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

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No I'm pretty sure McGags is looking for a figure to demonstrate that women earn more than men- until they have children.

Okay.. but it's a very strange way to do that. She says minus 17%. Why not just say that women tend to make more money than men while they're without children.. unless she wants to play the discrimination angle? the Sexist angle...

When I was a single male working in an office, I've seen myself 'covering' [been told to cover] for people (who have children), who need to miss part of work due to illness (the child), discipline issues, and celebrations (first communion, school activities) etc.

So... if I say that a childless man/woman is more productive in work than a man/woman with children.. is that discrimination?

An average man is an average of men -presumably in the same age bracket. A childless woman should be compared with a childless man, right?

Ok... I have never been married, and I've never had children (both by my own choice). I'm 40 years old. Am I an average childless man?

iptba

http://www.nwci.ie/?/news/article/being_a_mother_doesnt_pay

Ann Irwin, Policy Officer with the National Women's Council of Ireland said,

'Women still continue to earn significantly less than men. The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men.'

Ann Irwin continued,

'What is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is minus 17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points.'

Reports quoted:
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2010 - Addressing the gender pay gap: Government and social partner actions.

OECD Close the Gender Gap Act Now 2012

Here is the report. I can't search it quickly
http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/close-the-gender-gap-now_9789264179370-en#.Wcww52iPKUk#page8

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

Okay.. but it's a very strange way to do that. She says minus 17%. Why not just say that women tend to make more money than men while they're without children.. unless she wants to play the discrimination angle? the Sexist angle...

Depends how you look at it. If you take zero as the mid point, it makes sense. In any case,we know that McGaggs is trying to use the stat for the purpose of demonstrating that childless women earn more than the average man.

Deleted User wrote:

So... if I say that a childless man/woman is more productive in work than a man/woman with children.. is that discrimination?

Depends on whether or not it's true.

Deleted User wrote:

Ok... I have never been married, and I've never had children (both by my own choice). I'm 40 years old. Am I an average childless man?

Are you an average? Mad question really, should be clear to anyone. You would be factored into the average but if you're asking if you're the average then I don't think you know what average means. Besides, I said I imagine average is defined by parameters such as age and child status. But average is at a population so I don't think you could take any individual as an average. But you know that , right?

silverharp

I have seen some stats for the US that married men earn more but its not really surprising , if you have responsibilities you might be inclined to push yourself more.

Wibbs

maybe

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay.. but it's a very strange way to do that. She says minus 17%. Why not just say that women tend to make more money than men while they're without children.. unless she wants to play the discrimination angle? the Sexist angle...

The minus figure is most certainly framed that way to avoid the obvious questions about the central tenet of the "pay gap". Though note she has no issue saying the education gap is there and advantageous for women. I'd like to see a further breakdown of the figures myself. On the having children front for one. There's a big difference between a woman having children in her late teens and not going on to higher education, than a professional having kids at 30-35. The birth rate of teenaged mothers has been steadily dropping mind you, so likely has little enough effect on overall figures.

So... if I say that a childless man/woman is more productive in work than a man/woman with children.. is that discrimination?

Indeed. If one looks at the US, Asian Americans earn more on average than European Americans yet no one would suggest that Asian Americans are positively discriminated for. They quite simply have on average higher educations and work more hours, hence get paid more.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Depends how you look at it. If you take zero as the mid point, it makes sense. In any case,we know that McGaggs is trying to use the stat for the purpose of demonstrating that childless women earn more than the average man.

I still see it as being strange... I think she's focusing on women with children not earning as much as men... not that childless women earn more than women with children.

I've reread the articles a few times and each time, I see her statements as being a cry against sexism and inequality... to promote womens rights, not mens. or to seek equality.

Depends on whether or not it's true.

I'm not sure it does. There is still a rather strong momentum on anything that is sexist against women, and anything that seeks to counter that momentum is swept under the carpet.

Compare me to a woman in an office doing the same job. We got paid the same. Did the same work. We're both in our early 30's. She is married and I am single. She becomes pregnant (for whatever reason), and over the next 30-40 weeks, she continues to work, but at a slower pace, due to sickness, doctor visits, etc. Nothing major but still she misses work or is slowed somewhat by her pregnancy. We both have the same holidays and sick days, but because she is pregnant, she receives extra days. Ok. But i'm still there working while she's not.

Then after 30 weeks-40 weeks (lets say 36), she heads to the hospital and has the baby, without any complications. [Although considering her age, she could easily have had complications either with the birth or the child's health afterwards]

Citizen Info website wrote:

You are entitled to 26 weeks’ maternity leave together with 16 weeks additional unpaid maternity leave, which begins immediately after the end of maternity leave.

Under the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004 at least 2 weeks have to be taken before the end of the week of your baby's expected birth and at least 4 weeks after. You can decide how you would like to take the remaining weeks. Generally, employees take 2 weeks before the birth and the remaining weeks after. If you qualify for Maternity Benefit (see below) at least 2 and no more than 16 weeks must be taken before the end of the week the baby is due.

So, she's entitled to 42 weeks (4 months) leave from work. I'd say that cuts into her productivity as an employee... compared to a childless person. While her job should be guaranteed... nothing else should be. The childless person should not be penalised because a colleage decided to have a child, and yet, many of us often are.

And that's just during pregnancy & maternity leave. There are also all those complications that come from having a child, right through to supporting that child while its growing up.

The point is that we all know that a woman that decides to have a child is not as competitive as a man who decides not to have children. Or a woman who decides not to have a child.

Are you an average? Mad question really, should be clear to anyone. You would be factored into the average but if you're asking if you're the average then I don't think you know what average means. Besides, I said I imagine average is defined by parameters such as age and child status. But average is at a population so I don't think you could take any individual as an average. But you know that, right?

Yup. I know what Averages cover... I was wondering if you did since you introduced it into the post.

McGaggs doesn't care about an average man. She refers to all men.. because she's seeking to promote womens right to be paid more than men in all situations. She doesn't seek to lower the salaries for childless women to equal that of childless men. Instead she seeks to lower the awareness that women do, indeed, get paid more until she has a child.

Personally, and I could be seeing this wrong, but I see her as seeking to promote discrimination and allowing those childless women can often be paid more than men doesn't help her discrimination spin.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

I still see it as being strange... I think she's focusing on women with children not earning as much as men... not that childless women earn more than women with children.

It's not ignoring the facts or using untrue stats so it's not wrong in any case.

Deleted User wrote:

I'm not sure it does. There is still a rather strong momentum on anything that is sexist against women, and anything that seeks to counter that momentum is swept under the carpet.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's true? I think it does. If it's true then it's fine to say it.

Deleted User wrote:

Compare me to a woman in an office doing the same job. We got paid the same. Did the same work. [...] But i'm still there working while she's not.

If someone takes time off for any reason then they're missing out compared to someone who's working away the whole time. That's to be expected. If someone takes a year off for any reason then they're probably a year behind their colleagues who haven't taken a year off

Deleted User wrote:

And that's just during pregnancy & maternity leave. There are also all those complications that come from having a child, right through to supporting that child while its growing up.

I suppose that's where equality of maternity and paternity leave should come in. I'd support men and women having equal leave and complete choice in how to use it. At the moment it's assumed in most cases that the woman will take time off to do child care things. That's also a cultural issue though.

Deleted User wrote:

Yup. I know what Averages cover... I was wondering if you did since you introduced it into the post.

Then why would you ask if you're the average? How could you be the average? You're the average in a sample of one. Now whose being strange with their statistics?

The stat being used is that women earn 17% more than the average men until they have children. Then they earn less than the average man. I think it makes sense to compare the same subset of both groups. So I'd like to see the comparison of moment without children and men without children, and women with children and men with children. That would be comparing like with like.

Deleted User wrote:

McGaggs doesn't care about an average man. She refers to all men.. because she's seeking to promote womens right to be paid more than men in all situations. She doesn't seek to lower the salaries for childless women to equal that of childless men. Instead she seeks to lower the awareness that women do, indeed, get paid more until she has a child.

We're at cross purposes here. McGaggs isn't the author, they're the poster who wanted a stat to demonstrate that women earn 17% more than men until women have children.

McGaggs wrote:

Do you have a source for the 17% figure? I brought it up in the office, and I'm not being believed.

kunst nugget

maybe

I'm kind of confused as to what you think will be uncovered if we break down the men's group into men with children and childless men - are you hoping to find out that childfree women are actually earning less than childfree men? I'd wager that the gap would be wider in women's favour.

I think a more interesting study would be to find out what the actual wage per hour is for men and women.

givyjoe

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm kind of confused as to what you think will be uncovered if we break down the men's group into men with children and childless men - are you hoping to find out that childfree women are actually earning less than childfree men? I'd wager that the gap would be wider in women's favour.

I think a more interesting study would be to find out what the actual wage per hour is for men and women.

That is precisely the problem with the argument for the gender wage gap. It doesn't account for the many women with children, who are not working full time hours i.e. 40 or thereabouts per week.

El_Duderino 09

kunst nugget wrote:

I'm kind of confused as to what you think will be uncovered if we break down the men's group into men with children and childless men - are you hoping to find out that childfree women are actually earning less than childfree men? I'd wager that the gap would be wider in women's favour.

Lol. I don't know what we'd find. I just think it would make sense to compare like with like. Believe it or not, I'd just like to compare the same groups and see what results.

kunst nugget wrote:

I think a more interesting study would be to find out what the actual wage per hour is for men and women.

That's grand. It would be interesting to know.

hots

Jesus a consensus on this thread is rare, it's settled, everyone would like to see some more data.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's not ignoring the facts or using untrue stats so it's not wrong in any case.

Nope, I'm not saying it's incorrect.. I'm questioning the spin on the wording.

If someone takes time off for any reason then they're missing out compared to someone who's working away the whole time. That's to be expected. If someone takes a year off for any reason then they're probably a year behind their colleagues who haven't taken a year off

Excellent. We're in agreement.

That why I find this case that 'women with children' are being discriminated against to be interesting...

I suppose that's where equality of maternity and paternity leave should come in. I'd support men and women having equal leave and complete choice in how to use it. At the moment it's assumed in most cases that the woman will take time off to do child care things. That's also a cultural issue though.

Well since their rights are protected under the law, it's a legal issue too.

But I'll be honest, as a single male that never had children, I'm perhaps more interested in childless people not being discriminated against, simply because some people view having children to be more important.

I have no issue with people having children. I understand the need for it.. but I also see that parents/marriages receive plenty of benefits/incentives from the government & the law, that single childless people don't. So I get bothered by this entitlement idea that people who have children deserve to be paid as much as those that don't, passing over the sacrifices that people have to make if they wish the "big" money or better positions.

We're at cross purposes here. McGaggs isn't the author, they're the poster who wanted a stat to demonstrate that women earn 17% more than men until women have children.

Sorry, used the wrong name ref, Ann Irwin, then.

Sleepy

givyjoe wrote: »

That is precisely the problem with the argument for the gender wage gap. It doesn't account for the many women with children, who are not working full time hours i.e. 40 or thereabouts per week.

Unfortunately, such stats are impossible to actually collect.

A lot of employers would be admitting to being in breache of the European Time Working Directive were they to accurately report the number of hours their salaried employees are putting in. From personal experience, I'd suspect that the number of hours worked by the average man would dwarf that of the average women but unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to obtain accurate data to support that hunch.

givyjoe

Sleepy wrote: »

Unfortunately, such stats are impossible to actually collect.

A lot of employers would be admitting to being in breache of the European Time Working Directive were they to accurately report the number of hours their salaried employees are putting in. From personal experience, I'd suspect that the number of hours worked by the average man would dwarf that of the average women but unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to obtain accurate data to support that hunch.

I agree it's but what we have instead is a gender pay gap claims ground on potentially poor data, which misses probably THE most important data point.. i.e. hourly pay.

Quazzie

Listening to 2FM this morning and Bernard does a piece where if you text in what you want to be doing this weekend, but aren't allowed, he'll try make it happen for you. This inevitably lead to a lot of texts from lads who were being stopped having lads nights out etc. One lad (Ciaran) text in saying he wanted to have a poker game tonight with his mates, but he had to go to a wedding with his girlfriend in Wexford. So the BR team rang the girlfriend and in the conversation she stated he wasn't allowed have a poker night, and simply had to go to the wedding - end of. The BR team all had a chuckle how the guy was in trouble, and was "so dead" etc.

As I listened I couldn't help but think what would be the reaction with a role reversal if it was a guy they rang and he was on the line saying "she has to go with me - even if she doesn't want to". I can't imagine there'd be too many people having a chuckle at it and saying she was in trouble now.

ligerdub

Depends on the wedding to be fair. It also depends on the type of invite.

If it's a family member or the like then it's part of the deal. They are a couple after all. If it's just an evening invite to one of her associates then fair enough, she should be able to fly solo.

It would be very selfish to commit to going to somebody's wedding only to blow them out the day before because you want to have a game of cards with the lads. They've forked out money and the like to invite you.

Having said that I take your point. There is definitely that jokey banter on lads "oh you're in trouble now haha" type stuff when it comes to blokes and it's a bit unbalanced. For example, had he sinply wanted to have a lads night and she said no and there was no wedding or the like clashing then she'd be out of line. He'd be "under the thumb" and that would be the narrative.

To be honest though if he hasn't got the balls to have the odd night with the lads then that's his problem. He has the choice to find another girlfriend, she's his girlfriend not his mother.

titan18

I've got one today. Saw this over on the Work and Jobs forum.

https://medtronic.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?job=17000GJ4&lang=en&media_id=46286&src=LinkedIn_Slots

Personally, I think that's pretty low. Are guys who take careers breaks not welcome to apply? Or are they saying that women are the only ones who take breaks to care for children?

titan18

titan18 wrote: »

I've got one today. Saw this over on the Work and Jobs forum.

https://medtronic.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobdetail.ftl?job=17000GJ4&lang=en&media_id=46286&src=LinkedIn_Slots

Personally, I think that's pretty low. Are guys who take careers breaks not welcome to apply? Or are they saying that women are the only ones who take breaks to care for children?

TBH that's the case with all of these return to work schemes. They're all targeted at women who have had children, stayed at home for a few years, and now giving incentives for them to return to work. I've also seen advertisements which don't care about the reason why the woman left work, they just want to female workers.

The funny thing is that since I returned to Europe a few months ago, I've had to completely reskill to online work because there's so little work outside of the main cities (everything except stacking shelves requires some form of qualification except for sales, and sales in the countryside sucks). I'm stuck in my hometown due to parental commitments, so the option to work in Dublin/Galway isn't possible.

I've seen a variety of these return to work programmes in areas I'm qualified for, but they're only looking for women. Yes, I've contacted their HR departments and while they'll admit that I'm more than qualified (I have 3 degrees in my area) for the position, but I'm really not suitable, with the position remaining open for a few weeks, and then a woman gets it.

I'm not going to go nuts shouting discrimination because there really isn't any point... and TBH going online freelancing and away from all this sexist crap, is a far better option, because it's going to get worse. This wage gap thingy is just the tip of the iceberg. There will be other campaigns in the near future to place women above men in the workplace regardless of ability.

Pawwed Rig

ligerdub wrote: »

To be honest though if he hasn't got the balls to have the odd night with the lads then that's his problem. He has the choice to find another girlfriend, she's his girlfriend not his mother.

The thing is that the man has an awful
lot more to lose than the woman in the event of relationship breakdown

Shemale

iptba wrote: »

men end up having to do specific types of work where female employees are not expected to do them or won't do.

In pubs at the same pay rate: cleaning lines, deliveries, emptying the blue bins the bottles go into and changing or moving kegs, men have to lift an awkward 70kg from below their waist and for the kicker women always get more tips because men tip both sexes and women rarely tip boys/ men, in my experience

The J Stands for Jay

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No I'm pretty sure McGags is looking for a figure to demonstrate that women earn more than men- until they have children.

Yeah, a figure that leads to pondering if the wage gap is due to the division of maternity/paternity leave, rather than a systematic plot hatched by a secretive make elite.

El_Duderino 09

McGaggs wrote:

Yeah, a figure that leads to pondering if the wage gap is due to the division of maternity/paternity leave, rather than a systematic plot hatched by a secretive make elite.

Yeah parental leave will account for some of the gap. The expectation that the woman will most likely do the childcare stuff like parental leave, sick children etc, must have an effect on employers behaviour too. It couldn't not effect how an employer thinks about hiring men and women who are likely to have children in the next few years.

I spoke with someone recently who thought it would reflect badly on a man who took extended paternity care roles. They thought it would show lack of commitment to the job and their career etc. I think men should have the legal right to equality of paternity leave and the social elbow room to use it without it effecting their career*

If you take time off for any reason you'll be losing out to someone who hasn't taken time off. That's part and parcel of it.

Dynomutt

Kathryn Thomas "under fire" for calling James Patrice "a total ride" on Operation Transformation.

https://www.classichits.ie/sexy-compliment-harassment-kathryn-thomas-rte-council-dublin-sexism-4fm-boylan-podcast/

Harmless enough because you can tell they are good friends, but if a man called Kathryn a total ride on TV, Twitter would be ablaze calling for his resignation (and possible execution).

RTE has declined to comment.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The thing is that the man has an awful
lot more to lose than the woman in the event of relationship breakdown

I don't get that. Why?

s7ryf3925pivug

I'm sometimes assumed to know more about rugby and football than I actually do.

Pawwed Rig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't get that. Why?

Loses full custody of kids in the majority of cases for a start.

El_Duderino 09

Dynomutt wrote: »

Kathryn Thomas "under fire" for calling James Patrice "a total ride" on Operation Transformation.

https://www.classichits.ie/sexy-compliment-harassment-kathryn-thomas-rte-council-dublin-sexism-4fm-boylan-podcast/

Harmless enough because you can tell they are good friends, but if a man called Kathryn a total ride on TV, Twitter would be ablaze calling for his resignation (and possible execution).

RTE has declined to comment.

If it were reversed, I'd say they would be making a similar mountain out of the same molehill.

'If it was the other way around...' is becoming a parody of itself.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Loses full custody of kids in the majority of cases for a start.

Ahh, you said in a 'relationship'... not 'married' with children. Gotcha. And agree with you.

ligerdub

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Loses full custody of kids in the majority of cases for a start.

I assumed this was a younger couple for some reason (particularly as I'd assume she'd have less problem with him staying at home to mind the kids rather than arrange a sitter).

But yeah, I'd agree with your point otherwise.

ligerdub

Maybe one for debate rather than accusation, but in a week where we've seen Leo Varadkar and ML McDonald have a barney at each other, and to me at least she seemed easily the most aggressive, including what appears to be quite an invasive approach towards him........but the post-game analysis here is that he is a sexist. Am I missing something here?

Calhoun

ligerdub wrote: »

Maybe one for debate rather than accusation, but in a week where we've seen Leo Varadkar and ML McDonald have a barney at each other, and to me at least she seemed easily the most aggressive, including what appears to be quite an invasive approach towards him........but the post-game analysis here is that he is a sexist. Am I missing something here?

They are trying hard to pin misogynist tag to him but any fair commentator I have heard have dismissed it outright .

Funny though considering the party it's coming from .

Pawwed Rig

Calhoun wrote: »

They are trying hard to pin misogynist tag to him but any fair commentator I have heard have dismissed it outright .

Funny though considering the party it's coming from .

He has also been accused of lacking diversity in his cabinet. yes a gay half Indian. Apparently there was not enough women despite the majority of female TDs getting a seat at the cabinet table.

Calhoun

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

He has also been accused of lacking diversity in his cabinet. yes a gay half Indian. Apparently there was not enough women despite the majority of female TDs getting a seat at the cabinet table.

I am not generally a FG fan but I have a guilty spot for leo, my man crush is real.

The reason for it is he is generally down to earth and doesn't pander to extreme views either side.

Sleepy

ligerdub wrote: »

Maybe one for debate rather than accusation, but in a week where we've seen Leo Varadkar and ML McDonald have a barney at each other, and to me at least she seemed easily the most aggressive, including what appears to be quite an invasive approach towards him........but the post-game analysis here is that he is a sexist. Am I missing something here?

I've quite enjoyed seeing someone stand up to that eejits histrionics tbh.

"I'm leaving anyway" - the catchphrase of entitled loud-mouths who've been called out on their bull**** and asked to leave since the dawn of time.

silverharp

Calhoun wrote: »

I am not generally a FG fan but I have a guilty spot for leo, my man crush is real.

The reason for it is he is generally down to earth and doesn't pander to extreme views either side.

I passed by him once near where I live, hed walked by by the time it clicked who it was. He has a presence. It seemed like his gay armour plating has no currency on the Left here whereas all the US "sjw" types seemed to think he was great. It shows you the superficialness of it all

gizmo555

I was at Jerry Fish's performance at the Westport Arts Festival last Saturday. He was big into audience participation, getting everyone to clap and wave, sing along, and dance in the aisles. It was a bit of fun to begin with, although I found it a bit tedious after a while - after all, we paid for our tickets to see him perform, not to be the performers ourselves.

Towards the end of the show, though, he invited all the men in the audience to come up on stage and jointly apologise to the women present for the mess that men had made of the world. To my absolute astonishment they all did, with the exception of myself and three others.

Apparently Jerry thinks being a man is a special kind of original sin in itself and that women can do no wrong - obviously hasn't heard of Theresa May, for a start ...

um7y1h83ge06nx

That's mad, how did the women in the audience react? Did he apologise himself?

Fair play for not going up, that's madness. Maybe he should have called up any British members of the audience to apologise for their colonialism in Ireland or Germans for their persecution of the Jews.

Assholes like that just like to play up to these new liberal types, pure white knight antics.

Darren Incalculable AcrossL

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

That's mad, how did the women in the audience react? Did he apologise himself?

Fair play for not going up, that's madness. Maybe he should have called up any British members of the audience to apologise for their colonialism in Ireland or Germans for their persecution of the Jews.

Assholes like that just like to play up to these new liberal types, pure white knight antics.

Or getting all women to apologise for all mothers who managed raise such stupid men. If men were all out working in the fields, the offices, and the places of power making all of those terrible decisions... Then women were at home raising the children, educating them and providing the basic moral compass. It's just retarded this lack of logic which excuses women from all responsibility both for how boys were raised, and secondly, the encouragement for boys to keep women "in their place"...

Just boggles my mind.

um7y1h83ge06nx

To go one step further, everyone should have went up on stage to apologise for being so privileged to live in a first world country in comparison to the world's poorest.

He would have gotten to use the word "privileged" and all for extra brownie points.

silverharp

at least i had to google him

Calhoun

silverharp wrote: »

at least i had to google him

Indeed had no idea who he is or was, attitude like that he wont go too much further, looks just like a regular has been.

Calhoun

Then again maybe it was done for a laugh as in haha men are a shower of bastards? or is he just a self hating liberal man?

Who knows but cheap stunts like that i don't go in for, if the shoe was on the other foot his career minor as it is would be over.

El_Duderino 09

Very strange. What kind of person would get up on stage and go along with something like that?

I can't imagine the kind of showmanship needed to get almost all the men in the room to do something so degrading.

mzungu

gizmo555 wrote: »

Towards the end of the show, though, he invited all the men in the audience to come up on stage and jointly apologise to the women present for the mess that men had made of the world. To my absolute astonishment they all did, with the exception of myself and three others.

Wow! That's some bizarre stuff.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Very strange. What kind of person would get up on stage and go along with something like that?

I can't imagine the kind of showmanship needed to get almost all the men in the room to do something so degrading.

To be honest, it wouldn't take that much showmanship if he's managed to get the female audience behind him. Few men want to be seen as uncooperative, especially if their date/wife is encouraging them to go up and 'peer' pressure also can still affect a lot of guys even as they get older. Domino's flipping...

I've had plenty of experience of people around me bugging me because I was too stubborn to join in on their ideas of fun. gizmo555 pointed out that prior to this last bit, everyone was having a lot of fun. Be difficult to face that down, and not come off as a stubborn unreasonable prick.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

To be honest, it wouldn't take that much showmanship if he's managed to get the female audience behind him. Few men want to be seen as uncooperative, especially if their date/wife is encouraging them to go up and 'peer' pressure also can still affect a lot of guys even as they get older. Domino's flipping...

I've had plenty of experience of people around me bugging me because I was too stubborn to join in on their ideas of fun. gizmo555 pointed out that prior to this last bit, everyone was having a lot of fun. Be difficult to face that down, and not come off as a stubborn unreasonable prick.

I have to say I'd sooner come off as a stubborn unreasonable prick than go along with something so degrading.

Wibbs

maybe

People and how they act in groups have always fascinated me. From political movements, through cultural philosophies, religion, riots, even how people queue or how traffic operates. And People in groups tend towards thinking as a group and can be easily enough manipulated. It's a part of human nature and part of being a social animal. The outliers, the rebels are the minority. A minority we most certainly need from time to time(and probably why they still crop up and weren't selected out over time), but too many of them in a population would be detrimental to same, because mostly we need to operate as a cohesive group with similar aims.

Over the years I've noted this streak in men and women that resisted oppression and oppressive regimes. They are often feted as heroes after the fact, but during not nearly so much and even after(and before) they tend to considered by their peers to be usually odd, always stubborn and cantankerous in nature, even complete pains in the arse in peacetime. Some could well be considered sociopaths, even psychopaths. When you read of such oppressive periods in history it does strike you that the lovely neighbour next door is by a long way the most likely to sell you out to the authorities, rather than the ornery odd bastard that won't give the kids their ball back if it lands in their garden.

So I'm not too surprised by that happening. People were enjoying themselves at a gig they wanted to and paid to see. They were already invested. To make a group act the way you want them to act you need that investment. Getting them interacting from the get go invested them more and whipped them up and made going along with the act normalised. Cue swerve ball served up in the midst of that and unless you go really off script for a culture then they'll very likely be invested in that too. At least enough to kinda go along with it.

Now if he had suddenly called for people to come up and chant death to [insert group here] then that would jar and would jolt people too far out of the investment and they would resist. Unless the culture had been prepared already to make that not so jarring, or not so jarring that they'd overly question it. QV(apologies for Godwin) the Nazi's and Jewish people. If one were to take a bet in say 1900 which European nation and culture would have gone full nutbag towards Jewish people, Germany would have been pretty low on the list. France would have been way higher for a start, many Eastern Europeans saw pogroms as a national and annual sport. But post the 20's the Nazi's and other groups painted the Jews as the boogeyman and since every put upon society needs some boogeyman or other(even not so put upon societies), they slowly got normalised to it. Even there it was very incremental and the end point was never fully spelled out. They normalised it enough until it wasn't so jarring and most either tacitly agreed, or most of all were willing to look the other way.

From a "gender" POV it's interesting too. The background Western culture has somewhat normalised the idea that men were/are oppressors and women were/are oppressed. So to bring that up with an individual man or woman, you would likely get a debate, but in a crowd the cultural influence is stronger than the individual and in such a setting debate is almost impossible. It becomes very one sided and whoever has the microphone plays the tune that the crowd dance to. Such events tell you what groups are seen as a boogeyman, from minor to major. What I find interesting, at least as a question; could someone at the height of the old style sexist "patriarchy" be able to get people on stage and decry or laugh at women? I doubt it. Yes there would(and was) most certainly be sexist "jokes" at women's expense, but in a group setting like that? I can't think of an example, though would not be surprised to hear of one. For example I could see a gathering in Saudi Arabia standing on a stage and mocking women drivers. Similar in say India too.

Like I say, this people acting in groups/"mass hypnotism*" stuff fascinates me.



*hypnotism, especially of the stage kind operates in a similar way. An invested crowd and invested volunteers(the oddballs and rebels are weeded out beforehand) means Joe from Accounts will go along with the suggestion he's now a chicken laying an egg. You can't hypnotise a man or woman to strip to their underwear by just saying "strip to your underwear", but you have a much higher chance of getting them to do so if you tell them that they're on a beach in Portugal and it's very hot and maybe they should get into their swimwear. Context and investment is everything.

gizmo555

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

That's mad, how did the women in the audience react? Did he apologise himself?

He did apologise himself, and then started urging men up on to the stage to do likewise. It started slowly first, with half a dozen or so going and then, as someone here put it, the domino effect kicked in. (I was proud of my teenage son who was one of the other three men who stayed put - but if he'd budged, I'd have told him to sit his arse right back down!)

The women at the gig seemed to think it was funny, although later I described it to a woman friend in my local pub and she was outraged - both for her male family & friends, and also for the framing of women as perpetual victims.

Calhoun

gizmo555 wrote: »

He did apologise himself, and then started urging men up on to the stage to do likewise. It started slowly first, with half a dozen or so going and then, as someone here put it, the domino effect kicked in. (I was proud of my teenage son who was one of the other three men who stayed put - but if he'd budged, I'd have told him to sit his arse right back down!)

The women at the gig seemed to think it was funny, although later I described it to a woman friend in my local pub and she was outraged - both for her male family & friends, and also for the framing of women as perpetual victims.

Interesting comment from your friend, she is correct though its not only a slight against men but also women.

iptba

gizmo555 wrote: »

Towards the end of the show, though, he invited all the men in the audience to come up on stage and jointly apologise to the women present for the mess that men had made of the world. To my absolute astonishment they all did, with the exception of myself and three others.

I dislike any suggestion of equivalence: I think it is much more unfair to men than it is to women.