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

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

Nevermind that: can you even put together a full festival line-up of female only acts?

I'm sure it's possible if you drudge the bottom of the barrell talent wise to pad out the line-up but even if you book the big solo female artists (Annie Lennox, Florence & The Machine, Lana Del Rey, Lady Ga Ga, Beyoncé, Lorde, Adele etc.) they're likely to have men in their backing bands? Maybe it'd be possible to get them female session musicians to sub in for the weekend but then, would you get great performances? Would there even be enough top class female drummers for hire to go around or would the same few women end up playing with half the line-up?

My suspicion is that any festival that was 100% female, wouldn't be worth attending.

it would keep the crazies out of circulation but yeah it would be a cr@p and poorly attended

In reality no doubt the problem is men that follow a certain desert based religion, but the feminists cant admit that. Public safety for women in Sweden is only going to get worse in the future and it wont be Nils or Erik's fault. Sod them you get what you vote for

lazybones32

silverharp wrote: »

I wonder who will build the stage, lighting etc? :pac:

Or maintain and empty the portapotty? (assuming said feminists can unclench their anuses for more than 2mins)

Sleepy

cantdecide wrote: »

Well, the incumbent feminist establishment lobby has been doing much to ensure that your daughter is more likely to attend college than your son. At least if she does a sociology degree she can convert to a primary teaching degree and help teach young boys that they're worth less applause than girls for the same or greater effort and they're full of disgusting stuff like testosterone which explains their bad behaviour... and the circle completes itself from there.

She'll be better raised than that and is currently far more interested in the idea of a career in veterinary or zoology.

Luckily her brother is a born engineer (loves maths, building things and Coder Dojo). He'll have to work hard in college, but I'd have no fear of him not making it there.

seamus

Panthro wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4668228/Two-women-jailed-sickening-torture-internet-date.html

Nearly killed a vulnerable man?
That'll be 28months in prison.

No where near good enough

I see what you're saying and in general sentencing for women is known to be more lenient. However, here's a not dissimilar case where a guy attacked his ex in her bed, told her he'd kill her and then beat her unconscious.

While her children screamed and cried outside the door.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0706/888237-robert-maguire-court/

Fncker still only got 2 years, which seems consistent with what these women got (albeit in a different jurisdiction).

If anything it shows that the psychos who engage in such savagery don't get nearly enough jail time, regardless of gender.

Outlaw Pete

In fairness, Seamus, for every guy that gets a lenient sentence, there's 50 women getting similar (not an exact stat... but you get my meaning).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usq-IHT5ARc

JRant

Sleepy wrote: »

Nevermind that: can you even put together a full festival line-up of female only acts?

I'm sure it's possible if you drudge the bottom of the barrell talent wise to pad out the line-up but even if you book the big solo female artists (Annie Lennox, Florence & The Machine, Lana Del Rey, Lady Ga Ga, Beyoncé, Lorde, Adele etc.) they're likely to have men in their backing bands? Maybe it'd be possible to get them female session musicians to sub in for the weekend but then, would you get great performances? Would there even be enough top class female drummers for hire to go around or would the same few women end up playing with half the line-up?

My suspicion is that any festival that was 100% female, wouldn't be worth attending.

More importantly, who will go to the bar for all these ladies???

gizmo555

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In fairness, Seamus, for every guy that gets a lenient sentence, there's 50 women getting similar (not an exact stat... but you get my meaning).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usq-IHT5ARc

The poster girl for this in Ireland is Norma Cotter. She and her husband were out on the town drinking in Midleton. He went home earlier than her while she stayed out drinking for a further three hours. When she did get home, Gary Cotter objected to her vomiting in their bedroom and there was an argument about who'd collect their child from his grandparents' house in the morning.

Later, while he slept, Norma shot her husband dead because, as she told her father, "he kept nagging her".

Norma was charged with murder but ultimately convicted of manslaughter. She got a 3 and a half year sentence. The judge reduced the sentence, among other reasons, because she two children to care for - including the son whose father she slaughtered as he slept.

Is there the remotest possibility that if the roles were reversed and Gary Cotter killed his wife and the mother of his child for nagging him, he would have escaped a murder conviction and a life sentence?

JupiterKid

The justice system does treat men and women very differently and that can be a problem. Women tend to get more lenient sentences, particularly with respect to crimes perpetrated on their own families and whilst sometimes there is justification for that, in many cases it is just wrong.

Sn@kebite

seamus wrote: »

While her children screamed and cried outside the door.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0706/888237-robert-maguire-court/

Fncker still only got 2 years, which seems consistent with what these women got (albeit in a different jurisdiction).

If anything it shows that the psychos who engage in such savagery don't get nearly enough jail time, regardless of gender.

This looks like a bit of a derail. You can't compare the leniency in the gender sentencing by cases of men getting light sentences. Because it's making it into a case by case issue which gender-based sentencing is most certainly not.

Men often do get light sentences, however it would not be as systematic. The legal system is more based on male rulers passing laws to protect women from men so when women commit crimes which are seen as "male crimes" they are not going to be sentenced the same based on social views of women as damsels and not dangerous etc..

For eg. If we take murder as a crime. While society knows women can commit murder, women are not in general seen as murderers. Whereas men are because men as associated with danger and wickedness. This means when a woman commits murder she is not really 'seen' as an evil killer who killed to assert power and control over a victim. So she will be not treated like a male murderer. It is viewed as a aberration that a female commits said "male crime" so it is often not taken seriously or assumed she was provoked or pushed into it. I.E. women cannot be charged with rape. In Ireland a girl cannot be charged with statutory rape either only a boy can. Which also explains why women only make up 5% of prison inmates, rape and sex abuse is seen as a "man's crime".

However if we look at specific crimes women are more likely to commit (false allegation) in some cases they are not even recognized as crimes or not treated as such. I.E. A woman can falsely accuse a man of rape and he can even commit suicide or deal with psychological trauma while a man can rape a woman and she can commit suicide from the trauma. So they can have devastating consequences but the sentence the woman can get even if maximum sentence will never be as high as what the man can get for rape. even if both parties have committed suicide. So women are benefiting from this because false allegations are seen as a "woman's crime" so has lesser punishment attached to it. If we look a domestic violence a woman can be an abuser and murder her male partner and with no evidence of his abuse state she was emotionally abused by him and get a sentence lowered to involuntary manslaughter. A male cannot do this.

seamus

Sn@kebite wrote: »

This looks like a bit of a derail. You can't compare the leniency in the gender sentencing by cases of men getting light sentences.
Because it's making it into a case by case issue which gender-based sentencing is most certainly not.

Right. So I was quoting a post which was a single example of women getting a lenient sentence. And I was showing that it probably wasn't because they were women.

Like you say, it's not a case-by-case issue, but one where you need to look at the stats as a whole.

A single case is not a statistic, so throwing out single examples of women getting off lightly like the one I quoted, or the one about Norma Cotter is nothing really to do with sexism against men.

This is also why I despise certain quarters of feminism turning individual cases (like the guy in court at the moment) into gender issues simply because the victim was a woman and the perp is a man. It's only a gender issue when gender is a factor.

ligerdub

seamus wrote:

Like you say, it's not a case-by-case issue, but one where you need to look at the stats as a whole.

Which come to much the same conclusion to be fair.

py2006

Louise O'Neill and Una Mullally will LOVE the new tv series, 'The Mist' based on the Stephen King novella.

In the first 20mins of Ep1 we have mention of white male privilege, a man beating up a woman, classic alpha-male homophobia, a husband going against his wife's wishes and allowing daughter to go to a party, girl gets drugged and raped, immediately not believed by town and of course two (white) cops beating on a black guy. Very, very anti white male sentiment so far.

Lots of cliched, liberal, lefty dialogue is cringe-worthy. As a King fan, I can't recall the novella being like that.

It has been picked up elsewhere to:

In just this first episode alone, we have Eve Copeland (Alyssa Sutherland) being fired from a high school for teaching a sex-ed class with condoms, black soldier Bryan Hunt (Okezie Morro) being manhandled and thrown in jail by white police officers, a pansexual student who isn’t attracted to “gender” but “personality” and is shunned by his dad for wearing makeup, and an entire town that doesn’t believe a girl’s been raped since, after all, the accused is a high school quarterback who also happens to be the police chief’s son.

silverharp

I had to laugh at this article, the lack of awareness is awe inspiring.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/shortage-eligible-men-has-left-women-taking-desperate-steps/

Shortage of eligible men has left women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say

Laura Donnelly, health editor
4 JULY 2017 • 10:00PM
A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.

The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.

Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.

PucaMama

py2006 wrote: »

Louise O'Neill and Una Mullally will LOVE the new tv series, 'The Mist' based on the Stephen King novella.

In the first 20mins of Ep1 we have mention of white male privilege, a man beating up a woman, classic alpha-male homophobia, a husband going against his wife's wishes and allowing daughter to go to a party, girl gets drugged and raped, immediately not believed by town and of course two (white) cops beating on a black guy. Very, very anti white male sentiment so far.

Lots of cliched, liberal, lefty dialogue is cringe-worthy. As a King fan, I can't recall the novella being like that.

It has been picked up elsewhere to:

In just this first episode alone, we have Eve Copeland (Alyssa Sutherland) being fired from a high school for teaching a sex-ed class with condoms, black soldier Bryan Hunt (Okezie Morro) being manhandled and thrown in jail by white police officers, a pansexual student who isn’t attracted to “gender” but “personality” and is shunned by his dad for wearing makeup, and an entire town that doesn’t believe a girl’s been raped since, after all, the accused is a high school quarterback who also happens to be the police chief’s son.

No surprises there so. The "remake" of the handmaids tale was ruined in the same way.

kunst nugget

maybe

PucaMama wrote: »

No surprises there so. The "remake" of the handmaids tale was ruined in the same way.

I'm struggling to figure out how the Handmaids Tale has been ruined by the series. Its tone is completely faithful to the book.

mzungu

PucaMama wrote: »

No surprises there so. The "remake" of the handmaids tale was ruined in the same way.

You reckon? I must say I enjoyed the remake. I think they have been quite even handed in showing how both genders might behave in a post-apocalyptic scenario.

kunst nugget

maybe

mzungu wrote: »

You reckon? I must say I enjoyed the remake. I think they have been quite even handed in showing how both genders might behave in a post-apocalyptic scenario.

It's probably the best TV show I've seen in the last five years.

Carlos Orange

No

silverharp wrote: »

I had to laugh at this article, the lack of awareness is awe inspiring.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/shortage-eligible-men-has-left-women-taking-desperate-steps/

I'm seeing a fair few articles about this the last while.
Strangely not so many about the gender in balance in education that causes men to be less educated and problems that might cause.

If I was an Irish women looking to marry I'd be more worried that the gender ratio in Ireland 30-34 is more skewed than it is in China (apostate direction obviously). 13 women for every 12 men makes slim picking for the last women even if she is willing to marry an uneducated oaf.

ligerdub

psinno wrote: »

I'm seeing a fair few articles about this the last while.
Strangely not so many about the gender in balance in education that causes men to be less educated and problems that might cause.

If I was an Irish women looking to marry I'd be more worried that the gender ratio in Ireland 30-34 is more skewed than it is in China (apostate direction obviously). 13 women for every 12 men makes slim picking for the last women even if she is willing to marry an uneducated oaf.

Dopey lads are never short of women.

deaddonkey15

silverharp wrote: »

I had to laugh at this article, the lack of awareness is awe inspiring.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/shortage-eligible-men-has-left-women-taking-desperate-steps/

Last year less than 105,000 male 18-year-olds started university, compared with almost 135,000 females, UCAS figures show, with more women than men on two-thirds of courses.

We don't hear that stat come out too often when there's noise about how we need more women in science and engineering.

Pawwed Rig

Story highlighting that homelessness affects men far more than women

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0711/889266-homeless/

PucaMama

kunst nugget wrote: »

mzungu wrote: »

You reckon? I must say I enjoyed the remake. I think they have been quite even handed in showing how both genders might behave in a post-apocalyptic scenario.

It's probably the best TV show I've seen in the last five years.

The handmaids tale is more dystopian than post apocalyptic.

They changed far too much from the book to include certain groups. The book was way better.

kazamo

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Story highlighting that homelessness affects men far more than women

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0711/889266-homeless/

And the aim of the contributor was to see us aim for similar stats as other European countries where female homelessness is in 20-30% range.
Apparently 70% male homelessness elsewhere is not a problem but 42% female homelessness is.

kunst nugget

maybe

PucaMama wrote: »

The handmaids tale is more dystopian than post apocalyptic.

They changed far too much from the book to include certain groups. The book was way better.

I read the book fairly recently and while I thought the book was great, the series is a more well-rounded experience imo. The creation of Gilead is deftly handled in the show. The latter episodes of the series show how men are just as straitjacketed by the paranoia of the new republic as women.

As for certain groups being included, I presume you're talking about lesbians and black people. In Atwood's book any non-white people were expelled from Gilead iirc but the showrunners altered it slightly because they felt in a desperate post fertile world, any woman that can bear a child would be used as a Handmaiden - which makes sense to me. The society is still disgusted by gender traitors like Ofglen, as shown by Aunt Lydia's treatment of her, but they are so desperate to keep producing babies that they will use these women if they are fertile. Tbf, when Atwood first wrote the book over thirty years ago, lesbians marrying and having children as part of everyday society was not a possibility - I think including this in it helps to show how far the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. The episode with the Mexican Ambassador shows that fertility is a worldwide problem and everyone seems willing to make deals with the devil to try and solve it. Offred's friend, Moira, was a lesbian in the book iirc.

I was skeptical about the series when it was first announced but I think it's been a complete success.

silverharp

psinno wrote: »

I'm seeing a fair few articles about this the last while.
Strangely not so many about the gender in balance in education that causes men to be less educated and problems that might cause.

If I was an Irish women looking to marry I'd be more worried that the gender ratio in Ireland 30-34 is more skewed than it is in China (apostate direction obviously). 13 women for every 12 men makes slim picking for the last women even if she is willing to marry an uneducated oaf.

On the face of it 13 to 12 doesn't sound that bad but it would be "worse" for women that are higher earning because they think they are entitled to a high earning man as per the article (well they call it education) whereas in reality men don't see it that way so these women have set a course for cats instead of having a family

ligerdub

"The study - 'Women's Homelessness in Europe' "

an unbiased project no doubt.

"It says the true overall picture is likely to be worse as women are less likely to register as homeless for fear of being stigmatised."

Hmmmmmmm, citation needed!

ligerdub

ligerdub wrote: »

"The study - 'Women's Homelessness in Europe' "

an unbiased project no doubt.

"It says the true overall picture is likely to be worse as women are less likely to register as homeless for fear of being stigmatised."

Hmmmmmmm, citation needed!

Like stigmatised to the point of speaking to the European parliament and being a talking head at every opportunity.

Pawwed Rig

kazamo wrote: »

And the aim of the contributor was to see us aim for similar stats as other European countries where female homelessness is in 20-30% range.
Apparently 70% male homelessness elsewhere is not a problem but 42% female homelessness is.

So should we make more men homeless or just house women at the expense of men. Difficult one. Quotas might be an option.

kunst nugget

maybe

I remember hearing from someone before that being declared homeless pushed you automatically to the top of the housing list in Dublin. Would this maybe explain why the numbers are a bit skewed in Ireland compared to other EU countries?

seamus

ligerdub wrote: »

"It says the true overall picture is likely to be worse as women are less likely to register as homeless for fear of being stigmatised."

Hmmmmmmm, citation needed!

Definitely citation needed there. IMO, toxic masculinity makes it far less likely that men would register as homeless for fear of being stigmatised.

The discrepancies in male -v- female figures are most likely down to children. Women are more likely to have children in their care, so when in need of housing, a woman and her children (or indeed a man and his children) will automatically take priority over everyone else on the list.

And rightly so. The end result being that men are far more likely to be homeless than women.

What I think would be interesting would be study on the response to familial homelessness in relation to the gender of the parents. We often see stories in the rags about a homeless single mother accompanied by pictures. I don't think I've ever seen a story about a homeless single father.

I wonder if the authorities tend to tell single fathers to put the children in care or send them to their mother, but single mothers are automatically placed in emergency accommodation rather than separated from their kids?

PucaMama

kunst nugget wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

The handmaids tale is more dystopian than post apocalyptic.

They changed far too much from the book to include certain groups. The book was way better.

I read the book fairly recently and while I thought the book was great, the series is a more well-rounded experience imo. The creation of Gilead is deftly handled in the show. The latter episodes of the series show how men are just as straitjacketed by the paranoia of the new republic as women.

As for certain groups being included, I presume you're talking about lesbians and black people. In Atwood's book any non-white people were expelled from Gilead iirc but the showrunners altered it slightly because they felt in a desperate post fertile world, any woman that can bear a child would be used as a Handmaiden - which makes sense to me. The society is still disgusted by gender traitors like Ofglen, as shown by Aunt Lydia's treatment of her, but they are so desperate to keep producing babies that they will use these women if they are fertile. Tbf, when Atwood first wrote the book over thirty years ago, lesbians marrying and having children as part of everyday society was not a possibility - I think including this in it helps to show how far the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. The episode with the Mexican Ambassador shows that fertility is a worldwide problem and everyone seems willing to make deals with the devil to try and solve it. Offred's friend, Moira, was a lesbian in the book iirc.

I was skeptical about the series when it was first announced but I think it's been a complete success.

I had a longer reply but it disappeared. The book was far better. They only included other races to appeal to certain audiences. It wouldn't make sense for a society that wants white people in power to raise non white babies in family's with power (only rich people had the handmaids). Lesbians were already in the book so nothing different only they were in the Tv show a lot more. I felt the made this particular Tv show to appeal solely to feminists paranoia of today.

But I'm 10 minutes into the mist episode 1 and it's already ruined. In the same kind of way. Why can't people stick to the actual story without making it obvious about who they want to appeal to.

iptba

(UK)

It paves the way for other gay couples to get the same treatment — and could allow thousands of widowers to access retirement savings built up by their wives.

Ex pensions minister Baroness Altmann said: ‘In some schemes, a husband cannot inherit the wife’s pension but a wife will inherit that of her deceased husband. I expect this issue will now be looked at again — and the cost to public sector schemes could be hundreds of millions of pounds.’

https://www.metro.news/gay-pensions-ruling-could-lead-to-multi-million-pounds-in-claims/672971/

anitaca

seamus wrote: »

Right. So I was quoting a post which was a single example of women getting a lenient sentence. And I was showing that it probably wasn't because they were women.

Like you say, it's not a case-by-case issue, but one where you need to look at the stats as a whole.

A single case is not a statistic, so throwing out single examples of women getting off lightly like the one I quoted, or the one about Norma Cotter is nothing really to do with sexism against men.

This is also why I despise certain quarters of feminism turning individual cases (like the guy in court at the moment) into gender issues simply because the victim was a woman and the perp is a man. It's only a gender issue when gender is a factor.

I wish someone would. I had copied this youtube comment, i think, by karen straughan, and came across it again recently.

I havent verified any of the claims and they are probably based on american or canadian stats.

The problem is that compared to women, same crime same circumstances, men are: More likely to be stopped. When stopped, more likely to be arrested. When arrested, more likely to be charged. When charged, more likely to be charged with a more severe offence. When charged with that more severe offence, more likely to be prosecuted. When prosecuted, twice as likely to be convicted. When convicted, more likely to receive a custodial sentence. When sentenced to custody, serve ~60% longer sentences. Looking at the first three items, women are much more likely to be able to commit crimes and not end up with any criminal history whatsoever for a judge to consider. Looking at the fourth, even when they are repeat offenders, their records will, on average, include less severe charges for the judge to consider. Looking at the 6th item, even when they are repeat offenders, their records will have fewer convictions in them for the judge to consider. Looking at the 7th, there will be fewer previous incarcerations for the judge to consider (custodial sentences tend to get longer the more of them you have in your prior record, if the judge has discretion, even if the current crime is no more severe than those in your past). All these gaps tend to compound as offenders reoffend. If we take two identical criminals (one female, one male) committing the same number of the same crimes over 10 years: The woman may be a three-time offender who even got caught three times, before she has any official criminal history, whereas a man almost certainly will have one. When she has a history, the offences on her record will be fewer and less severe than the equally criminal man. There will be fewer prior convictions, and they will be for less severe crimes, than the identical man. She will be more likely to have received probation than custody upon first conviction, so her first custodial sentence will be shorter than the identical man who already has three prior convictions for more severe crimes, and three custodial sentences. Etc etc. I believe it was someone called Permutation of Ninjas who found quantifiable data on the gaps for a lot of these factors I listed, assumed women commit just as much crime as men, started out with a 50/50 prison population, and applied the female discounts backward. After accounting for every one he could, his result was startlingly close to our current prison population ratio. Yet time after time, I see the 95:5 male to female prison ratio used to justify the harsher treatment of men in the system. What if the harsher treatment of men is what creates most of that lopsided ratio in the first place? Then we are using the result of our prejudice to justify our prejudice, aren't we?

Sn@kebite

Theres a considerable difference between homeless and living on the streets. Many more white males live on the streets in ireland but it does not meant that the ratio of male to female homeless are the same. If you live in a shelter or public housing you can still be homeless. Men juat live on the streets more for various reasons eg Men may not ask for help, chivalry (women and children first) PCness etc... Overall it is up to men to help each other.

seamus

iptba wrote: »

(UK)

https://www.metro.news/gay-pensions-ruling-could-lead-to-multi-million-pounds-in-claims/672971/

It's funny that marriage equality has had this unintended effect of shining a spotlight on the all of the areas where heterosexuals are being discriminated against on the basis of gender.

By necessitating the removal of gender from all laws which reference marriage, marriage equality massively levels the playing field for hetero couples.

iptba

Feminist geographers encourage colleagues not to cite research of white men

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/13/feminist-geographers-dont-cite-research-white-men/

This showed up in my twitter feed via: https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview which concentrates on highlighting some research papers of questionable validity, often written by feminists.

Calhoun

iptba wrote: »

This showed up in my twitter feed via: https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview which concentrates on highlighting some research papers of questionable validity, often written by feminists.

I wonder when the 3rd level education sector will get back to unbiased peer led reviews, if ever.

It's like the liberal left particularly in the states are creating no go universities who are losing allot of credibility fast.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

IMO, toxic masculinity makes it far less likely that men would register as homeless for fear of being stigmatised.

What you're referring to has fcuk all to do with masculinity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87QP9XSszL0

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

I had to laugh at this article, the lack of awareness is awe inspiring.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/shortage-eligible-men-has-left-women-taking-desperate-steps/

Shortage of eligible men has left women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say

Laura Donnelly, health editor
4 JULY 2017 • 10:00PM
A dearth of marriagable men has left an “oversupply” of educated women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say.

The first global study into egg freezing found that shortages of eligible men were the prime reason why women had attempted to take matters into their own hands.

Experts said “terrifying” demographic shifts had created a “deficit” of educated men and a growing problem of “leftover” professional women, with female graduates vastly outnumbering males in in many countries.

I don't really get your issue with this article. It plainly says there aren't enough men getting higher educations and something needs to be done to address that.

It also says that women are paying a price for the success of feminism which is the kind of schadenfreude I thought you'd enjoy in an article.

Wher exactly was the lack of self awareness that inspired your awe?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't really get your issue with this article. It plainly says there aren't enough men getting higher educations and something needs to be done to address that.

It also says that women are paying a price for the success of feminism which is the kind of schadenfreude I thought you'd enjoy in an article.

Wher exactly was the lack of self awareness that inspired your awe?

A general criticism with these kind of articles is that they never actually interview any men or get a male perspective. they might as well have titled the article "Im wonderful and men are intiminated by my wonderfulness"

its a self selected sample of women, why not get some background on these women? chances are they just sabotaged their own chances of having a family. by late 30's of course men dont want them they are too old, freezing their eggs is just a delusion but the market will happily take their money. They give off the vibe off " I only date billionaires with a 6 pack who have climbed Everest "where are all the good billionaires supermodel geniuses gone", what do these woman have to offer men of equal value?

why not discuss feminist culture lying to women?

Also its all very one sided , why should men care what women want? especially when its not reciprocal, after all men dont really go after educated women, a woman having a phd compared to a degree doesnt make her anymore attractive to men.

the article seemed to suggest there is a duality with how women think, celebrating more women in college and seeing it as an inequality against women at the same time, maybe if they had taken more stem subjects they would have hit on the concept of equilibirium

from a male perspective there is an over supply of unappealing women perhaps, again no men asked so we will never know.

the anthropologist suggests that women compromise but no, must get more potential husband objects into college for the women to pick...mkay , what if the men dont want to go to college and would prefer to go to trade school, get an apprenticeship? look at it the other way, maybe there are the right number of men in college and the rest have rationally chosen other areas.


The article mentioned commitment, nobody asked men why they are not committing, they are just supposed to?

iptba

Irish Film Board turns spotlight on talented women
Eithne Shortall
July 16 2017, 12:01am,
The Sunday Times


No men need apply: the Irish Film Board (IFB) has created funding schemes that will be available only to women, as the state body calls “cut” on the high number of male screenwriters and directors receiving grants.

The board also plans to limit one of its most popular funding initiatives to female applicants for three months each year.

At least three schemes will be aimed only at women, including a programme under which female writers and directors can apply for financial support to produce feature films with budgets up to €400,000.

The board also plans to limit one round of Screenplay Development support to female applicants each year.

Continues:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/irish-film-board-turns-spotlight-on-talented-women-k205tlhmc

um7y1h83ge06nx

Waiting for them to have whites only and blacks only periods too. Sure why not, it's just as sensible an idea.

Edit - sarcasm for anyone whose meter is broken. But to be serious it is a case of discriminating against people for how they were born. Whether it's the colour of your skin or your gender, you can't change those things without complicated surgery.

Society likes to think it's all cool and "liberal" these days when it still embraces obvious discrimination.

Calhoun

Ok

iptba wrote: »

Continues:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/irish-film-board-turns-spotlight-on-talented-women-k205tlhmc

It's support should be cut immediately but it won't be. Shame to see tax payers money wasted on such policies .

I would say boycott but it's normally crap I wouldn't watch anyway.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

A general criticism with these kind of articles is that they never actually interview any men or get a male perspective. they might as well have titled the article "Im wonderful and men are intiminated by my wonderfulness"

Ah so it's not this article as such, it just reminded you of how offended you get by similar arguments?

They didn't ask for anyone's perspective. It reported on a study of the motivation of a very specific group -women who were actively freezing eggs.

silverharp wrote:

its a self selected sample of women, why not get some background on these women? chances are they just sabotaged their own chances of having a family. [...] what do these woman have to offer men of equal value?

They sabotaged their own chances by getting an education?

I don't know what they have to offer men of 'equal value' as you put it. I'm not sure I understand the question. What do you think?

silverharp wrote:

why not discuss feminist culture lying to women?

The article specifically says that this is the result of the success of feminism. I presume e this is what you mean by 'feminist culture lying to women'.

silverharp wrote:

the article seemed to suggest there is a duality with how women think, celebrating more women in college and seeing it as an inequality against women at the same time, maybe if they had taken more stem subjects they would have hit on the concept of equilibirium

The article didn't celebrate women in college or lament an inequality against women. I think you're straining to be offended.

silverharp wrote:

from a male perspective there is an over supply of unappealing women perhaps, again no men asked so we will never know.

Again it didn't ask men or women what they think, it reported on a piece of research on a new phenomenon of women freezing eggs. It didn't ask any members of the public for their views, just a few experts.

silverharp wrote:

the anthropologist suggests that women compromise but no, must get more potential husband objects into college for the women to pick...mkay , what if the men dont want to go to college and would prefer to go to trade school, get an apprenticeship? look at it the other way, maybe there are the right number of men in college and the rest have rationally chosen other areas.

This is a bit self pithing.

The article specifically easy that more men should be helped to go to college -something most people in these threads usually agree is a good thing. But this time a feminist suggested it so you feel the need to oppose it.

Reproduction isn't necessarily for everyone. Some people don't want to reproduce and some people do want to and lose out. That was the conclusion I came to after hearing about the MGTOW crowd. There are bound to be winners and losers in reproduction. But I think it's fairly mean spirited to take such enjoyment in seeing 'The other side' losing out. I'd be happier if fellas who who want a woman and women who want a man were to find each other and being happy together. The bitter point scoring is a bit sad tbh.

Pat Mustard

I read that Telegraph article and it leaves me wondering. If there is a significant group of women who find themselves single through circumstances in which they find themselves unable to meet a partner of similar education, position and social standing, does that not necessarily mean that there is likely to be a corresponding group of men (regardless of education or social standing) who are also single as a result?

Surely, not a good outcome for all concerned.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

I read that Telegraph article and it leaves me wondering. If there is a significant group of women who find themselves single through circumstances in which they find themselves unable to meet a partner of similar education, position and social standing, does that not necessarily mean that there is likely to be a corresponding group of men (regardless of education or social standing) who are also single as a result?

Surely, not a good outcome for all concerned.

Well this is what I'm saying. There was a thread about MGTOW a while ago and I found it a bit sad. There are always going to be people who want to couple up and don't succeed. It's bound to be a sad situation for all the lonely singles who want a relationship and don't find one.

It's a bit nasty to see someone taking such pleasure in either men or women in that situation. I think it's very odd to see it in a thread about experiences of sexism.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah so it's not this article as such, it just reminded you of how offended you get by similar arguments?

1)They didn't ask for anyone's perspective. It reported on a study of the motivation of a very specific group -women who were actively freezing eggs.



2)They sabotaged their own chances by getting an education?
I don't know what they have to offer men of 'equal value' as you put it. I'm not sure I understand the question. What do you think?


3)The article specifically says that this is the result of the success of feminism. I presume e this is what you mean by 'feminist culture lying to women'.



4)The article didn't celebrate women in college or lament an inequality against women. I think you're straining to be offended.



5)Again it didn't ask men or women what they think, it reported on a piece of research on a new phenomenon of women freezing eggs. It didn't ask any members of the public for their views, just a few experts.




6)The article specifically easy that more men should be helped to go to college -something most people in these threads usually agree is a good thing. But this time a feminist suggested it so you feel the need to oppose it.

Reproduction isn't necessarily for everyone. Some people don't want to reproduce and some people do want to and lose out. That was the conclusion I came to after hearing about the MGTOW crowd. There are bound to be winners and losers in reproduction. But I think it's fairly mean spirited to take such enjoyment in seeing 'The other side' losing out. I'd be happier if fellas who who want a woman and women who want a man were to find each other and being happy together. The bitter point scoring is a bit sad tbh.

I was going to add dont multi quote me but anyhooo...

1) the study might have been fine and the anthropologist quoted made some reasonable points, its the reporting of it I found wonton. If I had a problem with the study well its a small sample size and not really a proper international survey. also it didnt remind me of anything so Ill ignore that comment

2) no they might well have sabotaged their chances by ignoring men they dated along the way, need more data hence my comments

3) no that wasnt my point

4) yes it did

5) the journalist or the study people cant remember which made enough comments about men not committing. If that is going to be asserted maybe they should investigate why

6) if a feminist suggests that more men go to college its not to help the men, its to provide women with men. The feminist push has just been to get more women into college and cry oppression where ever there was a little corner of academia where there were more men than women. Feminists never had a holistic approach to society, it was just a fight for domination so excuse me for taking a position to be skeptical of a feminist suggesting anything to help men as the only interest is in solving an alleged problem that affects women

sure its good that not everyone out there reproduces , some people would make awful parents. I dont understand your point scoring point? Im exacerbated by the lack of ability of these mostly feminists to stand back and see the big picture. Ultimately they have let women down as it appears that feminists attitudes are creating more miserable women.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

1) the study might have been fine and the anthropologist quoted made some reasonable points, its the reporting of it I found wonton. If I had a problem with the study well its a small sample size and not really a proper international survey. also it didnt remind me of anything so Ill ignore that comment

So the substance of the article wasn't what actually left you awe inspired?

silverharp wrote:

2) no they might well have sabotaged their chances by ignoring men they dated along the way, need more data hence my comments

So just speculation based on your own desire to frame the daft bints rather than anything from the article?

silverharp wrote:

3) no that wasn't my point

Then I don't get the point of complaining about this article not discussing 'feminism lying to women'. I don't even know what you meant.

silverharp wrote:

4) yes it did

It didn't really. It said that there is an imbalance of men and women in uni and it should be addressed - which is a point you would agree with under any other circumstances. Alas a feminist said it so you feel the need to take the contrary position.

silverharp wrote:

5) the journalist or the study people cant remember which made enough comments about men not committing. If that is going to be asserted maybe they should investigate why

They made 1 comment and it was a quote from professor Adam Balen, president of the British fertility society. He said they ' are seeing some big societal issues, in particular in some social economic groups, with young men not committing'. It would be interesting to know if that's true and if so, why. It was one of many points so it would be an interesting topic for another article- they you could get vexed about that article too.

silverharp wrote:

6) if a feminist suggests that more men go to college its not to help the men, its to provide women with men. The feminist push has just been to get more women into college and cry oppression where ever there was a little corner of academia where there were more men than women. Feminists never had a holistic approach to society, it was just a fight for domination so excuse me for taking a position to be skeptical of a feminist suggesting anything to help men as the only interest is in solving an alleged problem that affects women

Lol. If a feminist agrees with your point that men should be helped in education, then you feel the need to oppose them. Is your primary focus on helping men or spiting feminism even to the detriment of men?

You're one of the ones who champions male education as a cause worth pursuing. I'd agree that boys need support in education. But it seems your motivation is a bit more complicated than simply wanting men to do well in education.

silverharp wrote:

sure its good that not everyone out there reproduces , some people would make awful parents. I dont understand your point scoring point? Im exacerbated by the lack of ability of these mostly feminists to stand back and see the big picture. Ultimately they have let women down as it appears that feminists attitudes are creating more miserable women.

I was just disappointed that you would be so inclined to enjoy the fact that some advances such as women excelling in education, would have negative knock on effects in relationships and reproduction.

A Women who didn't find a partner also means a man didn't find a partner. It's a pity that you're prioritising point scoring against feminism over the human side of this story.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well this is what I'm saying. There was a thread about MGTOW a while ago and I found it a bit sad. There are always going to be people who want to couple up and don't succeed. It's bound to be a sad situation for all the lonely singles who want a relationship and don't find one.

I agree that it's sad that people can end up in an unhappy situation through no fault of their own.

I'm not sure why you mention MGTOW though. I doubt that those guys have the numbers to have a significant impact on professional/educated women meeting male partners.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well this is what I'm saying. There was a thread about MGTOW a while ago and I found it a bit sad. There are always going to be people who want to couple up and don't succeed. It's bound to be a sad situation for all the lonely singles who want a relationship and don't find one.

I agree that it's sad that people can end up in an unhappy situation through no fault of their own.

I'm not sure why you mention MGTOW though. I doubt that those guys have the numbers to have a significant impact on professional/educated women meeting male partners.

I don't know anything about the number of MGTOW or women freezing eggs. They're both examples of people who aren't finding partners.

I'd class them both on the same category of people who are interested in relationships/having children but aren't succeeding in finding them. As I said above, there will always be winners and losers in reproduction. It's just sad to see