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

Wibbs

maybe

FortySeven wrote: »

Double standards? Don't even get me started. There are a million stories like mine. Trust me.

I dunno about a million stories F, but I have five similar enough stories in the lives of mates of mine. In cases like this the man is as a given seen as the likely perpetrator, or at least in practical terms the one asked to leave.

One eyed Jack

FortySeven wrote: »

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.

Yeah look FS, I'm not going to pass comment on your individual circumstances that go way beyond the scope of this thread, and to be frank, I'm not going looking at any shìte on facebook either, I saw enough of it day in, day out, over two decades of it. I don't work in that area any more, simply because I got sick of dealing with shìt from people who always felt like they had been hard done by, by everyone. They were faultless of course.

The one opportunity you had to actually say no to a woman and you decided you wouldn't, and instead ended up in bed with her, who do you think you're kidding about reining women in a bit? Rein yourself in, then you wouldn't have people wondering 'wtf?' when you come out with stories like that.

FortySeven

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah look FS, I'm not going to pass comment on your individual circumstances that go way beyond the scope of this thread, and to be frank, I'm not going looking at any shìte on facebook either, I saw enough of it day in, day out, over two decades of it. I don't work in that area any more, simply because I got sick of dealing with shìt from people who always felt like they had been hard done by, by everyone. They were faultless of course.

The one opportunity you had to actually say no to a woman and you decided you wouldn't, and instead ended up in bed with her, who do you think you're kidding about reining women in a bit? Rein yourself in, then you wouldn't have people wondering 'wtf?' when you come out with stories like that.

Again, you're missing the point. Rape is becoming rapidly retrospective. (America, granted but when USA sneezes.....) It's easy to pick apart one story, it is not so easy to disregard the global push to allow women the right to cry rape, assault, verbal etc whilst men daily suffer in silence.

As long as a woman slapping a man is seen as acceptable on TV (as it is now) yet checking the phone of your partner to see if she is having an affair (it happens) is deemed domestic violence then this is societal sexism towards males.

We have so much more to lose, they get the house, the kids and a funded lifestyle 90% of the time.

Until family court starts on a presumption of 50/50 instead of woman takes all and you negotiate for the scraps then we are in a fight, it will be a long fight but highlighting the day to day double standards is the first step.

Being slapped by a woman is a double standard, they think it is ok. I would never dream of doing it to them........

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah look FS, I'm not going to pass comment on your individual circumstances that go way beyond the scope of this thread, and to be frank, I'm not going looking at any shìte on facebook either, I saw enough of it day in, day out, over two decades of it. I don't work in that area any more, simply because I got sick of dealing with shìt from people who always felt like they had been hard done by, by everyone. They were faultless of course.

The one opportunity you had to actually say no to a woman and you decided you wouldn't, and instead ended up in bed with her, who do you think you're kidding about reining women in a bit? Rein yourself in, then you wouldn't have people wondering 'wtf?' when you come out with stories like that.

I am so glad you don't work in the area anymore with an attitude like that. Its clear to anyone who has seen your post just where you fall on these discussions.

How many individual circumstances will you ignore until you face up to their being a societal problem where men can be victimized but we are told to just man up or that the law works to favor the woman predominantly.

One eyed Jack

FortySeven wrote: »

Again, you're missing the point. Rape is becoming rapidly retrospective. (America, granted but when USA sneezes.....) It's easy to pick apart one story, it is not so easy to disregard the global push to allow women the right to cry rape, assault, verbal etc whilst men daily suffer in silence.

There's no "global push" for that, not even if America sneezes. If you don't want men to suffer in silence, the solution isn't going to come about by trying to silence women. It's going to come about by men giving men the support they need if they want to speak out. That doesn't mean I have to support men who just want to bitch and moan about women. I wouldn't support women who wanted to do the same about men either. I don't think such tactics are in any way productive for anyone, regardless of their gender.

As long as a woman slapping a man is seen as acceptable on TV (as it is now) yet checking the phone of your partner to see if she is having an affair (it happens) is deemed domestic violence then this is societal sexism towards males.

Where are you getting this from? It isn't seen as acceptable, anywhere, for a woman to slap a man. It also isn't acceptable IMO for anyone to be checking their partners phone, and such behaviour could be viewed as a bigger picture of domestic violence, in context. Domestic violence includes physical, psychological, sexual, emotional, mental and verbal abuse. There isn't any sexism against males in this regard, certainly none that I've ever experienced anyway. People are going to draw their own conclusions irrespective of gender.

We have so much more to lose, they get the house, the kids and a funded lifestyle 90% of the time.

No, what women get is a fair deal. You might not consider it a fair deal, they may not consider it a fair deal, but often times they're both as bad as each other, so there's your 50/50.

Until family court starts on a presumption of 50/50 instead of woman takes all and you negotiate for the scraps then we are in a fight, it will be a long fight but highlighting the day to day double standards is the first step.

Who's this 'we' business? I'm recently separated from my wife, my child lives with me, and I didn't have to move out of the family home either. There was no fighting and it's all been very civil as we are acting in the best interests of our child, even after we separated. I can't say the same for a lot of people I've seen use any children involved as "property" with which to spite their ex-spouse. The double standards you refer to I'm afraid are unique to your own perspective, the same way everyone who ever felt they have been hard done by has pointed to perceived "double standards" in one way or another.

Being slapped by a woman is a double standard, they think it is ok. I would never dream of doing it to them........

Did you ignore the fact that I for one never agreed it was ok? You didn't object to it while you were balls deep in the woman who did slap you, so your claims of double standards ring hollow. You're also ignoring the vast majority of women in society who are campaigning against all forms of violence in society, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who's this 'we' business? I'm recently separated from my wife, my child lives with me, and I didn't have to move out of the family home either. There was no fighting and it's all been very civil as we are acting in the best interests of our child, even after we separated. I can't say the same for a lot of people I've seen use any children involved as "property" with which to spite their ex-spouse. The double standards you refer to I'm afraid are unique to your own perspective, the same way everyone who ever felt they have been hard done by has pointed to perceived "double standards" in one way or another.

Your one of the lucky ones, not that i am impacted by this personal myself i am a child of divorce and have seen first hand how the system can be abused.

What is it with allot men that have daughters that turns them into hardline feminists. They seem to take the daddy thing so seriously they have to take on the world to make it a big safe space on behalf of their daughters.

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

Your one of the lucky ones, not that i am impacted by this personal myself i am a child of divorce and have seen first hand how the system can be abused.

I'm not one of the lucky ones. You may not have considered this from another perspective, but I would rather my marriage had worked out as there's nothing 'lucky' about it, not for me, not for my wife, and not for our son. It's a shìtty situation all round, and bricks and mortar, nor all the money in the world, doesn't make it any better. It's ****e, but I don't tend to let on.

What is it with allot men that have daughters that turns them into hardline feminists. They seem to take the daddy thing so seriously they have to take on the world to make it a big safe space on behalf of their daughters.

FS doesn't strike me as a hardline feminist.

FortySeven

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's no "global push" for that, not even if America sneezes. If you don't want men to suffer in silence, the solution isn't going to come about by trying to silence women. It's going to come about by men giving men the support they need if they want to speak out. That doesn't mean I have to support men who just want to bitch and moan about women. I wouldn't support women who wanted to do the same about men either. I don't think such tactics are in any way productive for anyone, regardless of their gender.


Where are you getting this from? It isn't seen as acceptable, anywhere, for a woman to slap a man. It also isn't acceptable IMO for anyone to be checking their partners phone, and such behaviour could be viewed as a bigger picture of domestic violence, in context. Domestic violence includes physical, psychological, sexual, emotional, mental and verbal abuse. There isn't any sexism against males in this regard, certainly none that I've ever experienced anyway. People are going to draw their own conclusions irrespective of gender.





No, what women get is a fair deal. You might not consider it a fair deal, they may not consider it a fair deal, but often times they're both as bad as each other, so there's your 50/50.





Who's this 'we' business? I'm recently separated from my wife, my child lives with me, and I didn't have to move out of the family home either. There was no fighting and it's all been very civil as we are acting in the best interests of our child, even after we separated. I can't say the same for a lot of people I've seen use any children involved as "property" with which to spite their ex-spouse. The double standards you refer to I'm afraid are unique to your own perspective, the same way everyone who ever felt they have been hard done by has pointed to perceived "double standards" in one way or another.





Did you ignore the fact that I for one never agreed it was ok? You didn't object to it while you were balls deep in the woman who did slap you, so your claims of double standards ring hollow. You're also ignoring the vast majority of women in society who are campaigning against all forms of violence in society, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator.

We clearly live on different planets. Care to show me the statistics for men gaining custody and retaining the family home in a contested divorce in Ireland?

Be sure to beam it to earth from whichever planet you reside on......


I'm all ears..

I'll be back tomorrow with the actual facts.

The rest of your post I will also answer tomorrow. Right after I stop laughing and crying in equal measure.

One eyed Jack

FortySeven wrote: »

We clearly live on different planets. Care to show me the statistics for men gaining custody and retaining the family home in a contested divorce in Ireland?

Be sure to beam it to earth from whichever planet you reside on......


I'm all ears..

I'll be back tomorrow with the actual facts.

The rest of your post I will also answer tomorrow. Right after I stop laughing and crying in equal measure.

Honestly, don't bother.

You're clearly only focused on one specific aspect of marital breakdown and ignoring all else which doesn't suit your biased perspective. Society in your case isn't the problem, I live on the same planet you do, but because I don't share your perspective, I must be living on a different planet. Everyone who doesn't share your perspective is living on a different planet.

And then you wonder why men avoid that sort of nonsense in their droves? Not because they're closet feminists, but simply because they have better things to be doing than wallowing in how hard they have it.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not one of the lucky ones. You may not have considered this from another perspective, but I would rather my marriage had worked out as there's nothing 'lucky' about it, not for me, not for my wife, and not for our son. It's a shìtty situation all round, and bricks and mortar, nor all the money in the world, doesn't make it any better. It's ****e, but I don't tend to let on.





FS doesn't strike me as a hardline feminist.

No mate you are lucky, as your breakup seems to have been mutual enough and you were both grown adults about it that you didnt have to find yourself in a position that many fathers in Ireland did.

How else am i suppose to take it, your in a sexist thread and we have basically been talking about how society deals with male violence and how men are treated in the court and you have basically said you know better and dismissed the otherside.

Why don't you tell us to go check our privilege and leave it at that?

iptba

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.

The equality issue of (enforced) military service and conscription still remains.
There is an imbalance there in lots of countries around the world.

Even if the US are now letting paid women in infantry positions, only males are required to sign up to the selective service system which would be used for future drafts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

And to reply to somebody else, it is reasonable to expect a movement that is supposed to be fighting for equality to fight for men and women to be treated equally in areas such as conscription and military service. The fact that feminists don't do this is an example of them being more like a women's trade union rather than a movement that fights for equality equally for both genders.

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

No mate you are lucky, as your breakup seems to have been mutual enough and you were both grown adults about it that you didnt have to find yourself in a position that many fathers in Ireland did.

I'm lucky I have you to remind me I'm lucky. Behaving like mature adults and acting in the best interests of all involved, isn't a matter of luck. I didn't find myself in the position that many fathers find themselves in, because I didn't behave like the fathers who find themselves in the positions they're in, nor did my wife behave like many mothers who find themselves in the positions they're in.

How else am i suppose to take it, your in a sexist thread and we have basically been talking about how society deals with male violence and how men are treated in the court and you have basically said you know better and dismissed the otherside.

It appears you'll take it whatever way you like, even jumping to conclusions which have absolutely no basis whatsoever. Yeah, we were taking about violence against men perpetrated by women, and FS presented a poor example of same, then came out with a whole load of other issues, and then the thread moved on to how fathers are treated in the courts in custody and divorce cases. The least we could do if we're making a commentary about society is try at least to maintain some sort of objectivity.

Dismissive would be suggesting that men who don't share your perspective are lucky, that they're living on a different planet, that they must be full on feminists because they have daughters. Still wondering why women are able to avail of more social supports than men?

Why don't you tell us to go check our privilege and leave it at that?

Here, earlier on it was you who was telling me how lucky I am, but yeah, probably for the best alright I do leave it, as I can't see either yourself or FS making even the slightest attempt to be objective any time soon even though you're as much a part of the society you claim is conspiring against you, solely on the basis of your gender.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm lucky I have you to remind me I'm lucky. Behaving like mature adults and acting in the best interests of all involved, isn't a matter of luck. I didn't find myself in the position that many fathers find themselves in, because I didn't behave like the fathers who find themselves in the positions they're in, nor did my wife behave like many mothers who find themselves in the positions they're in.





It appears you'll take it whatever way you like, even jumping to conclusions which have absolutely no basis whatsoever. Yeah, we were taking about violence against men perpetrated by women, and FS presented a poor example of same, then came out with a whole load of other issues, and then the thread moved on to how fathers are treated in the courts in custody and divorce cases. The least we could do if we're making a commentary about society is try at least to maintain some sort of objectivity.

Dismissive would be suggesting that men who don't share your perspective are lucky, that they're living on a different planet, that they must be full on feminists because they have daughters. Still wondering why women are able to avail of more social supports than men?





Here, earlier on it was you who was telling me how lucky I am, but yeah, probably for the best alright I do leave it, as I can't see either yourself or FS making even the slightest attempt to be objective any time soon even though you're as much a part of the society you claim is conspiring against you, solely on the basis of your gender.

So its all those other men's fault they are in the position they are in right? the law's arent skewed at all against them? and there isnt an automatic assumption that the mother is primary care giver?

I'll call it like i see it and with you, i know exactly what im looking at. This thread changes allot, just a day ago we were talking about height and weight this discussion moved on from it. This is the gentlemen's club and we are talking about sexism about men, as much as we like its going to be biased in one way or another.

I am sorry you didnt get over the divorce well but when we compare your situation to other men who didnt have an understanding partner there is no comparison.

Tell us how we should be objective, what in your infinite wisdom do men do wrong when it comes to divorce in this day and age? Ill make an attempt to be objective when i don't see dismissive crap when someone explains a story about how they were attacked by their step daughter and ex partner.

You got triggered by the "reign them in " comment and its the only thing you could see. You ignored everything else after that

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

So its all those other men's fault they are in the position they are in right? the law's arent skewed at all against them? and there isnt an automatic assumption that the mother is primary care giver?

Who else's fault is it? What laws are skewed against them? In most cases the mother is the primary care giver, that's not just an automatic assumption, and it doesn't mean she would be automatically awarded custody either. I know of a number of cases where fathers were awarded custody of the children, because it was in the interests of the children involved, not because either parent saw the children as their property.

I'll call it like i see it and with you, i know exactly what im looking at. This thread changes allot, just a day ago we were talking about height and weight this discussion moved on from it. This is the gentlemen's club and we are talking about sexism about men, as much as we like its going to be biased in one way or another.

Yeah, the whole trying to claim women are sexist because they aren't attracted to men is dumb. It's not sexism that women aren't attracted to shortarses, plenty of women are; just that the men complaining that women aren't attracted to them, aren't attracted to those women. There's no double standards there, nobody is entitled to complain because people aren't attracted to them and claim it's due to sexism.

For sure this is the Gentleman's Club, and this is supposed to be a thread about sexism that men have experienced or heard of, and there have been plenty of good examples of sexism against men, but when we start down the road of "imagine if the genders were reversed"... we shouldn't have to imagine, either it's sexism, or it's something that we have to imagine would be sexist, which makes about as much sense as some feminists wanting us to believe in rape culture.

I am sorry you didnt get over the divorce well but when we compare your situation to other men who didnt have an understanding partner there is no comparison.

At no point did I mention I was divorced (so much for calling it like you see it, because that was nowhere to be seen), and of course there's a comparison can be drawn if you're actually comparing my situation to other men who didn't have an understanding partner. If we actually were understanding partners, we'd still be together, the whole point of separating was because we didn't understand each other!

Tell us how we should be objective, what in your infinite wisdom do men do wrong when it comes to divorce in this day and age? Ill make an attempt to be objective when i don't see dismissive crap when someone explains a story about how they were attacked by their step daughter and ex partner.

Being objective is the opposite of your opinion being informed by subjective personal experience. It means examining all the factors in separation and divorce cases, and as we're in Ireland, on an Irish website, it means at least restricting ourselves to Irish society rather than hopping from the USA to the Middle East to shore up our respective arguments.

You got triggered by the "reign them in " comment and its the only thing you could see. You ignored everything else after that

I didn't though, I was wondering wtf was the point FS was trying to make about sexism he had personally experienced when a woman slapped him so he had sex with her. Yeah, I'm sure that really showed her, good on FS for standing up to her and taking one for the team in his own, quite frankly bizarre, way.

Not on my behalf he didn't, unless having sex with women when they slap us is the new approach men are to take in combatting sexism against them. Complaining afterwards that someone slapped you before you had sex with them is even more bizarre than the idea of a woman withdrawing consent after the fact.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who else's fault is it? What laws are skewed against them? In most cases the mother is the primary care giver, that's not just an automatic assumption, and it doesn't mean she would be automatically awarded custody either. I know of a number of cases where fathers were awarded custody of the children, because it was in the interests of the children involved, not because either parent saw the children as their property.





Yeah, the whole trying to claim women are sexist because they aren't attracted to men is dumb. It's not sexism that women aren't attracted to shortarses, plenty of women are; just that the men complaining that women aren't attracted to them, aren't attracted to those women. There's no double standards there, nobody is entitled to complain because people aren't attracted to them and claim it's due to sexism.

For sure this is the Gentleman's Club, and this is supposed to be a thread about sexism that men have experienced or heard of, and there have been plenty of good examples of sexism against men, but when we start down the road of "imagine if the genders were reversed"... we shouldn't have to imagine, either it's sexism, or it's something that we have to imagine would be sexist, which makes about as much sense as some feminists wanting us to believe in rape culture.





At no point did I mention I was divorced (so much for calling it like you see it, because that was nowhere to be seen), and of course there's a comparison can be drawn if you're actually comparing my situation to other men who didn't have an understanding partner. If we actually were understanding partners, we'd still be together, the whole point of separating was because we didn't understand each other!





Being objective is the opposite of your opinion being informed by subjective personal experience. It means examining all the factors in separation and divorce cases, and as we're in Ireland, on an Irish website, it means at least restricting ourselves to Irish society rather than hopping from the USA to the Middle East to shore up our respective arguments.





I didn't though, I was wondering wtf was the point FS was trying to make about sexism he had personally experienced when a woman slapped him so he had sex with her. Yeah, I'm sure that really showed her, good on FS for standing up to her and taking one for the team in his own, quite frankly bizarre, way.

Not on my behalf he didn't, unless having sex with women when they slap us is the new approach men are to take in combatting sexism against them. Complaining afterwards that someone slapped you before you had sex with them even more bizarre than the idea of a woman withdrawing consent after the fact.

The court system generally has been seen to be biased. Just because you worked in the system and can pick out a few cases doesnt mean there isnt an issue though.

Maybe i missed that part of the discussion but i thought the argument were woman cannot call men short arses and not be attracted to them while at the same time wanting men to be attracted to them for being fat. My understanding this was the comparison being drawn.

This thread became more than just examples of sexism a long time ago its a catch all discussion on personal examples of sexism against men but talking about the wider issue. If you have a problem with it take it up with the mod team but expect push back everytime you try and force the conversation down the path you deem should be discussed.

You know exactly what i meant, your just trying to deflect. I will say it again though as its not getting through, not many people have such a smooth breakup as you and your partner did. Allot of men would feel lucky in your situation.

You don't get to decide what is objective and what is not, we don't operate or live in a vacuum what happens in other parts of the world impacts on our ecosystem and thought processes. We should obviously try and keep it in the context of our own part of the world but we can still talk about whats happening elsewhere as it could happen here. We only have to look how liberal folk in society are adopting trends from the states, in the case of rape we only have to look at the thread on after hours to see exactly what he was talking about.

Yah i was wondering about that part of his discussion also, not as much as the reign them in comment triggering you though and how you just breezed past the rest of what he said.

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

Yah i was wondering about that part of his discussion also, not as much as the reign them in comment triggering you though and how you just breezed past the rest of what he said.

It's more than a bit rich for you to claim I ignored anything and that you're "calling it like you see it" when you're purposely ignoring everything I just said and substituting it with your own biased perspective of reality.

If that's what you consider objective, I'll leave you to it Calhoun as we're obviously not likely at this stage to come to any sort of an understanding and I just don't have the time nor the energy to "imagine if the genders were reversed" and ignore all other factors in order to have people perceive sexism where it doesn't exist.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's more than a bit rich for you to claim I ignored anything and that you're "calling it like you see it" when you're purposely ignoring everything I just said and substituting it with your own biased perspective of reality.

If that's what you consider objective, I'll leave you to it Calhoun as we're obviously not likely at this stage to come to any sort of an understanding and I just don't have the time nor the energy to "imagine if the genders were reversed" and ignore all other factors in order to have people perceive sexism where it doesn't exist.

I didn't ignore it but like most of your kind unless I'm agreeing with you I must have something wrong with me why don't you throw out a label

Great thanks I had the same feeling your entrenched on one side I'm on another that is perfectly fine place to be.

One eyed Jack

Calhoun wrote: »

I didn't ignore it but like most of your kind unless I'm agreeing with you I must have something wrong with me why don't you throw out a label

Great thanks I had the same feeling your entrenched on one side I'm on another that is perfectly fine place to be.

You don't even see the irony, do you? I'm not the man who insists in spite of all evidence to the contrary that any man who disagrees with me must be a feminist. In a thread concerned with sexism against men, you dismiss a man as a feminist because he disagrees with you, and then you're actually proud to be so entrenched in your opinion that does men absolutely no favours whatsoever.

If you just want to complain about feminism you could have just stated that early and saved us both an awful lot of ball breaking behaviour.

Zulu

No

psinno wrote: »

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.

I concur.

__Alex__ wrote: »

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.

This wasn't described as a "one night stand" but rather "friends with benefits". That from that what you will, but to me it clearly implies much more than two strangers banging.

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.

This is certainly true of most cases.

Arguing that this is domestic violence is contrarian and you probably know it.

I believe there is a scale. What you've mentioned above is at one end, and I'd suggest what the posted mentioned is at the other.
Physical violence is involved.
Have you ever struck your partner across the face? It's simply not acceptable, and to forgive it, glance over it, or dismiss it as some of the posters here have is telling of both their ignorance and attitudes.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don't even see the irony, do you? I'm not the man who insists in spite of all evidence to the contrary that any man who disagrees with me must be a feminist. In a thread concerned with sexism against men, you dismiss a man as a feminist because he disagrees with you, and then you're actually proud to be so entrenched in your opinion that does men absolutely no favours whatsoever.

If you just want to complain about feminism you could have just stated that early and saved us both an awful lot of ball breaking behaviour.

Not at all I am just calling you out on what you have posted, your the one arguing with a father above and saying he must be at fault because you had a different experience. As I said you skipped past the important part of what he was saying as he dared say reign women in.

We will of course complain about 3rd wave feminism in this thread but not I am OK with 2nd wave.

eviltwin

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?

To answer your second question, no I wouldn't give that same advice to a battered wife ( or battered husband ) because its not the same situation. Domestic violence is not just about the physical attack, its also the mental and emotional control and for someone living with a partner who is abusing them, who has no place to go or who feels afraid of their own safety or that of their children if they do its a lot more complex than this situation.

What happened to Fortyseven was not okay and I would say that no matter who was hitting him, no matter who was being hit. I would have walked away at that point, I would have advised anyone else to do the same. People suffering domestic violence can't always walk away. The impression I get from Fortyseven is that is was a casual arrangement and there was none of the emotional issues that are associated with other intimate relationships, I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I've worked with domestic violence victims in the past and my answer had nothing to do with feminist dogma whatever that might be....I'm talking from experience. Physical violence is not okay but its not all domestic violence and tbh I find it hard to be outraged on behalf of someone who didn't feel outraged enough himself to call a halt.

Zulu

No

Ah fair enough. Good point well made. And please don't confuse a conversation point with outrage - clearly he didn't seem to care, so (I say flippantly) "all's fair in love and war".

__Alex__

Zulu wrote: »

I concur.

This wasn't described as a "one night stand" but rather "friends with benefits". That from that what you will, but to me it clearly implies much more than two strangers banging.
This is certainly true of most cases.
I believe there is a scale. What you've mentioned above is at one end, and I'd suggest what the posted mentioned is at the other.
Physical violence is involved.
Have you ever struck your partner across the face? It's simply not acceptable, and to forgive it, glance over it, or dismiss it as some of the posters here have is telling of both their ignorance and attitudes.

No, I haven't and wouldn't. What that poster describes is assault not domestic violence. There needs to be a domestic situation for starters which there wasn't here. It was one incident perpetrated by someone in a very tenuous association with someone they don't live with. If you are determined to consider it domestic violence rather than assault, knock yourself out. I just don't really see why you would. And it certainly isn't ignorance to not consider this domestic violence, it's just common sense.

Zulu

No

__Alex__ wrote: »

...It was one incident perpetrated by someone in a very tenuous association with someone they don't live with...

I see you are eager to minimise this as much as possible. Fair enough that's your prerogative.

I would say however that any "friends with benefits" relationship I was party to in my youth wasn't what a rational person would describe as "a very tenuous association". But perhaps you'll know more about that than I would.

__Alex__

Zulu wrote: »

I see you are eager to minimise this as much as possible. Fair enough that's your prerogative.

I would say however that any "friends with benefits" relationship I was party to in my youth wasn't what a rational person would describe as "a very tenuous association". But perhaps you'll know more about that than I would.

I don't see how calling it assault is minimising it. Can you flesh that out a bit?

Zulu

No

__Alex__ wrote: »

I don't see how calling it assault is minimising it. Can you flesh that out a bit?

The salient part was highlighted in my post in quotations.

JRant

After listening to the nonstop drivel across the media yesterday and in my own work place I must be living in some parallel universe. Christ you'd swear women across the country were being sent to work in labour camps and chained up at the end of their shift.

Am I missing something here but can a country were women live significantly longer, are better educated, and more likely to have a third level education be seriously considered as not being a good place for women?

Carlos Orange

No

JRant wrote: »

Am I missing something here but can a country were women live significantly longer, are better educated, and more likely to have a third level education be seriously considered as not being a good place for women?

The worlds a strange place. Look at the gender pay gap in Ireland , Italy and Sweden. Does that reflect how you hear people talk about gender in those countries?




http://www.activecharts.org/share/58860e383bd40245e2dd3c714910916f

red ears

psinno wrote: »

The worlds a strange place. Look at the gender pay gap in Ireland , Italy and Sweden. Does that reflect how you hear people talk about gender in those countries?




http://www.activecharts.org/share/58860e383bd40245e2dd3c714910916f

Interesting chart, obviously women choose to work less hours than men when they have children. In most countries now women are better educated than men so there is something else going on in Ireland for women with no children to be earning so much more than men. I'd say its the lack of a normal building industry. We just don't have enough building work here to sustain well paying jobs for men in the 25 to 44 age group. What little work there is will not pay as well as it should because of an over supply of tradesmen competing for the jobs on offer.

Sleepy

While construction is lucrative during bubbles, it's by no means a high income profession for employees in normal market conditions (at least in terms of reported taxable income - much of many tradesmen's income will be "nixers"). It's also considered "low skilled" compared to many of the roles this demographic of women trend towards these days: medicine, biomed, law, finance, marketing etc.

There's also the matter of the over-representation of women in the public sector, where remuneration is higher than for equivalent positions in the private sector.

I'd be surprised if any such research paid any attention to the actual roles being performed by those they're comparing in this research however. It's not easy to find perfectly comparable roles (and the results of doing so might not give the researcher their desired outcome) so their involvement in the reality tends to be ignored in the research.

red ears

Sleepy wrote: »

While construction is lucrative during bubbles, it's by no means a high income profession for employees in normal market conditions (at least in terms of reported taxable income - much of many tradesmen's income will be "nixers"). It's also considered "low skilled" compared to many of the roles this demographic of women trend towards these days: medicine, biomed, law, finance, marketing etc.

There's also the matter of the over-representation of women in the public sector, where remuneration is higher than for equivalent positions in the private sector.

I'd be surprised if any such research paid any attention to the actual roles being performed by those they're comparing in this research however. It's not easy to find perfectly comparable roles (and the results of doing so might not give the researcher their desired outcome) so their involvement in the reality tends to be ignored in the research.

Men need to up their game then and start going after these high paying professions, work as hard as the girls at school. Although I don't understand why solicitor is such a high paying job anymore, I hear of many students not being able to get apprenticeships due to so many applying.

givyjoe

red ears wrote: »

Men need to up their game then and start going after these high paying professions, work as hard as the girls at school. Although I don't understand why solicitor is such a high paying job anymore, I hear of many students not being able to get apprenticeships due to so many applying.

So, if men are paid less on average ... it's because they haven't been upping their game, but need to.. but if women are paid less it's due to 'sexism'... gotcha.

red ears

red ears wrote: »

Men need to up their game then and start going after these high paying professions, work as hard as the girls at school. Although I don't understand why solicitor is such a high paying job anymore, I hear of many students not being able to get apprenticeships due to so many applying.

Men are going after these high-paid positions. The problem is the public perception about the numbers of women in higher positions, and the risk of refusing promotions to women. The threat of sexual harrassment, sexism, etc all push employers to tip-toe around female applicants whereas there is no real risk in refusing men.

I don't think many of you realise how much employment laws and the threat of public attention have changed in recent years. There is still the very common perception that women are discriminated against in the workplace.

For example, in 13 years of working at management levels (and in over 50 companies) I've never seen a female employee to be asked to make tea/coffee for the other male employees at a similar level to them. I'm sure it does happen... but usually that job would go to a secretary or PA. And yet... there is the common outraged story of some woman who has been relegated to that position. I've heard such stories repeated in the media or by feminists campaigning.

There is genuine fear in employers regarding female rights and what a female employee can do to complain or apply legal damages to. It's a lot like a sexual harrassment case.. even if the case is proven to be false and the woman at fault, the reputation of the man is destroyed. This is the same for the company that gains a media report about being discriminatory towards women.

So, no, it's not simply a case of more men applying for higher-paid jobs (at least in business related fields).... in other fields/industries that might be the case but I know very little about those other industries.

Employment laws and discrimination laws need to be revised to be more equal... and the media really needs to be reined in.

Sleepy

I honestly think it's more to do with education and skewed perceptions of value than fear of being called sexist. More women than men are getting college educations in a society where a degree is a de-facto pre-requisite for a white collar job so more of them are starting their working lives in higher paying roles that have career trajectories.

In relation to the skewed perception of value, while I can see that some white collar /professional jobs (e.g. software development & implementation, engineering, medicine) can justify the high salaries they attract due to the rarity of the skillsets to carry out those roles or the level of training required to carry them out adequately, I believe there are many such roles attracting far higher salaries than the level of skill / training required to carry out the job adequately actually demands (Marketing, HR, PR, Recruitment, Admin). Why a HR executive (who in reality is just a glorified paper pusher) is considered to be more deserving of a high salary than the front line staff they're serving baffles me frankly.

Over my career I have seen female employees being asked to make the coffee on a number of occasions, tbh, but it was always in the context of them being the most junior in the room, not in the context of them being a woman. Though, given the level of entitlement we see in third wave feminists, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear one of them crying sexism in such a scenario.

red ears

givyjoe wrote: »

So, if men are paid less on average ... it's because they haven't been upping their game, but need to.. but if women are paid less it's due to 'sexism'... gotcha.

I'm referring to the higher paid careers like medicine and law that sleepy mentioned. Women are doing better leaving certs and going into these careers in larger numbers than men.

Where did i way women are paid less due to sexism?

givyjoe

red ears wrote: »

I'm referring to the higher paid careers like medicine and law that sleepy mentioned. Women are doing better leaving certs and going into these careers in larger numbers than men.

Where did i way women are paid less due to sexism?

You didn't offer up any comment on it, you just stated that the sole reason for the gap with men, was men 'not stepping up'. Reasonable to it infer from the comment you DID make.

Tell me then, why do you believe women are not represented as equally at senior management level in many professions, sexism?

red ears

givyjoe wrote: »

You didn't offer up any comment on it, you just stated that the sole reason for the gap with men, was men 'not stepping up'. Reasonable to it infer from the comment you DID make.

Tell me then, why do you believe women are not represented as equally at senior management level in many professions, sexism?

I said

red ears wrote: »

Men need to up their game then and start going after these high paying professions, work as hard as the girls at school.

Thats pretty clear givyjoe i'm not sure why you struggled so much to understand it.

As for women not being represented at senior management, mainly it is because men worked longer hours and took less time off than the women on average and also most senior managers will be a little older and in that generation there was sexism at play. Not so much now so i'd expect to see the numbers even out over the years ahead.

givyjoe

red ears wrote: »

I said

Thats pretty clear givyjoe i'm not sure why you struggled so much to understand it.

As for women not being represented at senior management, mainly it is because men worked longer hours and took less time off than the women on average and also most senior managers will be a little older and in that generation there was sexism at play. Not so much now so i'd expect to see the numbers even out over the years ahead.

Yay, i love condescending posts.. it really helps get your point across. Keep up the good work.

It's still not really an explanation, taking girls doing better on average in the leaving cert, does not explain them earning more. College does come after you know, as does, well actual performance on the job and an ability to actually persuade your boss to actually give you more money.

An ability to memorize the sh*t out of course material on the leaving cert is no indicator of why this age bracket of women are earning more. My point being, "oh looks girls earn more now just because they do better in the leaving cert, nothing to see here/there's no problem, just work harder, move along" is a load of balls. This comes back to.. if men are now suffering a wage gap, it's something that needs to be addressed.

iptba

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd be surprised if any such research paid any attention to the actual roles being performed by those they're comparing in this research however. It's not easy to find perfectly comparable roles (and the results of doing so might not give the researcher their desired outcome) so their involvement in the reality tends to be ignored in the research.

Yes, there can be unmeasured variables that can be relevant. I remember somebody in the UK pointing out the jobs on the north sea oil rigs would have been classified in the same way has jobs on the mainland, even though it would have been more dangerous to work on the rigs and more inconvenient.

---
Warren Farrell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell#Why_Men_Earn_More

Why Men Earn More

By the start of the 21st century, Farrell felt he had re-examined every substantial adult male-female issue except the pay gap (i.e., that men as a group tend to earn more money than women as a group).[41] In Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap—and What Women Can Do About It,[42] he documents 25 differences in men and women's work-life choices which, he argues, account for most or all of the pay gap more accurately than did claims of widespread discrimination against women. Common to each of men's choices was earning more money, while each of women's choices prioritized having a more-balanced life.[43] These 25 differences allowed Farrell to offer women 25 ways to higher pay—and accompany each with their possible trade-offs.[44] The trade-offs include working more hours and for more years; taking technical or more-hazardous jobs; relocating overseas or traveling overnight.[45] This led to considerable praise for Why Men Earn More as a career book for women.[46]

Some of Farrell's findings in Why Men Earn More include his analysis of census bureau data that never-married women without children earn 13% more than their male counterparts, and that the gender pay gap is largely about married men with children who earn more due to their assuming more workplace obligations. Themes woven throughout Why Men Earn More are the importance of assessing trade-offs; that "the road to high pay is a toll road;" the "Pay Paradox" (that "pay is about the power we forfeit to get the power of pay"); and, since men earn more, and women have more balanced lives, that men have more to learn from women than women do from men.[47]

Spouses and partners tend to benefit from the wages and income of their partners so in some ways it could be argued it is not as important as some issues where any differences don't transfer e.g. if you get injured or killed at work, it doesn't mean your spouse/partner gets injured or killed.

red ears

givyjoe wrote: »

Yay, i love condescending posts.. it really helps get your point across. Keep up the good work.
.

Your 'gotcha' post earlier was pretty condescending.

givyjoe wrote: »

An ability to memorize the sh*t out of course material on the leaving cert is no indicator of why this age bracket of women are earning more. My point being, "oh looks girls earn more now just because they do better in the leaving cert, nothing to see here/there's no problem, just work harder, move along" is a load of balls. This comes back to.. if men are now suffering a wage gap, it's something that needs to be addressed.

What do attribute the gap to for women with no children.

Calhoun

red ears wrote: »

What do attribute the gap to for women with no children.

Whats the statistics on this for woman without children?

red ears

Calhoun wrote: »

Whats the statistics on this for woman without children?

The chart in post 6029

Calhoun

Thanks for that, is that saying in Ireland woman get paid 25 cent less?

Wonder what other factors lead to this is there inherent sexism going on or is it a lifestyle choice?

Anecdotally i have worked with both unmotivated woman and men, people who just like sitting in entry level positions and not doing much past that.

iptba

Calhoun wrote: »

Thanks for that, is that saying in Ireland woman get paid 25 cent less?

Women without children in Ireland earn more than men.

Calhoun

iptba wrote: »

Women without children in Ireland earn more than men.

Ah OK well I can also see that as well anecdotally I have seen allot of guys acting the bollix in work while the women beside them put the head down.

So if I read this correctly what is the problem? A child is not a right it's a lifestyle choice.

Sleepy

You think feminists understand the concept of personal choices affecting outcomes?

These people wasted their opportunity to get a free third level education attending gender studies lectures... they're not capable of such logical reasoning.

Calhoun

What is it they are after so, do they want extra rights for woman inshrined in law that says we need an indexed measure of what they should be on?

gizmo555

Calhoun wrote: »

A child is not a right it's a lifestyle choice.

Of course, nobody is obliged to have children and I'd entirely respect anyone's decision not to be a parent.

On the other hand, society as whole would be up sh1t creek if everyone decided to remain childless. As such, it's more than a bit disingenuous to say to mothers "you chose to have a child, so put up with the consequences."

Calhoun

gizmo555 wrote: »

Of course, nobody is obliged to have children and I'd entirely respect anyone's decision not to be a parent.

On the other hand, society as whole would be up sh1t creek if everyone decided to remain childless. As such, it's more than a bit disingenuous to say to mothers "you chose to have a child, so put up with the consequences."

No actually its not disingenuous, we operate in a world and a country where being a pregnant woman comes with allot of perks. We should actually go the way of my colleagues in the US, my old boss went on maternity leave and was back within 6 weeks. I highly doubt being pregnant slowed down her career at all.

Why should a business have to consider societal problems? it can just move from one country to another as it is in a global market.

gizmo555

Calhoun wrote: »

No actually its not disingenuous, we operate in a world and a country where being a pregnant woman comes with allot of perks.

The world and the country need there to be pregnant women, so why wouldn't they get "perks"? Do you expect to live beyond retirement age? If there's nobody younger than you, who do you expect will still be in the workforce providing the goods and services you'll still need? How do you expect your pension will be paid?

Calhoun wrote: »

We should actually go the way of my colleagues in the US, my old boss went on maternity leave and was back within 6 weeks. I highly doubt being pregnant slowed down her career at all.

Glad she's not my mother . . .

Calhoun wrote: »

Why should a business have to consider societal problems? it can just move from one country to another as it is in a global market.

Societal problems are business problems. One of the main reasons businesses move to Ireland apart from our tax rates is our young, educated workforce. Guess what? They all have mothers. (And fathers, of course, but only mothers do the childbearing.)