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

silverharp

^^

a little sceptical of the girls here, could be classed as attention seeking, we will never know if their motives are pure :pac:

Da Boss

I,a man,experience sexism personally on a daily basis. Sexism is in every aspect of life, example in Dáil Éireann this gender quota malarkey is sexism at the extreme,to the advantage of women. Gender shouldn't matter in the parliament,ability should. Likewise is society men are expected to hold a door 4 example 4 women,never see the reverse. Women I believe are playing this sexism token to their advantage,playing the victim

Sleepy

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Mmm...no, and not just because of my own example - some of the most amazing ladies I've ever met have...guilty pleasures in the form of liking shows you wouldn't think of; We're talking about smart, witty, competent, self-confident young women who also happened to enjoy...Coronation Street or East Enders. I wouldn't watch ten second of footage from these shows, but the fact someone likes them, clearly, doesn't mean anything other than that - that they like these soaps.

It depends on the show and the motivations for watching it I guess.

Sex and the City was seen as "aspirational" viewing of a lifestyle many women desired: getting to wear "fabulous" clothes, having a closet with more pairs of shoes than there are days in the year, being surrounded with witty (read bitchy) "gay best friends", working a part-time job that involved nothing more than over-analysing one's own life or organising parties, eating out every night, having one's own apartment in one of the most expensive cities in the world and never having to live with the consequences of one's actions aside from feeling sad until your friends bring you for another round of cosmos. (to be fair, I do remember an episode where Carrie was made face up to the "reality" that she had no savings due to living like this - reality would have had her in bankruptcy court).

Maybe that's a fun fantasy for some young women (in a similar vein to how the ladykilling, rolling in sports cars and smoking weed lifestlye of Entourage might have been something of a fantasy lifestyle for many young men) though at the time it was presented as something to actually aspire to, or as something "empowering" to watch because the leads acknowledged that, shock horror, most women enjoy sex.

The soaps, whilst muck, have never really presented themselves as any more than they are: mindless, over-the-top drama. SATC was pushed as a lifestyle guide by the womens publishing industry, no doubt because the likes of Jimmy Choo, Chanel and Pantene (or whichever cosmetics company had hired Sarah Jessica Parker for a shoot that month) paid handsomely for advertising in their glossy fashion magazines.

In much the same way that Star Trek could be seen as pushing a (hopelessly?) aspirational view of a future of the possibilities of a truly united humanity, Sex and the City can be seen as selling an insidious version of consequenceless consumerism wrapped up in the flag of third wave feminism.

Perhaps I'm just jumping on a hobby horse as I really, really hated that show and the influence I could see it having on quite a lot of women while it was on the air (perhaps the modern equivalent would be TOWIE or Jersey Shore or the likes?) but I do think that the tv, movies, music, games or art of any kind one is into can be an important factor in identifying a compatible partner.

Mrs Sleepy doesn't like everything I enjoy (Star Trek would actually be a perfect example!) and I don't like everything she does (She'd still follow Home & Away for example) but a huge amount of the stuff we like is shared and that can be important imo. When it's a cold winter's night and the kids are in bed it's nice to be able to settle down on the couch and not have to argue over what to put on...

To quote a movie/book we both like:

"what really matters is what you like, not what you are like... Books, records, films -- these things matter. Call me shallow but it's the fuckin' truth" - Rob Gordon, High Fidelity

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Sleepy wrote: »

Maybe that's a fun fantasy for some young women (in a similar vein to how the ladykilling, rolling in sports cars and smoking weed lifestlye of Entourage might have been something of a fantasy lifestyle for many young men) though at the time it was presented as something to actually aspire to, or as something "empowering" to watch because the leads acknowledged that, shock horror, most women enjoy sex.

The difference is that men have always been encouraged to sow their wild oats whereas women were expected to be whiter than white. It's only been very recently that this has changed and SATC likely played a part in it.

I moved into a place in Dublin which had Comedy Central (or Paramount Comedy as it was then known, God I feel old) and I'd no idea what it was so I watched some episodes as it was all that was on. I think that it's slop for the reasons that you've alluded to but it's important slop in a cultural sense. Frankly, if it had been made in the age of social media, it'd have been 10 times worse so there's that.

Sleepy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The difference is that men have always been encouraged to sow their wild oats whereas women were expected to be whiter than white. It's only been very recently that this has changed and SATC likely played a part in it.

I really think it's role in that was greatly, greatly over-stated.

iptba

Sleepy wrote: »

It depends on the show and the motivations for watching it I guess.

Sex and the City was seen as "aspirational" viewing of a lifestyle many women desired: getting to wear "fabulous" clothes, having a closet with more pairs of shoes than there are days in the year, being surrounded with witty (read bitchy) "gay best friends", working a part-time job that involved nothing more than over-analysing one's own life or organising parties, eating out every night, having one's own apartment in one of the most expensive cities in the world and never having to live with the consequences of one's actions aside from feeling sad until your friends bring you for another round of cosmos. (to be fair, I do remember an episode where Carrie was made face up to the "reality" that she had no savings due to living like this - reality would have had her in bankruptcy court).

Maybe that's a fun fantasy for some young women (in a similar vein to how the ladykilling, rolling in sports cars and smoking weed lifestlye of Entourage might have been something of a fantasy lifestyle for many young men) though at the time it was presented as something to actually aspire to, or as something "empowering" to watch because the leads acknowledged that, shock horror, most women enjoy sex.

The soaps, whilst muck, have never really presented themselves as any more than they are: mindless, over-the-top drama. SATC was pushed as a lifestyle guide by the womens publishing industry, no doubt because the likes of Jimmy Choo, Chanel and Pantene (or whichever cosmetics company had hired Sarah Jessica Parker for a shoot that month) paid handsomely for advertising in their glossy fashion magazines.

In much the same way that Star Trek could be seen as pushing a (hopelessly?) aspirational view of a future of the possibilities of a truly united humanity, Sex and the City can be seen as selling an insidious version of consequenceless consumerism wrapped up in the flag of third wave feminism.

Perhaps I'm just jumping on a hobby horse as I really, really hated that show and the influence I could see it having on quite a lot of women while it was on the air (perhaps the modern equivalent would be TOWIE or Jersey Shore or the likes?) but I do think that the tv, movies, music, games or art of any kind one is into can be an important factor in identifying a compatible partner.

Mrs Sleepy doesn't like everything I enjoy (Star Trek would actually be a perfect example!) and I don't like everything she does (She'd still follow Home & Away for example) but a huge amount of the stuff we like is shared and that can be important imo. When it's a cold winter's night and the kids are in bed it's nice to be able to settle down on the couch and not have to argue over what to put on...

To quote a movie/book we both like:

"what really matters is what you like, not what you are like... Books, records, films -- these things matter. Call me shallow but it's the fuckin' truth" - Rob Gordon, High Fidelity

I remember a line where one of the characters, Carrie I think, referred to her clothes and shoes as her pension (can't remember the exact quote). I thought that was interesting.

Pawwed Rig

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The difference is that men have always been encouraged to sow their wild oats whereas women were expected to be whiter than white.

I don't think they have really. Especially in an Irish context

um7y1h83ge06nx

This Cafe Charges an 18% 'Man Tax' to Highlight Gender Pay Gap

JRant

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

This Cafe Charges an 18% 'Man Tax' to Highlight Gender Pay Gap

What sort of plonker would pay an extra 18% on already overpriced coffee?

kunst nugget

maybe

I wonder would they're be 17% tax on young, single women over here?

Zulu

No

kunst nugget wrote: »

I wonder would they're be 17% tax on young, single women over here?

Don't be a fool; that would be blatant and despicable sexism.

py2006

The irony of rule 3

frostyjacks

I suppose these girls would have no issue being billed for the sacrifices made by men on their behalf at Passchendaele, the Somme, Normandy etc. They really do live in their own little world.

um7y1h83ge06nx

py2006 wrote: »

The irony of rule 3

Yes I love that one, makes them look very foolish.

Although great Brownie points to be had if I don some white armour and ride over on my trusty steed. ;-)

deaddonkey15

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

This Cafe Charges an 18% 'Man Tax' to Highlight Gender Pay Gap

Is this even legal?

murphm45

Kind of dip in and out of this forum and this seems like the best place to "highlight" this. An interesting take on the whole debate in yesterdays examiner that I think is worth a read.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/discrimination-is-wrong-but-dont-assume-work-is-everyones-priority-456698.html

ancapailldorcha

maybe

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Is this even legal?

It is in Australia where there may not be the same equality legislation that there is in Europe.

JRant

kunst nugget wrote: »

I wonder would they're be 17% tax on young, single women over here?

To correctly quote the figures that feminists love to use it should be women save -17% on purchases.

ligerdub

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Is this even legal?

It is. Apparently the extra charge from men is a voluntary thing and they can insist on the same price as women.

There's no way it could be considered legal otherwise.

It's a vegan cafe apparently. It'll be closed within the year if there's any justice in the world.

iptba

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

This Cafe Charges an 18% 'Man Tax' to Highlight Gender Pay Gap

This was just covered on Euronews. Only one side of the debate was given. They said no man has refused to pay though it is supposedly optional.

red ears

Woman have priority seating.. so its not about equality.

Calhoun

As pointed out in the Twitter comments the pay gap is at those on higher incomes yet the poorer being discriminated against.

I would say something like this is being done for marketing reasons but I feel the shop should go out of business for discriminatory practices. Switch things around and watch the internet but for a few days.

silverharp

its the little victories :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0T8SiuqB5g

Cookie_Monster

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It is in Australia where there may not be the same equality legislation that there is in Europe.

A cafe here in NZ has mirrored it now as well


The backlash has been pretty strong, lose base of reality and all that.

Calhoun

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

A cafe here in NZ has mirrored it now as well


The backlash has been pretty strong, lose base of reality and all that.

What do you mean the backlash has been strong ?

Is it another vegan cafe ?

ligerdub

Australia and New Zealand seems to be a haven for this sort of ****e. Am I being unfair there?

mrkiscool2

ligerdub wrote: »

Australia and New Zealand seems to be a haven for this sort of ****e. Am I being unfair there?

Australia more so. They were so opposed to the "Red Pill" documentary (which is great, by the way) they did an off-air interview with Cassie Jaye and edited out any parts that didn't fit the narrative. They have crazy regulations on stuff to ensure "diversity" and have now asked their military to only hire females for all army roles.

iptba

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Australia more so. They were so opposed to the "Red Pill" documentary (which is great, by the way) they did an off-air interview with Cassie Jaye and edited out any parts that didn't fit the narrative. They have crazy regulations on stuff to ensure "diversity" and have now asked their military to only hire females for all army roles.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2017/08/australian-army-reportedly-bans-hiring-men-in-a-bid-to-boost-women-numbers.html
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/36682473/australian-army-ban-on-male-recruits-sparks-sunrise-debate/#page1

red ears

Little bit of good news for boys in education.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/08/17/a-level-results-2017-first-rise-top-grades-six-years-despite/

Boys are beating girls to top A-level grades for the first time in 17 years - with 26.6 per cent of boys achieving coveted A* or A grades compared to just 26.1 per cent of girls.

silverharp

red ears wrote: »

Little bit of good news for boys in education.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/08/17/a-level-results-2017-first-rise-top-grades-six-years-despite/

Boys are beating girls to top A-level grades for the first time in 17 years - with 26.6 per cent of boys achieving coveted A* or A grades compared to just 26.1 per cent of girls.

I heard that yesterday and the reason given was amending the courses. What in broad terms did they do?

red ears

silverharp wrote: »

I heard that yesterday and the reason given was amending the courses. What in broad terms did they do?

Oh dear, if changing the course resulted in boys doing better there will be heavy pressure to change it back.

silverharp

red ears wrote: »

Oh dear, if changing the course resulted in boys doing better there will be heavy pressure to change it back.

I had that thought too

silverharp

from after hours and props to prof

professore wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/08/17/a-level-results-2017-first-rise-top-grades-six-years-despite/

Here it is, Ladies and Gentlemen, from this year's A level stats broken down by gender. Computing looks about 10% girls and Performing / Expressive Arts is about 90% girls. This is of course somehow due to rampant sexism. Nothing to do with their actual interests.

Also interesting is that boys are slightly ahead of girls for the first time since 2000 - tellingly they have placed less emphasis on coursework and more on the actual exam, which would advantage boys if they are worse communicators than girls on average.

Exactly what you would expect if James Damore's paper is accurate.

Also the 10% of girls that studied Computing probably did just as well or better than the 90% of boys. As did the 10% of boys that studied Performing / Expressive Arts.

If James had been working for a theatre company and suggested women were more suited on average to Performing / Expressive Arts but otherwise written the exact same paper and left out the word Neuroticism (which is one of the 5 big psychological traits, not some disease) there would have been zero argument.

Also there is no big push to get men into the Performing / Expressive Arts. Why is this I wonder?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

I heard that yesterday and the reason given was amending the courses. What in broad terms did they do?

One article said they removed the AS level (I don't know what that is). They shifted emphasis away from coursework and towards he final exam and shifted emphasis towards maths in physics and chemistry.

The coverage is focused on the % of A and A* results so I don't know what happened elsewhere in the results. Last year bits were 0.3% below girls in A and A* results. This year they're 0.5 above girls.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

One article said they removed the AS level (I don't know what that is). They shifted emphasis away from coursework and towards he final exam and shifted emphasis towards maths in physics and chemistry.

The coverage is focused on the % of A and A* results so I don't know what happened elsewhere in the results. Last year bits were 0.3% below girls in A and A* results. This year they're 0.5 above girls.

interestingly colleges there have started ignoring results and offering places to students that they want, I dont know the numbers involved. they also probably dont have the same pressure for places so absolute results arent that important at the margin

iptba

The Leaving Cert results broken down by gender are up at examinations.ie: https://www.examinations.ie/statistics/

I think it is interesting to look at the top grade (Grade 1=A1) at honours level as you will generally need some natural aptitude to get such a grade, just being a good student isn't enough.

Languages:
Irish: girls: 799 boys: 346 ratio: 1:0.43
French: girls: 616 (66%) boys: 314 ratio: 1:0.51
German: girls: 196 boys: 110 ratio: 1:0.56
Spanish: girls: 277 boys: 134 ratio: 1:0.48

English: girls: 675 boys: 441 ratio: 1:0.65

Mathematics: girls: 279 boys: 675 ratio: 1: 2.42

If it was just down to girls working harder, this is not the type of pattern you would expect.

deaddonkey15

iptba wrote: »

Languages:
Irish: girls: 799 boys: 346 ratio: 1:0.43
French: girls: 616 (66%) boys: 314 ratio: 1:0.51
German: girls: 196 boys: 110 ratio: 1:0.56
Spanish: girls: 277 boys: 134 ratio: 1:0.48

English: girls: 675 boys: 441 ratio: 1:0.65

Fair enough, seems like girls tend to have a greater interest/aptitude for learning languages than boys.

iptba wrote: »

Mathematics: girls: 279 boys: 675 ratio: 1: 2.42

SEXISM! The system favours boys!

Pawwed Rig

silverharp wrote: »

interestingly colleges there have started ignoring results and offering places to students that they want, I dont know the numbers involved. they also probably dont have the same pressure for places so absolute results arent that important at the margin

That is whyn the CAO process was introduced

gizmo555

Excellent letter in today's (22/08/17) "Irish Times" calling the newspaper and Una Mullally out on their anti-male sexism - from a woman:

Many men are offended by Una Mullally’s linking of the Charlottesville rally to “toxic masculinity” (Opinion & Analysis, August 18th). I think it is important that women are also outspoken in opposition to this type of dangerous and divisive language.

Would The Irish Times have published an article blaming IS terrorist attacks on “toxic Islam”?

Would an article linking the abuse perpetrated by some nuns to “toxic femininity” be acceptable? I think not.

Most of those attending the rally were men, but that is not to say that some women do not hold the same racist views. Also, these men did not come out of a vacuum. How many of them were reared in homes headed up by racist and bigoted women?

What about the “masculinity” of the majority of men who oppose these views?

There is no doubt that misogyny still exists and that women have to continue to oppose sexism in its many guises; however, a term such as “toxic masculinity” is offensive and sexist.

The article correctly demonstrates how the “alt-right” uses reasonable-sounding terminology to legitimise extreme views and cautions against absentmindedly adopting the same language.

However. this works both ways – the language used by women in the feminist cause is being watched very carefully by those who want to label feminists as just men-haters.

Words matter, and Una Mullally is in danger of feeding the trolls with hers.

py2006

Nice to read but her final sentence lets it down.

'Trolls' being those who criticise elements of modern day feminism.

Una Mullally is long passed 'being in danger' of giving credence to the toxic feminist view of men today and shows the double standard of the media which would sack any man with similar views of women.

Carlos Orange

No

py2006 wrote: »

Una Mullally is long passed 'being in danger' of giving credence to the toxic feminist view of men today and shows the double standard of the media which would sack any man with similar views of women.

Is Una not just a walking,talking,typing stereotype of feminism?
If she wrote for a site I didn't recognise she could even be mistaken for a parody of feminism.

py2006

psinno wrote: »

Is Una not just a walking,talking,typing stereotype of feminism?
If she wrote for a site I didn't recognise she could even be mistaken for a parody of feminism.

Yep. but the Irish Times is giving her an unedited platform

H3llR4iser

Frankly, the most significant data, to me, is what shows up here:



The difference in some subjects is staggering - only about 10% of the students taking Computing were girls; Which in turn reflects the employment market in the same sector. Put out an ad looking for software engineers, developers, sysadmins and so on and about 90% of the CVs you receive are men's.

What's even worse, we're talking about young people - "digital natives", as we old farts call them; Girls and boys who are, practically, born with a laptop in their hands. Connected as soon as they can achieve any level of hand-eye coordination; IT/Computing is integral part of their lives since day 1 and yet, when push comes to shove, girls "retreat" to the classical subjects.

Same goes for other scientific subjects - see Physics, for example; and people then wonder why there's a lack of women in STEM...

ligerdub

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Frankly, the most significant data, to me, is what shows up here:



The difference in some subjects is staggering - only about 10% of the students taking Computing were girls; Which in turn reflects the employment market in the same sector. Put out an ad looking for software engineers, developers, sysadmins and so on and about 90% of the CVs you receive are men's.

What's even worse, we're talking about young people - "digital natives", as we old farts call them; Girls and boys who are, practically, born with a laptop in their hands. Connected as soon as they can achieve any level of hand-eye coordination; IT/Computing is integral part of their lives since day 1 and yet, when push comes to shove, girls "retreat" to the classical subjects.

Same goes for other scientific subjects - see Physics, for example; and people then wonder why there's a lack of women in STEM...

I know you haven't suggested this is a problem, but I don't see any inherent problem with this. If they are interested in these topics and want to study them then by all means. There is also a societal benefit for the most part with people having knowledge in some of these areas.

The problem for me is when they expect this to make them qualified to do [XYZ] job. There's also the problem of intellectually dishonesty within some of the liberal arts, and is taught from an area of extreme bias, almost mouling an army of soldiers to go forth and spout their bollox and grievances to the masses.

As you say, I don't think they can expect to be employed in any of those fields with a degree in social science or the like.

H3llR4iser

ligerdub wrote: »

I know you haven't suggested this is a problem, but I don't see any inherent problem with this. If they are interested in these topics and want to study them then by all means. There is also a societal benefit for the most part with people having knowledge in some of these areas.

The issue is in the skewed figures - when one, very defined (male) half of the population overwhelmingly goes for subjects that have a higher potential and practical yield in the employment market, while the other equally well defined (female) half goes into the exact opposite, a social problem is born.

The fact that this is completely voluntary is the most puzzling aspect of it - why do young women actively avoid subjects like Computing and Physics more than young men do? Is it the "nerd type" stigma and media portrayal of them? Is it really strong enough to overshadow the clear edge these subjects grant in the job market when it comes to the real world? Or maybe it's the parents, telling their girls that these are "more for boys"? Something else entirely?

The lack of women in STEM very, very clearly begins here; Yet nobody seems to even want to begin analyzing the situation at its roots, instead of just rambling about non-descript "sexism in STEM".

ligerdub wrote: »

The problem for me is when they expect this to make them qualified to do [XYZ] job. There's also the problem of intellectually dishonesty within some of the liberal arts, and is taught from an area of extreme bias, almost mouling an army of soldiers to go forth and spout their bollox and grievances to the masses.

As you say, I don't think they can expect to be employed in any of those fields with a degree in social science or the like.

Absolutely agree - and that's probably a very valid answer to my question above: liberal arts and anything coming under the same "umbrella" are often put in a light that's, how to say, extremely optimistic.

gizmo555

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Absolutely agree - and that's probably a very valid answer to my question above: liberal arts and anything coming under the same "umbrella" are often put in a light that's, how to say, extremely optimistic.

One example that has stuck in my mind is a feature article in the "Irish Times" around a year ago, about the problems graduates were having finding work. A graduate interviewed for the piece expressed utter bewilderment at not being able to get a job, despite having a masters degree in Anglo-Irish literature ...

Dave0301

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The fact that this is completely voluntary is the most puzzling aspect of it - why do young women actively avoid subjects like Computing and Physics more than young men do? Is it the "nerd type" stigma and media portrayal of them? Is it really strong enough to overshadow the clear edge these subjects grant in the job market when it comes to the real world? Or maybe it's the parents, telling their girls that these are "more for boys"? Something else entirely?

The lack of women in STEM very, very clearly begins here; Yet nobody seems to even want to begin analyzing the situation at its roots, instead of just rambling about non-descript "sexism in STEM".

Not entirely true. The Institute of Physics has commissioned a number of research projects into it and published their results.

They then produce resources that are designed to avoid gender stereotyping and to try and engage girls in Physics more.

It has been a few years since I looked at this in any great depth, but if you are interested I can dig up some of the studies that I read during my MA.

H3llR4iser

Dave0301 wrote: »

Not entirely true. The Institute of Physics has commissioned a number of research projects into it and published their results.

They then produce resources that are designed to avoid gender stereotyping and to try and engage girls in Physics more.

It has been a few years since I looked at this in any great depth, but if you are interested I can dig up some of the studies that I read during my MA.

Thanks - that looks interesting; I'll check these out more accurately later on.

The Black Oil

psinno wrote: »

Is Una not just a walking,talking,typing stereotype of feminism?
If she wrote for a site I didn't recognise she could even be mistaken for a parody of feminism.

Her default setting seems to be one of being permanently offended. She has complained on Twitter about things like women at festivals, that some awards thing for chefs was won entirely by men, or that no women were represented. Her entire world wide view seems to be consumed by gender - like O'Neill, those blinkers are not coming off any time soon.

Calhoun

The Black Oil wrote: »

Her default setting seems to be one of being permanently offended. She has complained on Twitter about things like women at festivals, that some awards thing for chefs was won entirely by men, or that no women were represented. Her entire world wide view seems to be consumed by gender - like O'Neill, those blinkers are not coming off any time soon.

To be fair she is the feminist version of Kevin Meyers, she just happens to be in fashion right now. Hopefully she will come up against it like Kevin at some point .