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

iptba

Why the ‘slopping out’ ruling is important

The judgment is a serious criticism of prison authorities and will affect hundreds of cases

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/why-the-slopping-out-ruling-is-important-1.3219853

I know a lot of people won't have much sympathy for prisoners, but there was and is a big difference in how male and female prisoners are treated in Mountjoy. I remember in the 1990s women were not having to slop out in shared cells but men were but it was decided to spend millions building new facilities for women, the Dochas Centre, when at the same time men would still have to share cells where they slopped out.

seamus

Buffman wrote: »

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

Gotta pick your battles here.

This is one of those few scenarios where there is a clear difference between the sexes. Men (or least the 99.999%) don't walk down the street receiving passing comments from the opposite sex, of various levels of explicitness, from relatively benign to sexually violent.

Your average woman may receive more passing comments and catcalls in a day than most men receive in their entire lifetime.

The reverse scenario here doesn't really exist. Spending money on a campaign asking women to stop making comments to men passing in the street is meaningless because it virtually never happens. Making the campaign bland and generalised is unlikely to have the same effect as the kind of idiot who does this, won't relate to it.

Even when it does happen from women to men, there's another key ingredient missing; fear. Every stare, every whistle, every, "Holy sh1t!" said out loud as a woman passes by, makes her uncomfortable, and afraid. Afraid for her personal safety, afraid for her privacy.

As man, if you've ever had a passing compliment made in the street, were you afraid that you were going to be attacked? No.

Like I say, pick your battles. Claiming that this is sexist because it focusses solely on men is bordering on Monty Python stuff. It focusses on male interactions with women, because it doesn't happen the other way, for all practical purposes. It's attacking a sexist attitude, it's not attacking men.

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

Gotta pick your battles here.......

you cant reverse this one for sure, I'd question the campaign though , I think society is at the point where those that are going to be polite out and about are and you are down to a small % that are immune from public announcements.
I'd question is the advert just another generalised attack on men? , keep the hate going and all that.

Now speculatively, as you have extended the request of the advert on into staring and looking. if you actually managed as a social experiment to get every male to blank every female around town, would they be happy or would they end up complaining a la the Valenti paradox? the argument Im sure has been made before that "George Clooney" walking or driving a convertible around town could pretty much say what he wants and the ladies wouldn't be offended. The problem is really "lower value" males having the temerity to try interact with "higher value" females.

kunst nugget

maybe

silverharp wrote: »

you cant reverse this one for sure, I'd question the campaign though , I think society is at the point where those that are going to be polite out and about are and you are down to a small % that are immune from public announcements.
I'd question is the advert just another generalised attack on men? , keep the hate going and all that.

The ads are there to highlight that sexual harassment is not acceptable in much the same way that ads about drink driving are on the tv to highlight the unacceptability of drink driving or speeding - would you consider those as just another generalised attack on drivers?

silverharp wrote: »

Now speculatively, as you have extended the request of the advert on into staring and looking. if you actually managed as a social experiment to get every male to blank every female around town, would they be happy or would they end up complaining a la the Valenti paradox? the argument Im sure has been made before that "George Clooney" walking or driving a convertible around town could pretty much say what he wants and the ladies wouldn't be offended. The problem is really "lower value" males having the temerity to try interact with "higher value" females.

So shouting out 'Oi, love. Nice tits, give us a feel!!! G'wan you frigid bitch!' or something similar wouldn't be offensive if they guy doing it was good-looking and drove a nice car? There really is some skewed thinking on here…

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Gotta pick your battles here.

This is one of those few scenarios where there is a clear difference between the sexes. Men (or least the 99.999%) don't walk down the street receiving passing comments from the opposite sex, of various levels of explicitness, from relatively benign to sexually violent.

Your average woman may receive more passing comments and catcalls in a day than most men receive in their entire lifetime.

I'd love to see some evidence of this though. I've very rarely heard whistles or catcalls directed at women in a public setting. Sure, I know it happens.. the sterotype being construction workers or road maintainence crews whistling at a woman walking by.. but how much of it is true, and how much is from decades ago?

I'd also love to see some research into what the women were wearing, their behaviour, and the locations of where these catcalls/comments happened....

There just seems to be so much sexism which men apparently do... but.... I haven't seen much of it.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

The ads are there to highlight that sexual harassment is not acceptable in much the same way that ads about drink driving are on the tv to highlight the unacceptability of drink driving or speeding - would you consider those as just another generalised attack on drivers?

Let's be honest here. Do you really think many men don't know thats sexual harrassment is wrong?

It might be better to give us a rule book telling us exactly what each instance of sexual harrassment actually is..... Sexual harrassment seems to shift and change depending on the girl.. and whoever is getting offended.

silverharp

kunst nugget wrote: »

The ads are there to highlight that sexual harassment is not acceptable in much the same way that ads about drink driving are on the tv to highlight the unacceptability of drink driving or speeding - would you consider those as just another generalised attack on drivers?

I don't see my identity as a driver, however the constant male bashing in society is something worth pointing out

kunst nugget wrote: »

So shouting out 'Oi, love. Nice tits, give us a feel!!! G'wan you frigid bitch!' or something similar wouldn't be offensive if they guy doing it was good-looking and drove a nice car? There really is some skewed thinking on here…

That's objectively obnoxious but at the same time you cant pathologise male behaviour either.

kunst nugget

maybe

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's be honest here. Do you really think many men don't know thats sexual harrassment is wrong?

It might be better to give us a rule book telling us exactly what each instance of sexual harrassment actually is..... Sexual harrassment seems to shift and change depending on the girl.. and whoever is getting offended.

How many of us don't know that drink driving is wrong but they still show the ads - the point of the advertising is to re-enforce the social unacceptability of it. And it's some that has worked - drinking several pints and hopping into your car wasn't that big an issue thirty years ago but you do it now and people will think you're a grade A arsehole. I'd presume that's what they're trying to achieve with this ad.

kunst nugget

maybe

silverharp wrote: »

That's objectively obnoxious but at the same time you cant pathologise male behaviour either.

How is a sign pointing out that shouting sexist remarks at strangers isn't acceptable behaviour pathologising male behaviour?

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

How many of us don't know that drink driving is wrong but they still show the ads - the point of the advertising is to re-enforce the social unacceptability of it. And it's some that has worked - drinking several pints and hopping into your car wasn't that big an issue thirty years ago but you do it now and people will think you're a grade A arsehole. I'd presume that's what they're trying to achieve with this ad.

Your example of drunk driving isn't exactly as complicated a subject as sexual harrassment..

A) You drink past the limit and drive. Bad person (Oddly enough not directed solely at men)
b) you say a few works, make a sound, make a gesture, etc and it can be considered sexual harrassment. Just a wee bit more complicated..

It probably also doesnt help that our society/culture encouraged a more manly behaviour throughout the 50s/60s/70s by both genders... and then to decide in the 90's that it's all wrong. Takes some time for people to shift perception on the issue.. although I would think the vast majority of Irish guys are past it.

Buffman

seamus wrote: »

Spending money on a campaign asking women to stop making comments to men passing in the street is meaningless because it virtually never happens. Making the campaign bland and generalised is unlikely to have the same effect as the kind of idiot who does this, won't relate to it.

It would have been extremely simple for them to keep it gender neutral and still get the same message across.

seamus wrote: »

Like I say, pick your battles. Claiming that this is sexist because it focusses solely on men is bordering on Monty Python stuff. It focusses on male interactions with women, because it doesn't happen the other way, for all practical purposes. It's attacking a sexist attitude, it's not attacking men.

The Ad itself is bordering on Monty Python stuff IMO with it's cringeworthiness, but it does still fit the definition of sexism by stereotyping both men and woman.

"Street harassment is unwanted, unacceptable, and makes women feel unsafe."

Perpetuating the 'victim' status of women does everyone a disservice IMO.

silverharp

kunst nugget wrote: »

How is a sign pointing out that shouting sexist remarks at strangers isn't acceptable behaviour pathologising male behaviour?

I think we all agree men shouting "get your tits out for the lads" shouted from a "building site" is rude though cant say Ive ever heard it. I was thinking more in terms of men looking/staring at women, that's just natural once its not cartoon style leering.

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd love to see some evidence of this though. I've very rarely heard whistles or catcalls directed at women in a public setting. Sure, I know it happens.. the sterotype being construction workers or road maintainence crews whistling at a woman walking by.. but how much of it is true, and how much is from decades ago?

I'd also love to see some research into what the women were wearing, their behaviour, and the locations of where these catcalls/comments happened....

There just seems to be so much sexism which men apparently do... but.... I haven't seen much of it.

Why does it matter where it happens or what they were wearing It shouldn't happen. Its intimidating and unwelcome and it does happen. Heck, I'm a very average 40 something and I have had comments as recently as two weeks ago so I can only imagine how many younger women have experienced.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

Why does it matter where it happens or what they were wearing It shouldn't happen. Its intimidating and unwelcome and it does happen. Heck, I'm a very average 40 something and I have had comments as recently as two weeks ago so I can only imagine how many younger women have experienced.

It matters because it's suggested that it's a regular problem for all women.

I get it. Women should be able to wear whatever they like. Yup... However, if I (a tall skinny white male) go down the street wearing high heel platforms, hot pants and a tube top, I'm going to get negative/nasty comments from people around me.

Identifying the variables makes sense. That way friction can be reduced, rather than simply saying "I'm a woman and I can wear/say/behave any way I wish, and everyone should respect me!".. It sure as hell doesn't work that way for men, and never has.

I know, as a man, certain fashions will generate anger, contempt, scorn, etc in others. Alas for me... it's not sexism.. it's just fashion. :rolleyes:

This matters because I'm getting very tired of being tarnished as a sexist or such just because I'm male. I've never behaved that way.. and yet all these campaigns target my gender as if we were all guilty of something. I understood the need for these campaigns 20 years ago.. I seriously wonder about the need for them now.

silverharp

What a grim trip to the office men will have in the future, on the way to the train "men dont cat call" signs, on the train "no manspreading", into the office "no mansplaining" go into the conference room "no manterrupting" go for lunch and be charged a wage gap surcharge.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

What a grim trip to the office men will have in the future, on the way to the train "men dont cat call" signs, on the train "no manspreading", into the office "no mansplaining" go into the conference room "no manterrupting" go for lunch and be charged a wage gap surcharge.

A grim trip to the office? Sure won't society have flipped on it's arse by then and all the men will apparently be stay at home dads, women will wear the trousers and occupy the C-suite in STEM... :pac:




It's ok silverharp, it was all a bad dream

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

What a grim trip to the office men will have in the future, on the way to the train "men dont cat call" signs, on the train "no manspreading", into the office "no mansplaining" go into the conference room "no manterrupting" go for lunch and be charged a wage gap surcharge.

We have also had the "Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland:

website wrote:

In Ireland, nearly 8,000 women and over 3,000 children looked for support from a domestic violence support service in just one year. This is a horrific statistic.

This means that at least 8,000 men were assaulting, raping or bullying women and children in that year.

This is not just a horrific statistic. This is a horrific crime.

Discussed here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057082283

Calhoun

seamus wrote: »

Gotta pick your battles here.

This is one of those few scenarios where there is a clear difference between the sexes. Men (or least the 99.999%) don't walk down the street receiving passing comments from the opposite sex, of various levels of explicitness, from relatively benign to sexually violent.

Your average woman may receive more passing comments and catcalls in a day than most men receive in their entire lifetime.

The reverse scenario here doesn't really exist. Spending money on a campaign asking women to stop making comments to men passing in the street is meaningless because it virtually never happens. Making the campaign bland and generalised is unlikely to have the same effect as the kind of idiot who does this, won't relate to it.

Even when it does happen from women to men, there's another key ingredient missing; fear. Every stare, every whistle, every, "Holy sh1t!" said out loud as a woman passes by, makes her uncomfortable, and afraid. Afraid for her personal safety, afraid for her privacy.

As man, if you've ever had a passing compliment made in the street, were you afraid that you were going to be attacked? No.

Like I say, pick your battles. Claiming that this is sexist because it focusses solely on men is bordering on Monty Python stuff. It focusses on male interactions with women, because it doesn't happen the other way, for all practical purposes. It's attacking a sexist attitude, it's not attacking men.

Indeed they should also have, a don't rape campaign for men as well and parade it around major cities and town in Ireland.

Then the half of the population that are dirty criminal rapists can stop because now they know it's wrong.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

I don't see my identity as a driver, however the constant male bashing in society is something worth pointing out

I don't see my identity as a drunk driver but I am a driver. Likewise I don't see my identity as a man who makes offensive comments at strangers as they walk past, but I am a man.

Why would you get offended on behalf of men who make offensive comments at strangers?

It's seldom that people acknowledge strangers anyway. I walk through a park on the way to and from work every day. I acknowledge in passing some of the dog walkers who I see every day. Strangely enough I can't imagine how anything I say or gesture to them could possibly be misconstrued.

I don't think it's as complicated as Klaz is making out. Maybe some people do need social rules written down and explained to them. It's a common trait in autism type disorders. I think most people don't need that level of focused explanation of what's appropriate and what isn't. It might be an interesting discussion for people who genuinely don't understand what's ok to say and do in public, and what isn't

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think it's as complicated as Klaz is making out. Maybe some people do need social rules written down and explained to them. It's a common trait in autism type disorders. I think most people don't need that level of focused explanation of what's appropriate and what isn't. It might be an interesting discussion for people who genuinely don't understand what's ok to say and do in public, and what isn't

Oh, I agree.. It shouldn't be complicated.... but what is considered sexual harrassment, changes depending on the individuals involved.. hence my suggestion of a little rule book to define what behaviour actually is sexual harrassment...

The problem is that I don't like having such big gray areas over something that can tarnish a guy's reputation for life. Once you get hit with a sexual harrassment charge in work, your career is blown away. Regardless of whether it was proved to be true or false.

So it seems reasonable to me that we (men) know exactly what behaviour is covered by this charge.. and considering the SJW muppets on youtube, it might be worth informing them too what it actually is...

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, I agree.. It shouldn't be complicated.... but what is considered sexual harrassment, changes depending on the individuals involved.. hence my suggestion of a little rule book to define what behaviour actually is sexual harrassment...

The problem is that I don't like having such big gray areas over something that can tarnish a guy's reputation for life. Once you get hit with a sexual harrassment charge in work, your career is blown away. Regardless of whether it was proved to be true or false.

So it seems reasonable to me that we (men) know exactly what behaviour is covered by this charge.. and considering the SJW muppets on youtube, it might be worth informing them too what it actually is...

If you think it would be a good idea, then go ahead and propose it. Like I said, I've never been confused about what constitutes exchanging pleasantries with passersby and whet would be likely to be construed as sexual harassment. I don't really see them as overlapping in any way. But I know a significant portion of the population does have varying degrees of trouble understanding social rules. If you have trouble understanding sexual harassment in work, then ask HR.

I'm not sure if you're actually worried about normal people with autistic traits or similar, in these circumstances but there's a great chance that some people who cause genuine offence, do so without intending to because they don't know what's ok and what's not.

Sleepy

Context is everything:

When the known office flirt, who happens to be good looking, tells a co-worker their hair looks great today, most are only delighted to hear this.

When it comes from the unfortunate looking guy in the accounts department, however, it gets described as "creepy".

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're actually worried about normal people with autistic traits or similar, in these circumstances but there's a great chance that some people who cause genuine offence, do so without intending to because they don't know what's ok and what's not.

You introduced autistic traits or similar.. I didn't.

I raised the aspect that without boundaries or set rules, then sexual harrassment can include just about any kind of behaviour that a woman might find offensive.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

You introduced autistic traits or similar.. I didn't.

I raised the aspect that without boundaries or set rules, then sexual harrassment can include just about any kind of behaviour that a woman might find offensive.

Yeah I imagine a good lot of the people who don't understand what constitutes normal chat and what constitutes offensive chat, could be due to some kind of genuine inability to intuitively pick that stuff up.

I don't think it's that difficult to know what is likely to be offensive. There's no accounting for some folks sensitivity. Some folks might even be offended by a campaign to reduce street harassment. That's down to the individual level so I don't know how you can account for how sensitive individuals are.

Can you think of anything that you heard being misconstrued in work?

Pawwed Rig

What one person finds offensive another will see as humorous banter. The legal framework, unfortunately, seems hell bent on sterilising human interactions, especially in the workplace. Coupled with a victim mentality that seems to be all the rage these days you often see people pulled up for the most inoffensive of comments. It is getting worse too, not better.

The times I have seen guys pulled up on comments in the past it generally was not what was said but was who said it ie a particular situation a girl who had no problem taking and giving some fairly strong slagging decided one day that she didn't like one of the guys slagging her and reported him. Other people saying much worse stuff but that was ok.

The law (which is prescriptive) is unable to deal with complex situations which is why we end up with a situation that offence is caused by how something is received rather than the intent of the delivery. It essentially infantises people and encourages the victim mentality

um7y1h83ge06nx

I worked in a company once where one of the HR team told me (mentioning no names of course) that there was a complaint from a female staff member that a guy would hold the door open for her if he was ahead of her. She felt this was belittling and sexist. In the end the accused pointed out that he did the exact same thing for everyone regardless of who they are.

My opinion - that's just general courtesy and good manners, total storm in a teacup. I was told that in 2005 and it sounded like it happened a few years previous, well before (imo) people really went out of their way to get offended.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I imagine a good lot of the people who don't understand what constitutes normal chat and what constitutes offensive chat, could be due to some kind of genuine inability to intuitively pick that stuff up.

Love the way that you reframe everything to being the man's responsibility to understand the womans signals, rather than acknowledging that women often send mixed signals themselves... you do realise that women make sexual jokes and other such references but that's not considered sexual harrassment by many?

I don't think it's that difficult to know what is likely to be offensive. There's no accounting for some folks sensitivity. Some folks might even be offended by a campaign to reduce street harassment. That's down to the individual level so I don't know how you can account for how sensitive individuals are.

I'm not offended by a campaign to reduce street harassment.. I'm offended by how biased they are.. and how instead of seeking to reduce the factors that make the harassment occur.. the campaigns just seeks to highlight the behaviour.

It makes more sense to me that we determine who is actually doing this behaviour (their circumstances), where it's happening, and whether the women are doing anything that encourages such comments to occur..

Can you think of anything that you heard being misconstrued in work?

I once blew a kiss at a colleague (female) while leaving work at the end of the day, and another colleague (also female) got offended by it... believing that I was making a lewd gesture. I got a rather firm "talking to" by HR and sent on "sensitivity training". By blowing a kiss as a farewell to someone who wasn't offended...

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I imagine a good lot of the people who don't understand what constitutes normal chat and what constitutes offensive chat, could be due to some kind of genuine inability to intuitively pick that stuff up.

Love the way that you reframe everything to being the man's responsibility to understand the womans signals, rather than acknowledging that women often send mixed signals themselves... you do realise that women make sexual jokes and other such references but that's not considered sexual harrassment by many?

I don't think it's that difficult to know what is likely to be offensive. There's no accounting for some folks sensitivity. Some folks might even be offended by a campaign to reduce street harassment. That's down to the individual level so I don't know how you can account for how sensitive individuals are.

I'm not offended by a campaign to reduce street harassment.. I'm offended by how biased they are.. and how instead of seeking to reduce the factors that make the harassment occur.. the campaigns just seeks to highlight the behaviour.

It makes more sense to me that we determine who is actually doing this behaviour (their circumstances), where it's happening, and whether the women are doing anything that encourages such comments to occur..

Can you think of anything that you heard being misconstrued in work?

I once blew a kiss at a colleague (female) while leaving work at the end of the day, and another colleague (also female) got offended by it... believing that I was making a lewd gesture. I got a rather firm "talking to" by HR and sent on "sensitivity training". By blowing a kiss as a farewell to someone who wasn't offended...

I don't get what you mean. I'm speaking from my experience and I can't imagine how the interactions I have with people on the street could possibly be misconstrued.

Would you really support finding out why people do sexual harassment? I think it's probably a good idea to find out whose doing it but I can't imagine that being seen as sky different to the current campaign.

You we're offended by this campaign, but some posters weeny out of their way to suggest it's part of an ongoing campaign of hate against all men rather than just the men who make offensive comments to people on the street. Looking for offence or what?

That example sounds harsh alright. Why would you be blowing kisses at colleagues though? I mean that's a really stupid thing to be caught doing in work. Surely we all understand that there are different behavioural expectations in work and out of work? Like in the office vs with the office crew in the pub after work.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't get what you mean. I'm speaking from my experience and I can't imagine how the interactions I have with people on the street could possibly be misconstrued.

Doesn't everyone feel that way... until someone takes offence at something you've said or done?

Would you really support finding out why people do sexual harassment? I think it's probably a good idea to find out whose doing it but I can't imagine that being seen as sky different to the current campaign.

Sky different? Um...? Yes, I would prefer to see the money for these campaigns spent on non-biased research about both the men/women who have experienced this street harassment, and those men/women who commit the street harassment.. Perhaps there are tends which could be used as a guide to prevent further misunderstandings or offence. (Intended or unintended)

You we're offended by this campaign, but some posters weeny out of their way to suggest it's part of an ongoing campaign of hate against all men rather than just the men who make offensive comments to people on the street. Looking for offence or what?

Um.. [formatting?] I just said I wasn't offended by the campaign itself.. I'm offended at the way its being managed. I have no problem with raising awareness as long as there is something to be gained beyond that.

I did say that the campaign does not distinguish between men. i,e. we are all blamed for the actions of a few? more than a few? many? Actually, I also wonder how common this behaviour actually is.

That example sounds harsh alright. Why would you be blowing kisses at colleagues though? I mean that's a really stupid thing to be caught doing in work. Surely we all understand that there are different behavioural expectations in work and out of work? Like in the office vs with the office crew in the pub after work.

lol.. There was a time when being playful and naughty with friends was acceptable. Hence blowing a kiss at a friend.. the only problem being that a woman nonrelated got offended.. Seems retarded to me (still does after all these years), but you've jumped to support her right to be offended by someone elses interactions. Alas your PC brigade and feminism craziness won the war.

Not to worry though. I'm fully reformed.. and received my extensive management training regarding what's acceptable in the workplace. i.e. nothing. Sterile environment if you're a man. Do not touch, joke, or anything with a woman because the risks of legal action are just too high.

kunst nugget

maybe

Sleepy wrote: »

Context is everything:

When the known office flirt, who happens to be good looking, tells a co-worker their hair looks great today, most are only delighted to hear this.

When it comes from the unfortunate looking guy in the accounts department, however, it gets described as "creepy".

Hmmm, context is everything. I'd not be battling George Clooney in the looks department but if I told one of the women that I work with in the same office that their hair was looking great today, they'd take it as the compliment it was intended and be pleased because I'd have a good rapport built up with them. If I went up to one of the women I have seldom to no interaction with just to compliment them on their good looking hair, that would be odd and I could understand them being put off by that.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't get what you mean. I'm speaking from my experience and I can't imagine how the interactions I have with people on the street could possibly be misconstrued.

Doesn't everyone feel that way... until someone takes offence at something you've said or done?

Would you really support finding out why people do sexual harassment? I think it's probably a good idea to find out whose doing it but I can't imagine that being seen as sky different to the current campaign.

Sky different? Um...? Yes, I would prefer to see the money for these campaigns spent on non-biased research about both the men/women who have experienced this street harassment, and those men/women who commit the street harassment.. Perhaps there are tends which could be used as a guide to prevent further misunderstandings or offence. (Intended or unintended)

You we're offended by this campaign, but some posters weeny out of their way to suggest it's part of an ongoing campaign of hate against all men rather than just the men who make offensive comments to people on the street. Looking for offence or what?

Um.. [formatting?] I just said I wasn't offended by the campaign itself.. I'm offended at the way its being managed. I have no problem with raising awareness as long as there is something to be gained beyond that.

I did say that the campaign does not distinguish between men. i,e. we are all blamed for the actions of a few? more than a few? many? Actually, I also wonder how common this behaviour actually is.

That example sounds harsh alright. Why would you be blowing kisses at colleagues though? I mean that's a really stupid thing to be caught doing in work. Surely we all understand that there are different behavioural expectations in work and out of work? Like in the office vs with the office crew in the pub after work.

lol.. There was a time when being playful and naughty with friends was acceptable. Hence blowing a kiss at a friend.. the only problem being that a woman nonrelated got offended.. Seems retarded to me (still does after all these years), but you've jumped to support her right to be offended by someone elses interactions. Alas your PC brigade and feminism craziness won the war.

Not to worry though. I'm fully reformed.. and received my extensive management training regarding what's acceptable in the workplace. i.e. nothing. Sterile environment if you're a man. Do not touch, joke, or anything with a woman because the risks of legal action are just too high.

Apologies for the autocorrect typos. Meant to say 'any different' and 'weren't offended'.

I can't see how any variation on 'good morning' could be misconstrued as sexual harassment. And I really can't think of anything else that I need to say to a stranger on the street.

As far as I know the campaign was based on surveys of people who walk between Houston and o Connell st (I think). I'm sure you'll be delighted to know there was some research involved and this campaign is part of the reaction.

What exactly offends you about the management of the campaign? Why would you be offended unless the campaign is speaking directly to you? I don't think it's aimed at all men. Like the way I'm not offended by drunk driving ads, I'm not offended by this campaign because I'm not someone who harasses people on the street.


I didn't defend anyone's right to be offended. I just think it's stupid to be caught blowing kisses at colleagues. If you enjoy route 1 banter, that's fine but pick your audience. I wouldn't expect you to do your best comedy routine if you were around your granny and her mates because you understand that different people have different sense of what's appropriate.

If you consider your work environment sterile be dude you can't do your best route 1 jokes, then it might be a problem for you alright

@El_Duderino

@El_Duderino 09 - Feel like we're going around in circles here. Bowing out.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

@El_Duderino 09 - Feel like we're going around in circles here. Bowing out.

Ok. As you say you lever know what will offend people. Even a campaign to stop harassment can cause some sensitive types to become upset.

Is there a blow kiss emoji?

tigger123

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. As you say you lever know what will offend people. Even a campaign to stop harassment can cause some sensitive types to become upset.

Is there a blow kiss emoji?

:-* ==3

?

Actually, that looks a bit like a d*ck.

_Dara_

silverharp wrote: »

I think we all agree men shouting "get your tits out for the lads" shouted from a "building site" is rude though cant say Ive ever heard it.

I've heard very crude things shouted at women in public, including by the stereotypical builders. Not the exact wording of above, but crude stuff. Some of things I've witnessed and heard, I just couldn't believe. And I've had crude things said to me in the street by men, from my early teens onwards. Some very recently. It happens.

Sleepy wrote: »

Context is everything:

When the known office flirt, who happens to be good looking, tells a co-worker their hair looks great today, most are only delighted to hear this.

When it comes from the unfortunate looking guy in the accounts department, however, it gets described as "creepy".

It's an... easy thing to trot out but does it stand up to scrutiny?

kunst nugget wrote: »

Hmmm, context is everything. I'd not be battling George Clooney in the looks department but if I told one of the women that I work with in the same office that their hair was looking great today, they'd take it as the compliment it was intended and be pleased because I'd have a good rapport built up with them. If I went up to one of the women I have seldom to no interaction with just to compliment them on their good looking hair, that would be odd and I could understand them being put off by that.

Yes, great point. I can't see someone being creeped out by a male coworker she has a good rapport with complimenting her hair. It's just one of those glib things that people say and people just accept that it will be the case without considering the variables.

silverharp

going a bit Guardian...

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

going a bit Guardian...

What's the sexism angle that caught your attention? Have you read the article?

It draws a distinction between a man cave where someone hides away and a men's shed movement where men socialise and do things together. It actively encouraged the latter and highlights some of the concerns that posters have raised here numerous times; some men men don't have male friends, Some men don't socialise enough with each other, men have higher suicide rates than women and socialising and doing things together is good.

What's the sexist angle again?

Are man caves sexist? but the article is about suicide... err.. when did suicide become something related to sexism? i'm very confused.

Wibbs

maybe

Express themselves behind closed doors eh? God forbid. Maybe they want them all holding hands in a circle with public display of confessional that the age of Narcissism prefers? Or want them to express themselves the way they think Women™ do? The Correct Way©. Or some of the muppets are paranoid that they'll be expressing themselves in the Incorrect Way©?

So I had a look at the article. I use the term lightly. Good christ it could almost be an article from The Onion on how far up their own fundaments these eejits can go.

There are plenty of things that prove masculinity is oh so fragile.

For something apparently so fragile it seems to be a near guaranteed switch to cause knicker bunching from commentators like her. Though read on gentle reader...

To have a man cave is to truly live in the 1950s, when women ruled the roost, and men were Neanderthals who needed to hide their belongings away in a room where they can cast aside the burden of being civilised. They are painted as havens where men can fart, and drink beer really fast, and swear and do whatever else it is that men stereotypically do.

Stereotype indeed.

Then we get a talking head, a Tristan(AA Gill would approve) from a Californian sociology dept, a science that has become so soft a truckload of viagra would be of scant value. Who uses terms like "gendered spaces", so you know what stall is being set out here.

"Tristan agrees that man caves support gender inequality in the home. “These spaces often play on the cultural notion that men can't really be themselves when women are around.”

“The idea that men need their own space, separate and away from everyone else, is a privileged position. And, even when couples I've interviewed use the term tongue in cheek, I still think the spaces support inequitable relationships between women and men.”

Fcuk me.

Here's a thought maybe people just want a bit of a break away from each other? There's a reason why some people see toilets as "reading rooms" or take hours to have a bath. When girlfriends of mine wanted a languid soak in the bath for ages, with candles and a glass of white alcoholic grape juice(I refuse to call it wine) does this mean they were gendering the bathroom? Ditto for when they wanted to go to the gym on their own to have a bit of me time. I can't recall feeling oppressed myself. Must have been ignorant of my victimhood. Or they needed a break from me, which in fairness. Ah here, that's where I should have been insulted.

But when the pressures of masculinity is literally killing men - suicide takes the lives of more men aged between 20 and 49 than road accidents or heart disease in the UK - perhaps it’s wrong to dismiss the idea that they need unique ways to express themselves and share their emotions. It seems that what men need is the opposite of a man cave.

Enter the Men’s Sheds movement. (Notice the removal of the degrading term ‘cave’)

For a start it's one hell of a leap to heap on the pressures of masculinity as the sole cause of male suicide. If it were such a pressure how come it's apparently more in play now when there exists far more versions of "masculinity" than in the bad old days when roles were far more restrictive? Secondly how in holy hell is the word(not term) "cave" a degrading one? Do these muppets have different dictionaries?

But where it goes full ironic and full retard is in a link on that page to a photo spread. You could not make this stuff up. Except they did. Now bear in mind masculinity is "toxic" and or a stereotype killing men, patriarchy etc except... *drum roll*



When it's for women. Yep, then apparently masculinity isn't a social construct anymore, nor toxic, it's empowering. And a lesbian woman "self identifying" as butch is OK and should be accepted, even celebrated. So long as there are no willies attached.



The Writer? One Kashmira Gander, who lists her interests as "gender issues, social justice, music, travel, food, art and design". I crossed out the last lot as that's what people write at the end of CV's when they're struggling to add a backstory or they've no actual interests to speak of. Are man caves sexist? Would these failed gender studies right on hacks ever just toddle off to some Fem-marxist collective with extra sage and safe spaces commune and do the rest of us a favour.

Wibbs.. You are awesome. Wonderful post.

Wibbs

maybe

As a personal aside... People who use the word "space(s)" when describing rooms. You know, interior decorator(and twat) speak. "Oh I loooooove what you've done with this space". When the revolution comes, first up against the wall... Blindfold optional. I'd not offer a last ciggie as you just know they'd get triggered by that. Or they vape non scented liquids so as not to offend. And no you can't have a skinny latte from beans passed through the gut of Uzbek yaks and access to snapchat.

Present arms.... "Oh I loooove what you've done with the courtyard, especially the gravel and exposed stonework. And what's this? Haemoglobin Red in a spatter effect on the bricks? So post modern!" ...Take aim... You've really brought out the character of the spaaace" ...RAPID FIRE!

Calhoun

I don't see how a man cave should be sexist if done in the right manner and you have other outlets. I live in a house with my wife and two girls, I need time out to do my own thing. Prime example is sci-fi and star trek programs my wife hates them so I take time out to watch stuff like that on my own.

It does seem though like you can't win with the liberals though I think I need the liberal men's social standard guide and ball removal if I am to survive in 2017.

Wibbs

maybe

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't see how a man cave should be sexist if done in the right manner and you have other outlets. I live in a house with my wife and two girls, I need time out to do my own thing.

And equally to the point they need time away from your scifi weirdo arse too C. In fairness the need is probably more on their side.

I remember when I was a kid chatting with my grandmother about how I loved fishing and she relayed to me a story of my folks in their very early days. The Da™ was mad for the oul fly fishing and The Ma™ , being in the throes of luuuurve went with him and The Da being in the throes of luuuurve was all for it. One day she took the Ma aside and told her; yeah that's all lovely now, but trust me let him have this outlet and you keep your outlets yours too. Down the line when you have a bit of discontent or arguments that couples do, you'll both need your own thing to escape to. And she was dead right, as both my folks agreed. I remember them having "words" and he'd feck off fishing for the day and drag me and she'd go off golfing for the day(and rarely take me. Thankfully ) and by the end of the day the pressure release valve had... well released and it was all back to normal, or perspective in the alone time had been reached.

Calhoun

I think you hit the nail on the head and I would always recommend to anyone that a healthy couple need to be good together but also apart.

My man cave which isn't yet built is not going to be the he-man woman hating club (little rascals). It's going to be a place to put my games consoles, PC and collectables i have. It will also be a place where I can watch some of the stuff I like.

You wouldn't think it but Peppa pig fired across the room can do some serious damage to expensive stuff.

El_Duderino 09

Calhoun wrote:

My man cave which isn't yet built is not going to be the he-man woman hating club (little rascals). It's going to be a place to put my games consoles, PC and collectables i have. It will also be a place where I can watch some of the stuff I like.

I think that's part of the story which was somehow missed in the commentary so far. Man caves typically exist in the imagination far more often than in reality. I can think of a dozen fellas who plan to convert the attic into a man cave, turn the lounge into a bar, build a garage and put in a pool table. My FIl is the only person I know who actually did it and he loves spending time out there. It's dirty and full of crap with nowhere to sit unless you have a change of clothes. Oil or rust or dust and sawdust everywhere. It's a solitary place which suits him most of the time. The article says that most man caves if they ever get built, are rarely used. They give the user a place to escape but not typically a social outlet. That's the whole point of the men's shed movement.

I understand that the instinct is to dismiss anything that has certain trigger words. As if to demonstrate the fragility of some people's masculinity, any mention of masculinity that isn't flattering can't be ignored or even looked past to see if there's anything else of value in the piece. Personally I didn't take much from the first half of the article but the second half has interesting points about mental health and men socialising together. It's along the same lines as the points made by posters in these threads. But once triggered it seems unlikely that they will recognise their own points when made by the author.

The poster who brought it up didn't seem to have read past the headline. I can't say the article would have interested me without being posted here having triggered the poster.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's along the same lines as the points made by posters in these threads. But once triggered it seems unlikely that they will recognise their own points when made by the author.

It was previously recognised in one of these threads that it could be useful for men to have men-only places to go to. It was also pointed out that some feminists have campaigned against them so that some/many types of such groupings would now be stigmatised or at least it would be a concern for some who might go.

I don't believe it can be honestly claimed (not that this is specific claim of yours) that feminism has long supported men-only environments/groups which is what the article is basically recommending.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think that's part of the story which was somehow missed in the commentary so far. Man caves typically exist in the imagination far more often than in reality. I can think of a dozen fellas who plan to convert the attic into a man cave, turn the lounge into a bar, build a garage and put in a pool table. My FIl is the only person I know who actually did it and he loves spending time out there. It's dirty and full of crap with nowhere to sit unless you have a change of clothes. Oil or rust or dust and sawdust everywhere. It's a solitary place which suits him most of the time. The article says that most man caves if they ever get built, are rarely used. They give the user a place to escape but not typically a social outlet. That's the whole point of the men's shed movement.

I don't think you get that any room where a man can have some privacy can be turned into a man-cave.. For most men I know, their man-cave is their office. That article is written by people who just can't fathom the concept deciding that only certain criteria apply..

silverharp

Having read the article now (thanks Wibbs) it is just a car crash of a piece and to mix suicide into it was just weird. One would think the family man who is into car restoration or what not is a happy chap yet this harpy thinks its her business to poke them. The jurno no doubt is a cliched feminist, not married and no kids, yet thinks she is qualified to tell everyone else how to live their lives

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

I don't believe it can be honestly claimed (not that this is specific claim of yours) that feminism has long supported men-only environments/groups which is what the article is basically recommending.[/quote]

I don't know what other feminists have said but I think it's clear that this article is gushing about men's sheds and the great service they provide. I think that is a positive message wherever about the rest of the article. Wouldn't you agree?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think you get that any room where a man can have some privacy can be turned into a man-cave.. For most men I know, their man-cave is their office. That article is written by people who just can't fathom the concept deciding that only certain criteria apply..

True enough that anywhere can be a man cave. It's interesting that you mention the office as a man cave. It was raised in one of these threads that the whole culture of working long hours can be unhealthy. I suppose the office is a good example of difference between a man cave and a men's shed which the article highlighted.

One is a solitary place to hide which might be what's needed. The other is a social outlet for men to learn skills and have the craic.

They both have uses but one is social and the other tends to be solitary. Given that we hear so many claims about how men's only events aren't allowed, I'd have thought that getting the message out about men's sheds would be positively received.