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

Amirani

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

You don't have to make probabilistic assumptions based on averages when you're in such a situation. To work purely off such a methodology would be ignoring the extra information you have, and thus be very inefficient decision making.

The Corinthian had it exactly right when he said:
"all you can do is take each case individually and based upon whether they're struggling or not make our assessment of whether a woman, or man, needs your help."

That makes more sense than anything else.

IK09

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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

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

Fully agree with you here. I would offer my help be it a man or a woman. However, if I see a male carrying something which I feel he is "able" to carry, I will not offer help. I will offer assistance to any female, small, average or muscular with anything I deem to be heavy

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

I can only assume u meant condescending? If so, I can see where you are coming from, no-one likes being underestimated, i get that, but if your initial reaction to someone offering you help is to regard them as "the idiot trying to correct you", you really do need help, the professional kind.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

Wow...gender roles? I think you have somewhere misunderstood me on this based on your response. Let me clarify, IMO it is acceptable to make the statement, "he should be more capable to lift that heavy item because he is male", it is not acceptable to make the statement "John is a more capable accountant than Mary, because he is male". I hope my opinion is clear to you. There are instances where sexism is valid and there are some where it is not.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

True.

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

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

Did I touch a nerve here? I stand by the way I have been "trained" as you so pompously put it. Of course I question it, through questioning it, it defines us, you throw away the pieces you disagree with and you stand by the pieces you believe in.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, can you roll over too?

You just sound like a prick here. Way to make a somewhat intelligent, at the least eloquently phrased opinion completely useless.

runawaybishop

No

IK09 wrote: »

Let me clarify, IMO it is acceptable to make the statement, "he should be more capable to lift that heavy item because he is male",

Its not acceptable though.

IK09

runawaybishop wrote: »

Its not acceptable though.

Your entitled to your opinion,in my opinion it is acceptable, obviously its is not true in some cases. I believe it to be true in most instances. I can honestly say that I dont know a woman that would disagree with the statement that "In a overall sense, men are physically stronger than women". I have never met a woman that would dispute that statement(to date).

The sexes, physically, are not equal IMO. On an intellectual level I feel that they are equal. Sexism has a place, however, to be "sexist" even when the differences are glaringly obvious (in certain instances) has been twisted in such a way, that to point out these differences has become looked down on.

The Corinthian

IK09 wrote: »

Fully agree with you here. I would offer my help be it a man or a woman. However, if I see a male carrying something which I feel he is "able" to carry, I will not offer help. I will offer assistance to any female, small, average or muscular with anything I deem to be heavy

So you apply different criteria, based on gender, devoid of any logical reasoning? Had you considered assessing women as you do men; on the basis of what you judge they can carry?

On average, a woman has about 60% of the upper body strength of a man. Now, imagine that a woman asks you to carry some heavy things for her (or you feel the lemming-like need to offer to do so).

So, could you carry it if it was two thirds heavier? If your answer is, "sure,no problem" then what the fùck are you offering to carry it for her, because that is how heavy they are for her and she too should be able to say "sure,no problem"?

I can only assume u meant condescending? If so, I can see where you are coming from, no-one likes being underestimated, i get that, but if your initial reaction to someone offering you help is to regard them as "the idiot trying to correct you", you really do need help, the professional kind.

So were women (keeping with gender roles) to continually correct or 'advise' you on how to do housework, or hold or feed a baby, or do the ironing; not because you're not doing it right, but because they presume a man will not do it right.

You might overlook such condensation once or twice, but eventually I suspect it might wear thin. If you're indefinitely happy to be spoken down to like that, then I hope you find yourself a nice rompicoglioni to settle down with.

Wow...gender roles? I think you have somewhere misunderstood me on this based on your response. Let me clarify, IMO it is acceptable to make the statement, "he should be more capable to lift that heavy item because he is male", it is not acceptable to make the statement "John is a more capable accountant than Mary, because he is male". I hope my opinion is clear to you. There are instances where sexism is valid and there are some where it is not.

But I never suggested the logic that John is a more capable simply because he is male, but that he should be paid more because he has a family to support. Of course, that's flawed logic, but frankly no more flawed than your rationalization related to the lifting heavy items.

And that's my point, you're simply cherry picking rationalizations, not because one makes sense and another doesn't, but because you feel one form of sexism is good and another is bad.

Did I touch a nerve here? I stand by the way I have been "trained" as you so pompously put it. Of course I question it, through questioning it, it defines us, you throw away the pieces you disagree with and you stand by the pieces you believe in.

Maybe you have questioned it in your own way, it really depends on your own cognitive capabilities in this regard. All I can say is you don't appear to have tried very hard - you accept that your primary reason for thinking this way is emotive, you present one or two very superficial arguments to support this position and that's it.

And of course you've been trained, we all have; do you think that we're magically born with a sense of right and wrong? If you want to call it teach, fair enough, but ultimately the methods used to imprint such values in children resemble training more than teaching.

Some of this training will never be fully shaken in us, however we can objectively question those values and inevitably we all do - how deeply is another matter.

You just sound like a prick here. Way to make a somewhat intelligent, at the least eloquently phrased opinion completely useless.

Why don't you swallow that pride of yours a bit and consider what I actually meant with that comment. How much of what you believe is because it makes rational sense and how much is because you were trained to believe it, with only some silly flawed arguments to support it - as with those you've presented here?

runawaybishop

No

IK09 wrote: »

Your entitled to your opinion,in my opinion it is acceptable.

You cant just whack "imo" to the start of a bull**** sexist sentence and make it not bull**** sexism.

ToxicPaddy

MOD NOTE:

Guys keep it civil please. No Personal Insults!!

IK09

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you apply different criteria, based on gender, devoid of any logical reasoning? Had you considered assessing women as you do men; on the basis of what you judge they can carry?

On average, a woman has about 60% of the upper body strength of a man. Now, imagine that a woman asks you to carry some heavy things for her (or you feel the lemming-like need to offer to do so).

You just proved my point for me. "On average, a woman has about 60% of the upper body strenght of a man." So "on average" men are stronger. Therefore,(IMO) men should do the heavy lifting. It is not sexist, it is based on the idea that men are stronger. Call it a superficial argument all you want. Its obvious.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So were women (keeping with gender roles) to continually correct or 'advise' you on how to do housework, or hold or feed a baby, or do the ironing; not because you're not doing it right, but because they presume a man will not do it right.

I never mentioned continual correction, I also never claimed at any stage that the female was going to lift the heavy object incorrectly, so Im unsure on why this is being discussed other than you trying to prove your point using an example which I was not arguing. What you are talking about is a skillset, I feel that a mothers skill in holding or feeding a baby is probably a mix of evolution and the training involved with birthing classes, nurse guidance etc. A fathers skill will not be as developed if he is not present at the classes etc.
But doing this simply because they presume a man will not do it correctly, is an instance where sexism is incorrect. I would not carry a lady's heavy bag for her because I felt she was going to do it incorrectly, or that she was incapable of doing so herself. I would do it because being stronger will cause me less exertion than it would if she was to carry it herself.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You might overlook such condensation once or twice, but eventually I suspect it might wear thin. If you're indefinitely happy to be spoken down to like that, then I hope you find yourself a nice rompicoglioni to settle down with.

TBH, I dont have alot of experience in being spoken down to. I have no experience whatsoever of being spoken down to because I am a man, so I cant grasp where your coming from with this. As for the rompicoglioni statement...you have confirmed that you are in fact a prick.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But I never suggested the logic that John is a more capable simply because he is male, but that he should be paid more because he has a family to support. Of course, that's flawed logic, but frankly no more flawed than your rationalization related to the lifting heavy items.

You are seriously going to talk about flawed logic? You already proved my point for me in your opening lines.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe you have questioned it in your own way, it really depends on your own cognitive capabilities in this regard. All I can say is you don't appear to have tried very hard - you accept that your primary reason for thinking this way is emotive, you present one or two very superficial arguments to support this position and that's it.

I think everyone here is question it. I think you need to go back and read my initial post.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And of course you've been trained, we all have; do you think that we're magically born with a sense of right and wrong? If you want to call it teach, fair enough, but ultimately the methods used to imprint such values in children resemble training more than teaching.

I believe that sexism is there for a reason, because there is truth in it. How it is used by under educated, misguided, obnoxious people, is the problem. Some people use it as a shield to hide behind always wanting to be the victim. Some people use it to their advantage, citing it to get their way. Most people have evolved.

B0jangles

IK09 wrote: »

Weird stuff

Hey, you know there are loads of studies that show women are just naturally better at communication 'n stuff like that? This given I think I'm just going to take over writing your posts for you because you are not making your points as well as you might - as a male you are simply at an evolutionary disadvantage.

I'm not being sexist by the way; I just feel I am correct in believing this.

Sauve

Mod

IK09 has been temporarily banned, please do not respond to his posts.
Thanks,
Sauve.

RED PASSION

NiallSparky wrote: »

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

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

You hit the nail on the head, sick of been asked or made feel guilty (be a man) to lift heavy stuff in the office as a 5'4 55kg male I am not as strong as the other 2 guys and there is some stronger women than me in my office who sit on their arse and stare at the computer screen, waiting for desks to be lifted up stairs, water cooler done etc. what should I do

Amirani

This author seems to be living in the 14th century: http://collegetimes.ie/2013/11/14/why-women-should-enforce-the-90-day-rule

"Sex nowadays has become so accessible. Most women sleep with a man and create this bond in their minds as an automatic reaction to the act of sex. Most men, well, they do not. Women tell themselves that if a guy is patient enough and able to not ask for it the first few chances he had, then he must respect her physically. He must really be into her to hang out with her and not want to have sex."

"It’s a little known fact that most men meet a woman and think, “I want to have sex with her.” I mean, really, who wants to date someone they wouldn’t want to have sex with? Even virgins plan to have sex with their significant others at some point, so it’s on their minds, too."

"But in all honesty, men don’t initially think, “I see myself dating her for a really long time, marrying her, having children and a home with a white picket fence.” They see sex. They figure out how they are going to get it, until they actually get it. Yeah, some stick around after. But some don’t. And this is why: easy access sex."

Reading this absolute rubbish gave me a sudden urge to bang my head off a wall.

Arawn

maybe

Yes, it is a little known fact that men want to sleep with women. Little known indeed. Well played random author

kiffer

No

NiallSparky wrote: »

This author seems to be living in the 14th century: http://collegetimes.ie/2013/11/14/why-women-should-enforce-the-90-day-rule


Reading this absolute rubbish gave me a sudden urge to bang my head off a wall.

"The idea is, by the time a man has invested time, money, effort and feelings into a woman..."

And here I've been just trying to spend time with people I like doing things I enjoy...
I should have been investing money into them so I couldn't back out...

The Corinthian

NiallSparky wrote: »

Reading this absolute rubbish gave me a sudden urge to bang my head off a wall.

Well, it's a puff-piece from a college paper; what were you expecting - Woodward and Bernstein?

Given this, while it overgeneralises, and some of the conclusions are admittedly rubbish, I'd hardly consider it 'absolute rubbish'. For example, that women are more likely to be motivated by relationships and men by sex, as an end, is hardly Earth-shattering, is it? Or that most men, and women for that matter, will be considering sex from the moment they meet a potential mate (note the use of the word mate), is not exactly going to be a big shock to us.

Sure, there's a lot of silly crap there too, generally extrapolated incorrectly from some pretty old and established concepts, but I fail to see why such a silly little piece from in insignificant student publication would even merit a post in the first place.

Indeed, what has posting this piece got to do with a thread on sexism that men have experienced?

Standman

No

An interesting scientific study, presented by BBC news in a depressingly titled article 'Y chromosone: Why men contribute so little', with obligatory picture of half naked obese man lounging on the couch. Some of the 'Editors Picks' from the comment section even more depressing:

It has been known for some time that the human male chromasome has been disintegrating to the point that there is hardly any left. Science may wish to investigate this in order to preserve human life, but maybe nature is telling us that we have outstayed our welcome.

Well it's hardly true to say "men contribute so little". They have an X chromosome too, after all. But, speaking as a man I would agree that the Y chromosome is generally more trouble than its worth. No great loss if we are able to get along without it. I've always said that whilst women are impossible men are actually useless.

It seems there are a lot of self hating men out there.

Henry9

Same old same old. I think you'll find in general any story published about one sex being better at something than tha other, it's invariably women are better than men. It wouldn't be tolerated the other way around.

Carlos Orange

No

Bit of an odd one. We have just moved office and the guy who organised most of the move was going to put together a list of stuff for the new kitchen but some people insisted it needed to be done by one of the girls as it needed "a womans touch".

Mister R

How complex is deciding what goes in an office kitchen? Microwave, kettle, utensils, mugs, and thats about it no? And why on earth would it require a womans touch.

I can't stand people sometimes.

hansfrei

Mister R wrote: »

How complex is deciding what goes in an office kitchen? Microwave, kettle, utensils, mugs, and thats about it no? And why on earth would it require a womans touch.

I can't stand people sometimes.

Women don't have man germs.

Kitchen needs a George foreman, before you forget.

Mister R

Of course and I forgot a toaster so I can have a toasted BLT with the bacon from the George Foreman

ALiasEX

Just saw these two ads on TV.

iptba

ALiasEX wrote: »

Just saw these two ads on TV.

Not sure the problem with the first one. But the second one ...

donfers

No

psinno wrote: »

Bit of an odd one. We have just moved office and the guy who organised most of the move was going to put together a list of stuff for the new kitchen but some people insisted it needed to be done by one of the girls as it needed "a womans touch".

sexism that favours women is much more societally acceptable

imagine a woman had been in charge of computer maintenance and a guy stepped in and said "nah - this kind of work needs a man's touch"...a swift discrimination case and possible sacking maybe?

the other way around - harmless work banter, get a life, man up etc etc

py2006

There was an incident in work the other week which didn't really occur to me at the time. There is a small bench outside the main door that fits 2 people. I was sitting there sipping a coffee and 2 female colleagues came out to have a smoke. They walked right up to the bench and stopped about a foot away from me, clearly expecting me (as a man) to stand up and walk away and leave the seat to them.

I did it naturally and it honestly didn't bother me at the time. But when you think about it, neither of these women are elderly, disabled, pregnant. They merely expected the seat to be made available to them.

RED PASSION

py2006 wrote: »

There was an incident in work the other week which didn't really occur to me at the time. There is a small bench outside the main door that fits 2 people. I was sitting there sipping a coffee and 2 female colleagues came out to have a smoke. They walked right up to the bench and stopped about a foot away from me, clearly expecting me (as a man) to stand up and walk away and leave the seat to them.

I did it naturally and it honestly didn't bother me at the time. But when you think about it, neither of these women are elderly, disabled, pregnant. They merely expected the seat to be made available to them.

............and it was.

py2006

RED PASSION wrote: »

............and it was.

Well, it would have made a very awkward situation if I hadn't have moved. They had reached a point where they were uncomfortably close to me. It was natural instinct for me to move away.

irish_goat

py2006 wrote: »

Well, it would have made a very awkward situation if I hadn't have moved. They had reached a point where they were uncomfortably close to me. It was natural instinct for me to move away.

Should have let them stand there feeling awkward.

kiffer

No

irish_goat wrote: »

Should have let them stand there feeling awkward.

That's when the tutting starts... and then from deep down in our psyche the uneasy memory of the wooden spoon begins to raise its concave head.
tut
... tut.

ALiasEX

iptba wrote: »

Not sure the problem with the first one. But the second one ...

Mums are doing great. Aren't dads too?

Panthro

maybe

I think the bigger crime here was with the second video.
Aside from the blatant,
there were people sitting around a table somewhere who brainstormed that as the best video to promote their brand.
It's beyond cringe tbh.
God awful piece of advertising.

Vojera

ALiasEX wrote: »

Mums are doing great. Aren't dads too?

Not arguing with you, but my interpretation of the ad was that it was sort of addressing the guilt a lot of mothers feel with regard to not breastfeeding or not breastfeeding for longer. In a sort of "Yes, things are crap with a new baby, but changing their feed isn't one of the things to worry about" sort of way. Just the way it comes across to me.

average hero

deleted post

Panthro

maybe

Another double standard case
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521200/Woman-teacher-27-half-naked-pupil-17-struck-2-years.html
Apparently the teacher can reapply and be back in the classroom 2 years.
The boys mother has it spot on.

‘She should not be allowed to teach again, in my family’s view. I think this comes back to double standards and you have to wonder if she were a male teacher whether the door would be left open for her to teach again.

‘She should not be allowed to teach children of any age ever again as she clearly has problems which caused what happened with my son.’

GalwayGuy2

There is a no doubt that the reaction is sexist, but, tbh, i wouldn't class her as a pedophile. The mother's comment seems to imply that she'd be attracted to a 7 year old just as much as she'd be attracted to a 17 year old.

py2006

Panthro wrote: »

Another double standard case
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521200/Woman-teacher-27-half-naked-pupil-17-struck-2-years.html
Apparently the teacher can reapply and be back in the classroom 2 years.
The boys mother has it spot on.

There seems to be a spate of female teachers in the US lately being caught having sex with their underage students. The terminology used is usually, 'affair' and 'relationship' rather than 'predator' and 'pedophile'.

I am not sure if there are more female teachers engaging in this kind of behaviour or whether they were always around but only recently being caught/reported for their crime.

clairefontaine

A world gone mad.

Colorodo school suspended six year old boy for kissing a girl on the cheek.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/10/colorado-boy-6-suspended-accused-sexual-harassment-for-kissing-girl-on-cheek-148424908/

Perspective anyone? What are we doing to our kids. Insanity.

IvyTheTerrible

clairefontaine wrote: »

A world gone mad.

Colorodo school suspended six year old boy for kissing a girl on the cheek.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/10/colorado-boy-6-suspended-accused-sexual-harassment-for-kissing-girl-on-cheek-148424908/

Perspective anyone? What are we doing to our kids. Insanity.

God my baby son would be in all sorts of trouble, he kisses boys, girls, legomen, teddies, dinosaurs, all sorts.

Ridiculous.

runawaybishop

No

clairefontaine wrote: »

A world gone mad.

Colorodo school suspended six year old boy for kissing a girl on the cheek.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/10/colorado-boy-6-suspended-accused-sexual-harassment-for-kissing-girl-on-cheek-148424908/

Perspective anyone? What are we doing to our kids. Insanity.

Mental alright, but not really sexism?

clairefontaine

runawaybishop wrote: »

Mental alright, but not really sexism?

Well... I think it is, though not in a direct obvious way. And this is not the first time I've seen cases like this.

I doubt a girl would have this consequence firstly. Secondly, I hear of cases all the time when six year old girls kick boys in the nuts and nothing happens to them, which IMO is far more serious and painful than a stolen kiss on the cheek.

The sexual harassment charge will remain on his record, school, not criminal,,but still... If he we've wanted to go to private schools, its still a blemish on his record.

This kind of thing never happened before the 1990s, when all this feminist hyper sensitivity, hate male, BS started taking hold across the country. It's gone way too far, and so yes I do see this as sexist.

GalwayGuy2

Jesus

I honestly didn't think that 6 year old story would ever happen. :eek: Have we really gone that paranoid?

Pawwed Rig

Do kids still play kiss chasing at school?

py2006

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Do kids still play kiss chasing at school?

I still play it now.

Pawwed Rig

In my school at 5&6 years old the boys were more afraid of getting kissed by the girls than vice versa. Were you to be caught and kissed that made you gay for some reason (less PC times ).

To start throwing sexual harrassment charges against children is beyond stupid. This is a normal part of childhood and seems to be attempting to impose adult norms on children which is wholly inappropriate.

py2006

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

In my school at 5&6 years old the boys were more afraid of getting kissed by the girls than vice versa. Were you to be caught and kissed that made you gay for some reason (less PC times ).

To start throwing sexual harrassment charges against children is beyond stupid. This is a normal part of childhood and seems to be attempting to impose adult norms on children which is wholly inappropriate.

I read this morning (can't find article right now) that the mother of the girl agrees to the sexual harassment allegation.

Not sure if that means he was a serial kisser or not. Next step the sex offenders list?

Henry9

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

In my school at 5&6 years old the boys were more afraid of getting kissed by the girls than vice versa. Were you to be caught and kissed that made you gay for some reason (less PC times ).

To start throwing sexual harrassment charges against children is beyond stupid. This is a normal part of childhood and seems to be attempting to impose adult norms on children which is wholly inappropriate.

I don't think it's trying to impose adult norms, it's trying to impose feminist norms. Because of the structure of the education systems, feminism has practically a free run at imposing their ideology. Once you see all males as a threat and guilty until proven otherwise, it's a logical step to seeing male children as sex offenders.

clairefontaine

py2006 wrote: »

I read this morning (can't find article right now) that the mother of the girl agrees to the sexual harassment allegation.

Not sure if that means he was a serial kisser or not. Next step the sex offenders list?

Ah... Colorodo...

Same state with the Aurora and Columbine shootings.... And then we wonder why we have angry males .

These sex harassment charges of six year old boys are he most ridiculous things. You cold get punched the balls or come home with a black eye and nothing would happen to the kid who did it to you.

But a kiss on the cheek? It is absolutely PC middle class goody two shoes BS.

osaurus

As a guy in nursing I experience it quite regularly. Ranges from old school nurses saying it's a woman's job and being downright ignored to claims that I will be promoted just because I'm a lad. I've had one patient refuse my care on the grounds I was a guy, which hurt a lot but I just smiled and said ok I will get the manager to sort it. Could go on but it may give the impression I don't like my job, which is untrue. Love it.

Gandhi

clairefontaine wrote: »

But a kiss on the cheek? It is absolutely PC middle class goody two shoes BS.

It was actually a kiss on the hand. Also turns out the little girl's mother is a teacher at the school, which may have been why it was taken extra-seriously.

According to CNN, the school have backed down on the harassment charges now.

laoch na mona

No

Henry9 wrote: »

I don't think it's trying to impose adult norms, it's trying to impose feminist norms. Because of the structure of the education systems, feminism has practically a free run at imposing their ideology. Once you see all males as a threat and guilty until proven otherwise, it's a logical step to seeing male children as sex offenders.

that is a complete misunderstanding of feminism, feminists do not see all men as threats (okay radical feminists do but they are the fringe group) feminists recognise the negative impact the patriarchy has on society. its about escaping gender roles not persecuting men

this appears to be a case of viewing the behaviour of children through adult norms which is stupidity not sexism