there just outside of camera shoot.

For example [and I'm talking about NATO forces here], FET (Female Engagement Teams) have proved hugely useful in interacting with muslim women in Afghanistan, and whilst they are embedded along with the guys, that doesn't place them above the same danger of things that go bang. On a less well-known point, the British MERT chopper teams were the most 'contacted' unit in Afghanistan - either the UK forces in-country or overall, I can't recall which - because they had to fly in and pick up wounded soldiers and civilians often whilst under a lot of fire doing so. THe back of the Chinook choppers were set up as emergency surgery centres, so plenty of female doctors & nurses mixed there too.

Whilst I agree with your point about guys being seen as expendable enough to send off to war, don't diminish the fact that plenty of women have - in practical terms - signed away their lives on the dotted line and if the need is met, they will be told to put their lives at risk because that's what comes with the uniform when push really comes to shove. In my opinion, anyone who volunteers to wear the uniform of their country deserves a measure of respect, gender be damned.

One eyed Jack

Deleted User wrote: »

My point is that there is a lot of talk about women being under-represented in politics, top management, academic areas, etc and it just strikes me as funny, that few are talking about how under-represented they are in the military.

It shouldn't strike you as funny, people are entitled to make their own career choices for themselves. I genuinely don't see your point.

Deleted User wrote: »

We've also never been at war either (not including the civil war). Should a major war hit Europe, you really think Ireland will be able to remain neutral? You really think Russia or another major power will respect our neutrality if it means hitting Britain too?

Just because we haven't been put in the situation before, doesn't mean it won't happen in our lifetimes. The outside world is changing rapidly, and nationalism is getting strong in many major countries.(Inside and outsde of Europe)

Yes, we have all sorts of international agreements in place to protect our neutrality.

Deleted User wrote: »

You just contradicted yourself in the your leading question.

No. I, for one, am not demanding that women fight/die in equal numbers to men. I do, however, believe that if women want equality in other careers, then they should also be encouraged for the less appealing positions too.

Yeah see that's not the sort of equality that anyone really wants. It's like handing a man a baby with a ****ty nappy and saying "Your turn, equality like!" Yeah, you're grand thanks. I don't see why anyone, of either gender, should be encouraged for the less appealing positions too, much of which has been automated to save labour and lives, not to cost more labour and lives. That's not how to argue for men's welfare - "I want to drag women into the shítty job I chose to do".

Deleted User wrote: »

Right now society and our culture seeks to protect women as being vulnerable and yet, also give them benefits beyond what a man has. That's punishment for men... not seeking equality.

Rest easy, try not to be thinking up stuff that hasn't happened and won't happen. If you want to argue for equality for men where you feel they are lacking equal rights to women, that's not nearly the same thing as arguing that women should have to do the same shítty things just because men choose to do them.

lazybones32

Zulu wrote: »

I note you avoided the second question.

Because "you say so" isn't sufficient.

Apparently: Domestic violence is the physical, emotional, sexual or mental abuse of one person by another within close, intimate or family relationship.

They are in a relationship of sorts, are they not?
It is intimate and close, is it not??
There is at least one example of physical abuse, is there not???

Perhaps you follow feminist dogma; perhaps men can't be the victims of domestic abuse, I don't know, but what I do know is that your very quick to ignore the possibility, and very eager to move past it. Why is that?

Your attempt to get this incident covered as DV is like that yoke in the AH thread who said 'no' 3 times but later consented to sex but now wants her 'experience' to be classified and accepted as rape. Lowering the bar to include everything as dv won't help anyone; least of all the genuine cases.

FortySeven

lazybones32 wrote: »

Your attempt to get this incident covered as DV is like that yoke in the AH thread who said 'no' 3 times but later consented to sex but now wants her 'experience' to be classified and accepted as rape. Lowering the bar to include everything as dv won't help anyone; least of all the genuine cases.

You should take a walk to your local court, go to the court office and read the definitions of domestic violence that are provided there in a wall poster by womens aid. (I have)

Raising your voice, phoning to ask when they will be home, name calling, putting them down, checking their phone.

These are family court accepted norms of domestic abuse, family court is held in secret and the burden of proof is not required. An allegation is enough to cost a man his home, his children and a large part of his paycheck.

Solicitors refer to it as the silver bullet. Quickest way to get what you want.

Now. I was forcefully assaulted whilst being called names and if you want to say that was trivial then I must refer you back to those family court accepted womens aid definitions. Who is trivialising this exactly?

In reply to others who seem to think I somehow demeaned myself by later having sex with her (or demeaned her by having my jollies, not really sure what you were trying to imply)

It is socially acceptable for women to strike men. It happens every day on tv, in films and in real life. Women celebrate a man being put in his place if he does something wrong. You go girl! It's not so long ago they broadcast loose women laughing about a story where a woman cut off a mans penis. No sanctions.

I took it on the chin, calmed her down and later she was all over me like a rash. Make of that what you will. I don't care for anymore dissection of my sex life.

In short, I was (by definition) assaulted. It was within a relationship. It is domestic violence and if the roles had been reversed and I had struck a woman who came to my door after ignoring me for a few weeks, I would be wearing a couple of uncomfortable bracelets in no short order. End of.

I didn't make a complaint. I'm not complaining that it happened. I am merely pointing out the double standard men are forced to live by when it comes to DV. It is only going to get worse too under the new legislation being enacted right now.

I hope this clarifies things somewhat.

FortySeven

red ears wrote: »

I have to say folks i am utterly scunnered with woman's issues, everyday we hear or read something about woman's issues.. today it has been relentless.

I think it is international womans day.

It's funny because an MP (Phillip Davies) here in the UK recently brought up the idea of an international mens day and was hounded out of the parliament by those 'poorly' represented women. Go figure.

(He was then appointed to the 'Womens and Equality Commsision where his first question was why the gender disparity in the name of a commission of equality? He was then labelled an anti-feminist nazi, we await his response.)

red ears

FortySeven wrote: »

I think it is international womans day.

It's funny because an MP (Phillip Davies) here in the UK recently brought up the idea of an international mens day and was hounded out of the parliament by those 'poorly' represented women. Go figure.

(He was then appointed to the 'Womens and Equality Commsision where his first question was why the gender disparity in the name of a commission of equality? He was then labelled an anti-feminist nazi, we await his response.)

Yeah every radio station, newspaper and TV news show has been banging on about women's issues. I have heard about the gender pay gap about 6 times today. I can take no more. Most days we hear something but today has been stand clear. Its very frustrating to hear people talking about the gender pay gap totally unopposed.

lazybones32

FortySeven wrote: »

You should take a walk to your local court, go to the court office and read the definitions of domestic violence that are provided there in a wall poster by womens aid. (I have)

Raising your voice, phoning to ask when they will be home, name calling, putting them down, checking their phone.

These are family court accepted norms of domestic abuse, family court is held in secret and the burden of proof is not required. An allegation is enough to cost a man his home, his children and a large part of his paycheck.

Solicitors refer to it as the silver bullet. Quickest way to get what you want.

Now. I was forcefully assaulted whilst being called names and if you want to say that was trivial then I must refer you back to those family court accepted womens aid definitions. Who is trivialising this exactly?

In reply to others who seem to think I somehow demeaned myself by later having sex with her (or demeaned her by having my jollies, not really sure what you were trying to imply)

It is socially acceptable for women to strike men. It happens every day on tv, in films and in real life. Women celebrate a man being put in his place if he does something wrong. You go girl! It's not so long ago they broadcast loose women laughing about a story where a woman cut off a mans penis. No sanctions.

I took it on the chin, calmed her down and later she was all over me like a rash. Make of that what you will. I don't care for anymore dissection of my sex life.

In short, I was (by definition) assaulted. It was within a relationship. It is domestic violence and if the roles had been reversed and I had struck a woman who came to my door after ignoring me for a few weeks, I would be wearing a couple of uncomfortable bracelets in no short order. End of.

I didn't make a complaint. I'm not complaining that it happened. I am merely pointing out the double standard men are forced to live by when it comes to DV. It is only going to get worse too under the new legislation being enacted right now.

I hope this clarifies things somewhat.

You were. If your story ended with '25 mins later she was trying to have sex with me' the whole thread could have gone a different route (did you call specifically for sex though? - you don't have to answer that). Yet you stayed through the name calling and slapping. You put up with it when, imo, you should have walked, no matter the situation. And then your mickey fell into and out of her a number of times.

And if she is crazy, you could be in serious trouble...your dna is on her, neighbours might have heard her screaming at you...

One eyed Jack

FortySeven wrote: »

You should take a walk to your local court, go to the court office and read the definitions of domestic violence that are provided there in a wall poster by womens aid. (I have)

Raising your voice, phoning to ask when they will be home, name calling, putting them down, checking their phone.

These are family court accepted norms of domestic abuse, family court is held in secret and the burden of proof is not required. An allegation is enough to cost a man his home, his children and a large part of his paycheck.

Solicitors refer to it as the silver bullet. Quickest way to get what you want.

Now. I was forcefully assaulted whilst being called names and if you want to say that was trivial then I must refer you back to those family court accepted womens aid definitions. Who is trivialising this exactly?

In reply to others who seem to think I somehow demeaned myself by later having sex with her (or demeaned her by having my jollies, not really sure what you were trying to imply)

It is socially acceptable for women to strike men. It happens every day on tv, in films and in real life. Women celebrate a man being put in his place if he does something wrong. You go girl! It's not so long ago they broadcast loose women laughing about a story where a woman cut off a mans penis. No sanctions.

I took it on the chin, calmed her down and later she was all over me like a rash. Make of that what you will. I don't care for anymore dissection of my sex life.

In short, I was (by definition) assaulted. It was within a relationship. It is domestic violence and if the roles had been reversed and I had struck a woman who came to my door after ignoring me for a few weeks, I would be wearing a couple of uncomfortable bracelets in no short order. End of.

I didn't make a complaint. I'm not complaining that it happened. I am merely pointing out the double standard men are forced to live by when it comes to DV. It is only going to get worse too under the new legislation being enacted right now.

I hope this clarifies things somewhat.

It doesn't clarify anything, you're still expecting people to swallow a load of nonsense as you want to claim you're the victim of sexism, and then tell people make of it what they will, you don't care for any more dissection of your sex life?

Calling a woman giving you a slap after you've turned up on her doorstep, isn't domestic violence, by any stretch, and if you were actually put out by it, then yes, people are going to wonder why instead of reporting her for assault, you jumped into bed with her.

How can you expect anyone to take that seriously?

red ears

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't clarify anything, you're still expecting people to swallow a load of nonsense as you want to claim you're the victim of sexism, and then tell people make of it what they will, you don't care for any more dissection of your sex life?

Calling a woman giving you a slap after you've turned up on her doorstep, isn't domestic violence, by any stretch, and if you were actually put out by it, then yes, people are going to wonder why instead of reporting her for assault, you jumped into bed with her.

How can you expect anyone to take that seriously?

Assaulting someone is assaulting someone regardless of what happens afterwards.

One eyed Jack

red ears wrote: »

Assaulting someone is assaulting someone regardless of what happens afterwards.

No, it's called context.

mzungu

I think we need to take this issue to Liveline. Let the country decide.

FortySeven

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't clarify anything, you're still expecting people to swallow a load of nonsense as you want to claim you're the victim of sexism, and then tell people make of it what they will, you don't care for any more dissection of your sex life?

Calling a woman giving you a slap after you've turned up on her doorstep, isn't domestic violence, by any stretch, and if you were actually put out by it, then yes, people are going to wonder why instead of reporting her for assault, you jumped into bed with her.

How can you expect anyone to take that seriously?

You miss the point entirely. I was assaulted. No ifs, no buts.

What I choose to do about that is my prerogative, however much you believe it to be a nonsense.

I'm not crying foul, I'm not looking for sympathy. I am merely pointing out double standards. If a woman went through that then it would not only be classed as domestic violence it would be prosecuted with malice. (Without her consent even)

My dealing with the issue has no bearing on what occurred. Just as a woman who claims she walked into a door or fell down the stairs has any right to be ignored because she didn't report or later had sex with her attacker. No?

My life, my choice. Same assault.

One eyed Jack

FortySeven wrote: »

You miss the point entirely. I was assaulted. No ifs, no buts.

What I choose to do about that is my prerogative, however much you believe it to be a nonsense.

I'm not crying foul, I'm not looking for sympathy. I am merely pointing out double standards. If a woman went through that then it would not only be classed as domestic violence it would be prosecuted with malice. (Without her consent even)

My dealing with the issue has no bearing on what occurred. Just as a woman who claims she walked into a door or fell down the stairs has any right to be ignored because she didn't report or later had sex with her attacker. No?

My life, my choice. Same assault.

But you didn't claim you walked into a door or fell down the stairs, did you fall into her bed too?

The rest of your posts hinges literally on having people use their imagination. So it's imaginary sexism, in your own head. It's not even actual sexism at all then, it's just your perception.



Where is this woman btw and I'll go have a stern word with her?

lazybones32

red ears wrote: »

Assaulting someone is assaulting someone regardless of what happens afterwards.

Ever see what some Jap businessmen pay to get done to them?

ligerdub

To be fair to you I can see your point, there wouldn't be many on here giving you **** if the genders were reversed......but it wouldn't stop many people from thinking it's fairly gob****ery behaviour regardless :-)

FortySeven

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But you didn't claim you walked into a door or fell down the stairs, did you fall into her bed too?

The rest of your posts hinges literally on having people use their imagination. So it's imaginary sexism, in your own head. It's not even actual sexism at all then, it's just your perception.



Where is this woman btw and I'll go have a stern word with her?

Not really sure where you are coming from, I can see your point perhaps within a group of friends or maybe a small social circle. (SSSSHHHH, that's not for us to say.....)

I'm seeking nothing. I need no retribution nor do I require any sympathy, political backing or justification.

I would not dream of slapping a woman at any time for any cause.

However, I was recently slapped by a woman for no reason other than I failed to communicate with her.

You are saying this is socially acceptable and I agree.

My point is that we need to change this acceptability that women can assault men. What say you?

FortySeven

lazybones32 wrote: »

Ever see what some Jap businessmen pay to get done to them?

Yep. Durty buggers. However, that's choice. Very different.

__Alex__

Deleted User wrote: »

You really think that women would ask for gender balance or advantages starting from the bottom upwards?

I don't think anyone would. My point was there are unglamorous low-paid jobs for both genders and ain't no gender going to argue for equality in the ones that skew towards the other gender. So bringing them up in relation to equality in more lucrative jobs is a bit silly. There's a reason why people want better access to well-paid jobs. I'm for meritocracy myself all the way though. I think it's been shown that the people most likely to be shut out of interviews for good jobs are people with ethnic-sounding surnames. So it's not really a gender issue anyway that I can see.

lazybones32

FortySeven wrote: »

Yep. Durty buggers. However, that's choice. Very different.

You had a choice too. You could have done a number of different things to show that what was done was wrong and unacceptable. Maybe too late now though...

And fyi, I'd be as thorough with anyone presenting this story. You're not getting special focus because you're male.

One eyed Jack

FortySeven wrote: »

However, I was recently slapped by a woman for no reason other than I failed to communicate with her.

You are saying this is socially acceptable and I agree.

My point is that we need to change this acceptability that women can assault men. What say you?

Whoa!! Dial back there. If that's what you took from my posts then you took me up completely wrong. I never once said it was socially acceptable for a woman to hit a man, under any circumstances. There's no need to change anything, most people would say it's unacceptable for a woman to hit a man. However, the exchange between yourself and your lady friend is not a very good example of domestic violence in a relationship as you admit yourself there was no relationship, only friendship, and it's not an example I would consider useful in arguing a case of sexism in domestic violence cases against men.

FortySeven

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whoa!! Dial back there. If that's what you took from my posts then you took me up completely wrong. I never once said it was socially acceptable for a woman to hit a man, under any circumstances. There's no need to change anything, most people would say it's unacceptable for a woman to hit a man. However, the exchange between yourself and your lady friend is not a very good example of domestic violence in a relationship as you admit yourself there was no relationship, only friendship, and it's not an example I would consider useful in arguing a case of sexism in domestic violence cases against men.

Again, I'm going to push the role reversal angle.

If a woman, who was having a relationship with a man, this relationship being one of a mutual agreement whereupon the companionship was of a sexual nature with no outcome...........

Perfectly reasonable? A normal kind of thing. (I dare you to question a womans right to do as she pleases)

This relationship then deteriorates to a point where she decides to rekindle it only to be met with physical assault. Verbal abuse of the highest order.

She then posts on a discussion board what happened. Please don't make me re-reg to show what the response would be if my name was 'black-eyecup_cake.'

There is a part of me who would love to take every post from a year ago in relationship issues and reverse the genders to see what responses would be forthcoming.

Gender perception is ingrained and desperately bias towards women. Men are advised to 'man up'. Women are advised to play victim and take men for all they have.

Cest la vie.

One eyed Jack

FortySeven wrote: »

Again, I'm going to push the role reversal angle.

If a woman, who was having a relationship with a man, this relationship being one of a mutual agreement whereupon the companionship was of a sexual nature with no outcome...........

Perfectly reasonable? A normal kind of thing. (I dare you to question a womans right to do as she pleases)

This relationship then deteriorates to a point where she decides to rekindle it only to be met with physical assault. Verbal abuse of the highest order.

She then posts on a discussion board what happened. Please don't make me re-reg to show what the response would be if my name was 'black-eyecup_cake.'

There is a part of me who would love to take every post from a year ago in relationship issues and reverse the genders to see what responses would be forthcoming.

Gender perception is ingrained and desperately bias towards women. Men are advised to 'man up'. Women are advised to play victim and take men for all they have.

Cest la vie.

That seems to be all you're interested in, reversing the genders, and then you imagine it would play out differently. So you haven't experienced sexism (in this instance at least), and yet you want people to make of it what they will. I've made of your example what I'm going to make of it, and it wasn't sexism, and no amount of imagination will make it sexism you have personally experienced.

What makes you think I have never questioned a woman's right to do as she pleases though? Is that your own gender perception that seems desperately ingrained and biased against women?

For what it's worth btw, I was never told to 'man up', and I've never told anyone to man up either. Make of that what you will, because I think I've entertained this nonsense far enough.

FortySeven

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That seems to be all you're interested in, reversing the genders, and then you imagine it would play out differently. So you haven't experienced sexism (in this instance at least), and yet you want people to make of it what they will. I've made of your example what I'm going to make of it, and it wasn't sexism, and no amount of imagination will make it sexism you have personally experienced.

What makes you think I have never questioned a woman's right to do as she pleases though? Is that your own gender perception that seems desperately ingrained and biased against women?

For what it's worth btw, I was never told to 'man up', and I've never told anyone to man up either. Make of that what you will, because I think I've entertained this nonsense far enough.

OK. In a previous relationship with 3 children involved I was attacked by my then 15 year old step daughter outside her bedroom. This was due to me questioning her going out at 2am to meet her drug dealing, scourge of the estate boyfriend.

She set about me on the landing with fists and kicks, I held her at arms length and at that point her mother (my partner of 9 years) jumped on my back like a limpet. Legs around my torso, arms around my neck she held me backwards as her daughter punched and kicked me.

This went on for a few minutes until I realised I was very close to the stairs. Afraid of going down the stairs I decided to put an end to this, reached over my head and grabbed my partner by the hair, pulled her off my back at which point she ran into the bedroom where our 4 and 5 year old children were and grabbed them, held them in front of her and started screaming.

I kid you not, I WANTED to punch that woman right in the head. Instead I calmly packed a bag and left the house.

This did not stop her from getting a preliminary protection order. (This is standard upon ANY accusation, you are not there to counter) After a period of time elapsed (28 days) we had sorted our issues and were back together. Had to go to court R.E. protection order and although my partner described exactly what happened as above, protection order was extended against me for a further 28 days.

I didn't contest it, stuff was sorted. Imagine my horror when this was used against me in family court last year to deny me any right to see the children I was a father to for 9 years.

Double standards? Don't even get me started. There are a million stories like mine. Trust me. The campaign is just gathering momentum, see D.A.D.S. on facebook. (Happily protesting) See P.A.P.A. Same story.

I'm not for mens rights, I'm all for reigning in women a bit.