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

py2006

Calhoun wrote: »

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 .

She wont! It would have happened a longgg time ago!

Calhoun

py2006 wrote: »

She wont! It would have happened a longgg time ago!

I am sure someone would have said that about Kevin at some point and as things go out of style so do opinions .

iptba

Una Mullally has a lot of followers for someone from Ireland especially given the number of tweets*

https://twitter.com/UnaMullally

Tweets: 96K

Following: 361

Followers: 49.9K

*Some people might follow some people out of curiosity but would be less inclined to do it if they tweeted a lot.

Calhoun

iptba wrote: »

Una Mullally has a lot of followers for someone from Ireland especially given the number of tweets*



*Some people might follow some people out of curiosity but would be less inclined to do it if they tweeted a lot.

You know how it is in those circles, the echo chamber is as such that allot follow each other. I am not talking one political view point or another i mean on both sides of political spectrum you will find them all doing it.

There is an Irish guy who would be against liberal policies and he has around 30K. https://twitter.com/DaveCullenCF

Padraig Mor

According to the Irish Examiner, girls outperforming boys in the vast majority of Leaving Cert subjects is "one of the great dividends of evolving social values" and "embracing progress". Of course, "so much more needs to be done" such as "a better gender balance in top jobs, and pay equality".

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/ourview/women-living-different-lives--a-lot-done-but-a-lot-more-to-do-457532.html

Buffman

So, I was having a look through some of the Australian links a few posts back and some online comments mentioned this. The Goverment of Western Australia domestic violence helplines.

http://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/Pages/Women%27s-Domestic-Violence-Helpline.aspx

Women’s Domestic Violence Helpline

The Women’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides support and counselling for women experiencing family and domestic violence. This includes phone counselling, information and advice, referral to local advocacy and support services, liaison with police if necessary and support in escaping situations of family and domestic violence. The service can refer women to safe accommodation if required. A telephone based interpreting service is available if required.
Telephone (08) 9223 1188 Free call 1800 007 339

In an emergency - if someone is in immediate danger - call the police on 000 now.


For other services that may be able to assist please click here>>

For more information about family and domestic violence click here>>
Freedom from Fear resources:

• When you hurt your partner you hurt your children - fact sheet (PDF)
• Has your partner hurt you? Information for victims of domestic violence - fact sheet (PDF)

http://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/CrisisAndEmergency/Pages/Men%27s-Domestic-Violence-Helpline.aspx

Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline

The Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides counselling for men who are concerned about their violent and abusive behaviours. The service can provide telephone counselling, information and referral to ongoing face to face services if required. This service can provide information about accessing legal advice, accommodation and other support services for people who have been served with a violence restraining order. Information and support is also available for men who have experienced family and domestic violence. A telephone based interpreting service is available if required.
Telephone (08) 9223 1199 Free call 1800 000 599

In an emergency - if someone is in immediate danger - call the police on 000 now.


For other services that may be able to assist please click here>>

For more information about family and domestic violence click here>>
Freedom from Fear resources:

• How to deal with domestic violence - fact sheet (PDF)
• When you hurt your partner you hurt your children - fact sheet (PDF)
• How do I know if I'm abusive? - fact sheet (PDF)
• Has your partner hurt you? Information for victims of domestic violence - fact sheet (PDF)
• How to deal with domestic violence: a self-help booklet for men who want to change - 20 page A5 booklet (PDF)

Even the link that appears in both 'helplines' and at first glance looks to have a neutral title contains this:

Has your partner hurt you? Information for victims of domestic violence

It is very hard when a person you may love hurts or abuses
you. It is hard to understand why he chooses to hurt you. It can
be hard to explain to your family and friends that you may still
love him even though he abuses you.
Sometimes, because of the hurt that you’ve gone through, all of your positive feelings and love for him may have gone.
..............
Some women may use their partner’s alcohol or drug use to rationalise or excuse his abusive behaviour. Their partner may also use
it as an excuse to justify his violence.
...............
YOU ARE NOT TO BLAME.
He is responsible for his own behaviour and he is the only one who can
change it.
WILL THE VIOLENCE AND ABUSE KEEP HAPPENING?
The simple answer is yes, unless your partner accepts responsibility for
his behaviour and gets help to change. Generally speaking, your partner
will not stop being abusive just because you want him to. If you don’t
think he will take responsibility and change his attitudes and behaviour,
you will find yourself in the difficult position of having to decide whether to
keep living with the abuse.
Only you can judge your situation. You can’t change your partner –
he has to get the help himself. The Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline
provides men with an opportunity to call to receive help. They can speak
to a trained professional who will provide them with alternatives to their
abusive behaviour.
If your partner doesn’t decide to change his behaviour, you may decide
to leave. This can be a very hard decision for women to make, however,
support and help to do this is available. It is important to have strategies
for leaving, to ensure you and your children’s safety and wellbeing.

Calhoun

Padraig Mor wrote: »

According to the Irish Examiner, girls outperforming boys in the vast majority of Leaving Cert subjects is "one of the great dividends of evolving social values" and "embracing progress". Of course, "so much more needs to be done" such as "a better gender balance in top jobs, and pay equality".

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/ourview/women-living-different-lives--a-lot-done-but-a-lot-more-to-do-457532.html

What a strange article, it meanders around allot and im not quite sure on the relevance of it to Ireland bar the closing piece. Even at that the gender and pay gap arent as drastic as they call out, its like an opinion piece with no author showing.

Buffman

Buffman wrote: »

This 'author' also writes in the Irishtimes and has a specific 'target market' for her work, but this article has so many generalisations it's almost funny. Plenty of alternative views in the comments section though!:D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4754914/Where-good-men-gone.html

Where have all the good men gone? These sassy, sophisticated, solvent women say they are struggling to find other halves that can measure up

• Five single women share why they've struggled to find men worth dating
• They ask if it is possible to find independent, attractive mid-life daters
• One dating coach says there are seven women for every man aged 40-55

By Alana Kirk For The Daily Mail
Published: 22:15, 2 August 2017 | Updated: 16:04, 3 August 2017

Looks like the DM received some blowback from that 'article' and now have one from the male point of view. (The usual 'health warning' applies regarding the source.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4817380/Where-good-women-gone.html

Where have all the good women gone? Men fight back with a vengeance against the women who SLAMMED chaps today as boring, grumpy slobs

• Five single men share why they've struggled to find women worth dating
• They ask if it is possible to find considerate women who don't want to rush things
• One psychotherapist blames online dating and pornography for complications

silverharp

^^

could have been a better article, they still managed to call the men misogynists which they wouldnt have reversed in their original article and some of the men featured werent exactly everyman like the widower but they all made reasonable points.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

^^

could have been a better article, they still managed to call the men misogynists which they wouldnt have reversed in their original article and some of the men featured werent exactly everyman like the widower but they all made reasonable points.

Could have been better?That article paints women as unthinking, unfeeling, money grabbing morons and you're still not happy.

Reading those 2 articles I just feel sad that the narrative is men VS women, and sad that so many people seem to delight in that narrative.

Just to clarify, do we like this type of narrative? When LON does it, its treated with vitriol. But this article isn't getting any of that treatment save to say 'could have been better'

ligerdub

The article shouldn't have been written. It was totally unnecessary and the only reason it was written was to "even out" the debate after the initial effort which was rightfully battered.

Both articles are unfair on the target of their criticisms.

I'm as unimpressed as anyone when it comes to the standard man-bashing stuff from LON, and as somebody from the entirely opposite coin to her, the last thing I'd want to see happen is when there becomes equally poor stuff from the other side.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Could have been better?That article paints women as unthinking, unfeeling, money grabbing morons and you're still not happy.

Reading those 2 articles I just feel sad that the narrative is men VS women, and sad that so many people seem to delight in that narrative.

Just to clarify, do we like this type of narrative? When LON does it, its treated with vitriol. But this article isn't getting any of that treatment save to say 'could have been better'

some of the examples were a bit out there and they seemed to focus too much on people over 40 which isnt your normal control group, the idea of a blind date barging her way into your house must be a 1/1000. However it appears in particular in large cities that a % of women are doing it wrong and if they arent then they shouldnt be complaining yet they are.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

some of the examples were a bit out there and they seemed to focus too much on people over 40 which isnt your normal control group, the idea of a blind date barging her way into your house must be a 1/1000. However it appears in particular in large cities that a % of women are doing it wrong and if they arent then they shouldnt be complaining yet they are.

Control group?!? Lol. This isn't an experiment, it's an exorcise in painting the other sex as the enemy. It's throwing red meat directly at you

Wibbs

maybe

ligerdub wrote: »

It was totally unnecessary and the only reason it was written was to "even out" the debate after the initial effort which was rightfully battered.

This. And painfully obvious it is too. Then again it is the Daily Mail. What would you expect from a pig but a grunt.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Control group?!? Lol. This isn't an experiment, it's an exorcise in painting the other sex as the enemy. It's throwing red meat directly at you

I think you are just shocked that women were actually criticised in an article. Maybe it will start a conversation? lord knows its been one way traffic for the last decade and any attempt to counter it is shot down with claims of misogyny

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

I think you are just shocked that women were actually criticised in an article. Maybe it will start a conversation? lord knows its been one way traffic for the last decade and any attempt to counter it is shot down with claims of misogyny

Im not shocked that women would be criticised, I've read enough of these threads to know there's an audience for this kind of guff.

You support this kind of article then? And LON also for the conversation her articles might start, presumably? Or do you usually express outrage at LON while celebrating this article got the conversation it might start?

I'm not a fan of the 'us vs them' narrative. What attracts you to it so much?

mzungu

silverharp wrote: »

I think you are just shocked that women were actually criticised in an article. Maybe it will start a conversation? lord knows its been one way traffic for the last decade and any attempt to counter it is shot down with claims of misogyny

Why is there the need for criticism though? If somebody is single then that is not the fault of anybody else.

I think a conversation should be started about things like falling birth rates and what that could mean decades down the line. That is an important conversation. But mindless clickbait from the Daily Mail that blames women/men for the others single woes in the dating game won't do that. That's just mindless garbage that aims to try and drive a wedge or create mistrust between the sexes.

silverharp

mzungu wrote: »

Why is there the need for criticism though? If somebody is single then that is not the fault of anybody else.

I think a conversation should be started about things like falling birth rates and what that could mean decades down the line. That is an important conversation. But mindless clickbait from the Daily Mail that blames women/men for the others single woes in the dating game won't do that. That's just mindless garbage that aims to try and drive a wedge or create mistrust between the sexes.

if you want to get on you have to appeal to the other sex. Assuming there is a wedge its pre existing and pointing it out is a good thing so both sexes can avoid it on an individual basis.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Im not shocked that women would be criticised, I've read enough of these threads to know there's an audience for this kind of guff.

You support this kind of article then? And LON also for the conversation her articles might start, presumably? Or do you usually express outrage at LON while celebrating this article got the conversation it might start?

I'm not a fan of the 'us vs them' narrative. What attracts you to it so much?

it wasnt an LON type article , it was a bunch of guys relating their dating experience. Also worth reading the comments where on the face of it other men are having similar issues. what is wrong with that?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

if you want to get on you have to appeal to the other sex. Assuming there is a wedge its pre existing and pointing it out is a good thing so both sexes can avoid it on an individual basis.

That article was nothing to do with wanting to get on. It was just a way to entertain people who enjoy this type of gender wars stuff. It tickled you so it's hitting its target audience.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That article was nothing to do with wanting to get on. It was just a way to entertain people who enjoy this type of gender wars stuff. It tickled you so it's hitting its target audience.

the previous article from memory was based on where have all the "good" men gone, this one was saying there there but they are rejecting certain women because of their behaviour. If a man or woman read that article they should have a think whether it applies to them or not.
Something is going wrong in society, 50 years ago one could argue that unsuitable people were forced to marry by convention, today it seems like a complete overshoot and going to far in the other direction and maybe reducing the net happiness of people

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

the previous article from memory was based on where have all the "good" men gone, this one was saying there there but they are rejecting certain women because of their behaviour. If a man or woman read that article they should have a think whether it applies to them or not.
Something is going wrong in society, [...]

I'm surprised you think this article should be of thought provoking. The other article provoked you into no greater thought than that women's brains were rotted by feminism. Lol.

Article critical of men = dismiss as women's fault - their brains are rotted by feminism.

Article critical of women = should provoke women into wondering if it's all their fault.

Guff. Why do you enjoy this gender wars stuff so much?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm surprised you think this article should be of thought provoking. The other article provoked you into no greater thought than that women's brains were rotted by feminism. Lol.

Article critical of men = dismiss as women's fault - their brains are rotted by feminism.

Article critical of women = should provoke women into wondering if it's all their fault.

Guff. Why do you enjoy this gender wars stuff so much?

it is possible for the "blame" to be more with one side than the other. Its clear from both articles that "some" women only want to marry up and wont consider marrying down. I have no sympathy with these women they should have copped on and got over themselves or accept their heuristic but then dont complain about it. On the flip side if some men see some women as being too materialistic, thats a character assessment and they should run with that to avoid a trainwreck down the road.
Remember all this is at the margin #notall

mzungu

silverharp wrote: »

if you want to get on you have to appeal to the other sex. Assuming there is a wedge its pre existing and pointing it out is a good thing so both sexes can avoid it on an individual basis.

I don't think there is a wedge, there are personality differences (and that is no bad thing, we are all individuals), but articles like that push forward the idea that there is a wedge that is driving a gulf between men and women. All things considered, there are far more people in relationships than there are single (AFAIK more in relationships now than at any other point in history), so the numbers suggest things are all A OK in that department.

The first thing that struck me after reading that article was that it was a hatchet job and featured the usual lazy cliches of gold digging and all that kind of thing. Yes, these people do exist, but the article tries to push it out there that it is a representative of how single women in that age bracket operate. It is a small minority, the vast majority don't go around behaving like that. I would not be at all surprised if they hand picked these guys for the specific purpose of pushing the idea of a big divide. Could they really have gotten an article out of "I went on a few dates and nothing really came of it but I still keep in contact with one or two because we have similar interests and meet up as friends" or "We went on a few dates but things fizzled out after a while and we went our separate ways" etc?

There would not have been anything in the article that was in anyway remotely useful for any man or woman in the modern dating field. It offers absolutely no insight into what dating is like for the vast majority and it fails to give an honest description of the majority of personalities involved. As I said above, it is a hatchet job disguised as "journalism".

mzungu

silverharp wrote: »

Something is going wrong in society, 50 years ago one could argue that unsuitable people were forced to marry by convention, today it seems like a complete overshoot and going to far in the other direction and maybe reducing the net happiness of people

In the grand scheme of things being single doesn't matter, it still amounts to a minority. Plus, given the planet only has limited resources it might be seen as a humanitarian gesture to the planet

As regards a reduction in happiness, some suggest the opposite.

For example.....

Using the National Survey of Families and Households (1992–1994) and the General Social Survey (2000, 2004, 2006, 2012), we examine ties to relatives, neighbors, and friends among U.S. adults. We find that single individuals are more likely to frequently stay in touch with, provide help to, and receive help from parents, siblings, neighbors, and friends than the married. These differences between the single and the married are more prominent for the never married than for the previously married, suggesting that marriage extends its reach after it ends. Being single increases the social connections of both women and men. Overall, much of the positive relationship between singlehood and social ties remains even when we take into account structural explanations.

Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2016). Does singlehood isolate or integrate? Examining the link between marital status and ties to kin, friends, and neighbors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(3), 361-384.

Buffman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That article paints women as unthinking, unfeeling, money grabbing morons and you're still not happy...............But this article isn't getting any of that treatment save to say 'could have been better'

Both 'articles' are cut from the same (click-bait) cloth and contain equally BS generalisations IMO, but that second one also contained 'professional' opinions such as:

Psychotherapist Teresa Wilson, who runs a practice in South-West London, believes men and women are coming to the dating game in middle age with entirely different perspectives.
While women — now so independent in outlook and behaviour — are much less worried than male counterparts about finding a new long-term partner, men are more likely to have come from a relationship they’d rather have kept.
‘Women don’t feel quite so trapped in bad relationships. They’ve found a certain liberation over the last 20 years,’ she says.
‘Men, however, like the stability of a home life provided for them, their creature comforts, and often don’t know how they’re going to manage except by going into another relationship.
‘Women, meanwhile, are not as fearful [of being alone]. They tell me: “I might find another relationship, but even if I do not, I can cope.”

Meanwhile, Selena Dogg-ett-Jones, a psychosexual and couples’ therapist, sees men as less able to cope with an entirely new dating landscape which has made singletons much pickier about prospective partners.

Psychotherapist Selena says another reason for men, old and young, being disappointed by modern dating is that today’s sexual relationships have been complicated by online dating and pornography.
‘There’s an awful lot of instant sex expected with some of the apps, like Tinder. It’s meet-for-sex and sometimes it will develop into a relationship.

Trelawney Kerrigan, a consultant for the Dating Agency Association, says: ‘Women will take a more positive approach while men, after a couple of knock-backs, will shrivel up. They are easily disillusioned; women are better at brushing themselves off.
‘It’s a confidence thing with men. You often hear men saying there are not enough genuine people out there and nobody’s taking it seriously.’

The second 'article' contained generalisations about both sexes which the first one didn't, so only 'taking offence' on behalf of one sex from reading it may say more about the readers attitude than anything else.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Reading those 2 articles I just feel sad that the narrative is men VS women, and sad that so many people seem to delight in that narrative.

Agreed, people need to remember the 'click-bait' reasons behind these types of articles (€£$).

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Remember all this is at the margin #notall

#notall but the only ones that interest you are the mad bints and the money grabbing, unthinking women. Conversely you're most interested in the poor men (bless them) all they want is a decent woman to share their hopes and dreams with.

I wonder if it's ever occurred to you that this 'is vs them' stuff is written specifically for you and your opposite numbers on the dreaded feminist side? It's written for you because you enjoy blaming the other side so much.

As long as you're enjoying yourself.

um7y1h83ge06nx

So much rubbish in this article about an all female version of Lord of the Flies.

Lord of the (female) Flies criticised - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41108180

fly_agaric

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

So much rubbish in this article about an all female version of Lord of the Flies.

Lord of the (female) Flies criticised - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41108180

ha, they just need to pitch version with a female Piggy and Ralph and Jack and his gang of goons staying male to warn of the dangers of "toxic masculinity". Should be all good to go with a corrected Lord of the Flies for current era then.

JRant

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

So much rubbish in this article about an all female version of Lord of the Flies.

Lord of the (female) Flies criticised - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41108180

I chuckled at this but in particular "Lord of the Flies starring only girls: Girls get marooned on an island. Band together to find food, shelter, rescue. Nobody dies. The end." Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds around a group of girls will know that is just not a reality.

silverharp

it would be more like, they have fun at the beach for 3 days, realise they are hungry, see a pig "you kill it" "no! you kill it " and are found a week later on the verge of starvation..the end

PucaMama

silverharp wrote: »

it would be more like, they have fun at the beach for 3 days, realise they are hungry, see a pig "you kill it" "no! you kill it " and are found a week later on the verge of starvation..the end

Posting comments like this leave you no better than the feminists. Well done.

Danjamin1

silverharp wrote: »

it would be more like, they have fun at the beach for 3 days, realise they are hungry, see a pig "you kill it" "no! you kill it " and are found a week later on the verge of starvation..the end

Reminds me of this:

https://youtu.be/rrqNx_og_uk

Sleepy

I love all the Survival shows (Bear Grylls The Island, Eden: Paradise Lost etc) and it seems a fairly common theme that men are, in general, more valuable members of the community in such environments. In any of them I've seen where they've had all female group they have almost without exception failed to adapt to their environment rather spectacularly. The Eden experiment was fascinating in large part because while it was evident that some of the men were far more capable for the majority of the work required to survive in that environment, the women being used to a modern egalitarian society resisted any attempt to delegate tasks according to ability e.g. when asked to let a sub group of the men do the wood cutting because they could do it a quarter of the time in exchange for the women taking over that sub-groups share of the washing up they refused because they didn't want to conform to traditional gender roles of work assignment.

That same sub group of the men started to behave in an appallingly sexist fashion and tbh, went almost feral at times. By the end, only 2 women stuck out the entire year and did so out of sheer (admirable imo) stubborness that they wouldn't let that group's behaviour drive them out. (Interestingly, the group had also driven out arguably the two most capable members of the community as they wouldn't conform to the group consensus).

It's had me wondering if there's perhaps something to be learned about the origins of sexism in the first place: if men are more valuable to a community in a basic survival setting, is that why women were historically relegated to second class status? Is it only with the explosion in population and specialisation of labour we've seen since the industrial revolution that there are enough roles where womens labours are of equal valuable to their community because so little of the work required in that community matches the areas where men have natural advantages of strength?

I'm speaking in massive generalisations of course: there are plenty of women out there who'd be better at chopping wood / building cabins / slaughtering animals etc than the average modern male (myself included) but are a much smaller percentage of the population than the percentage of men who would excel in these areas.

I've always struggled with the concept of everyone being equal tbh. All evidence points to the fact that we're patently not. We all have strengths and weaknesses and some of us have far more strengths while some of us have far more weaknesses. We all deserve the same rights and opportunities of access to social / community resources or "equality of opportunity" but the reality is that equality of outcome is impossible for humanity to achieve simply because we'll never have equality of input.

silverharp

PucaMama wrote: »

Posting comments like this leave you no better than the feminists. Well done.

its not an experiment anyone can do, there was a Dutch version of those survival shows where they put the men on one island and the women on another. The lads had basically turned their island into a beach bar and hotel, tables and benches, good rain cover , raised beds off the ground. The women weren't doing so well, I believe the producers had to drop a dead pig to their camp for them to eat.

The problem today is the perception that women can do anything and don't need men, look at tv shows/movies where the thinnest of waifs can drop kick multiple trained male killers.
If you want a fair society men should be given praise for building society and keeping it going and not be hammered constantly that they are the worst.

Wibbs

maybe

Sleepy wrote: »

It's had me wondering if there's perhaps something to be learned about the origins of sexism in the first place: if men are more valuable to a community in a basic survival setting, is that why women were historically relegated to second class status? Is it only with the explosion in population and specialisation of labour we've seen since the industrial revolution that there are enough roles where womens labours are of equal valuable to their community because so little of the work required in that community matches the areas where men have natural advantages of strength?

Funny enough in hunter gatherer societies the women bring in the bulk of the calories, the men bring in the more calorie dense items such as meat. There is however a quite popular theory* that modern humans may have had an advantage over previous peoples because they had specialisation of labour along gender lines. The idea being that previous humans effectively shared all the labour, were more "egalitarian". Which sounds good, but splitting and specialising increases expertise in each camp and increases the results of labour overall.

General specialisation has been an increasing feature of humans over time as we created stable resources and populations grew. If all you're doing is surviving it leaves little time for thinking and invention and cultural change and art etc. Every "caveman" and "cavewoman" of 100,000 years ago had to know everything they needed to know to live. Each individual would know how to make fire, make tools and make the tools to make other tools, track, hunt, forage, prepare hides and fashion clothes, know the pharmacology of herbs, the seasons etc. All of which requires quite a bit of individual if generalised brainpower**. They had to be Jack's and Jill's of all trades and by necessity masters of them. Now compare them to us today. Ever increasing specialisation means we don't, we only need to know what our specialisation is and rely on other's specialisations are to do what we can't. So the mechanic brings their broken laptop to a techie, the techie gets a plumber in when the tap leaks and so on.

In our highly specialised environment, an environment more based in brains than brawn for the most part, gender is less in play.




*though personally I'm not so sure I buy into it, as previous human cultures seem to show quite obvious gender differences in bone growth, wear and injury, which suggests different lifestyle pressures and likely at least some gender specialisation.

** and they may have been more individually intelligent, or at least had more generalised intelligence than average today. Their brain sizes are larger, even though on average they were smaller. Human brain sizes have been shrinking over the last 40,000 years, a reversal of the general trend of the previous 4 million years. Yet clearly we've become far more advanced and steadily so.

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

In our highly specialised environment, an environment more based in brains than brawn for the most part, gender is less in play.

just to add where is comes to innovation tech/industry or the engineering that keeps everything moving from your oil rigs to the people who design and build oil rigs and back down the chain there are probably a group of about ~10% of men who carve the way forward for everyone.

Sleepy

Wibbs, while that may be true of hunter/gatherer societies, those wouldn't reflect what the Eden project was attempting which was effectively the creation of a primarily Agrarian society with some foraging, hunting and fishing supplementing the produce and livestock they could grow.

Now, maybe it was selection bias in terms of the members of the groups chosen being chosen for reasons other than their suitability for such a challenge (their looks / their propensity to add drama to the final show etc. - In fact one of the first women to leave the Eden project was a massage therapist who was too accustomed to modern life and was either too lazy or too feeble to pull her weight on even less physically challenging tasks like planting / weeding of the vegetable garden). This would have been true of the Bear Grylls Island series too: there were more grafters in the male group, the female group had more members that were more interested in working on their tans than gathering food / fetching water / chopping wood etc.

In general though, the men appeared to be doing the lion's share of the work (or when women were putting in equal effort, the men were generally getting more output). It's not a huge leap to see how such a scenario would lead to traditional gender norms where the men would take on the majority of the more physically demanding work while the women get left with the more domestic (and less satisfying to someone raised in the modern world) chores as that was the optimal allocation of work for the community to benefit most. Now, as the experiment only lasted a year, issues like rearing of children weren't a feature but, had it have been, I think it would have fallen to the women and the more progressive guys in that community to carry out the majority of the child-rearing.

Yuval Noah Harari presented the argument in "Homosapiens" that the Agricultural Revolution, while a success for the species of humanity, lead to a lower standard of living for most humans. I wonder if it helped foster the traditional gender roles and sexism of the past too?

seamus

silverharp wrote: »

its not an experiment anyone can do, there was a Dutch version of those survival shows where they put the men on one island and the women on another. The lads had basically turned their island into a beach bar and hotel, tables and benches, good rain cover , raised beds off the ground. The women weren't doing so well, I believe the producers had to drop a dead pig to their camp for them to eat.

Of course, on the assumption the above is accurate, one could easily describe the outcome as a reflection of society itself and how it chooses to educate men and women. Take a straw poll of random men and women and you'll find that more men know how to wire a plug than women. That's not a complex task that women are incapable of, it's just one that as a society we tend not to show women how to do.

Drop 10 male accountants born and raised in a city on one island and 10 female farmers on the other, and the outcome will be very different.

The outcome of a TV show doesn't constitute evidence of anything. It's possible the contestants were hand-picked to produce that specific outcome. A show where everyone is doing well, or everyone is doing equally poorly, is no fun after all.

I'm not making any specific claims here except that anecdotes are meaningless. They don't provide evidence, weight or indication toward any biological imperatives. Especially in the heavily edited and selected world of "reality" TV.

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

Of course, on the assumption the above is accurate, one could easily describe the outcome as a reflection of society itself and how it chooses to educate men and women. Take a straw poll of random men and women and you'll find that more men know how to wire a plug than women. That's not a complex task that women are incapable of, it's just one that as a society we tend not to show women how to do.

Drop 10 male accountants born and raised in a city on one island and 10 female farmers on the other, and the outcome will be very different.

The outcome of a TV show doesn't constitute evidence of anything. It's possible the contestants were hand-picked to produce that specific outcome. A show where everyone is doing well, or everyone is doing equally poorly, is no fun after all.

I'm not making any specific claims here except that anecdotes are meaningless. They don't provide evidence, weight or indication toward any biological imperatives. Especially in the heavily edited and selected world of "reality" TV.

the tv show wasn't scientific for sure and yep you could possibly engineer an experiment where the "best" women outperform the "worst" men. But if you picked mixed groups of city slickers I'd wager the men would do better most of the time. Or throw it out economy wide productivity and innovation would drop if men were thrown out of the important "building" and innovation type jobs in society. And it is not to say that women aren't welcome into male areas but it should be on pure $ bottom line merit. Ideally the wonder woman style feminists should dial back the idea that women don't need men.

Wibbs

maybe

seamus wrote: »

The outcome of a TV show doesn't constitute evidence of anything. It's possible the contestants were hand-picked to produce that specific outcome. A show where everyone is doing well, or everyone is doing equally poorly, is no fun after all.

I'd agree with that. I'd also add the type of person that would apply to such a show. I would suspect both gender's applicants would be attention seekers as a near given, but that the women attention seekers would be more into the Big Brother social bitchiness type show, rather than "reality", whereas the men attention seekers are more likely to think of themselves as cut price Bear Grylls types. They're gonna have more to prove as that type. As you note change the type of men and women in the equation and you'd likely get a very different result. So twenty male "computer nerds" at the top of their fields are not likely to fare too well in such a physical environment that requires a very different skill set.

iptba

(UK)

'If you were a man, you'd be going to jail,' judge tells woman burglar

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/if-you-were-a-man-you-d-be-going-to-jail-judge-tells-woman-burglar-1-8716758

Buffman

Dublin City Council ironically using a sexist advetisment in a sexual harassment campaign.

http://www.thejournal.ie/sexist-remarks-dublin-3596537-Sep2017/

'A sexist remark is not a compliment': New poster initiative hits streets of Dublin

Dublin is one of 20 cities worldwide participating in the UN Women Safe Cities Global Programme.

silverharp

^^

Weird graphic, the woman I assume looks like she has a beard

Sleepy

What a wonderful use of taxpayers money.

Calhoun

silverharp wrote: »

^^

Weird graphic, the woman I assume looks like she has a beard

Some guy sexually harrassing Jesus.

silverharp

mandatory reposting of this ;-)

um7y1h83ge06nx

Is that real or Photoshop p*as take? If it's real it's hilarious.

silverharp

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

Is that real or Photoshop p*as take? If it's real it's hilarious.

genuine I believe , the Guardian is good hunting ground for that sort of thing

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

Is that real or Photoshop p*as take? If it's real it's hilarious.

genuine I believe , the Guardian is good hunting ground for that sort of thing

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/20/catcall-culture-feminism-jessica-valenti

I googled the second article to see what it says. It's about how she gets less catcalls as she gets older. She says she was brought up to value her attractiveness to men and catcalls were a corollary of attractiveness. The quote is a misleading way to introduce the article.

Being brought up to value her attractiveness up men as expressed through catcalls (and some unsavoury stuff she mentions in the article) is the issue, not the lack of catcalls as I presume you're interpreting it.

It's actually a light hearted piece with a sideways slant on receiving fewer catcalls.