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

I dunno how much all of what I'm gonna post falls under sexism but I'm sure some does. :P

I've posted elsewhere about the whole amateur psychologist "It's good to talk" stuff that all the right-on people go on about and how it annoys me as a fit-all solution. There's a long (proud? :pac: ) of men keeping themselves in check and maybe, just maybe that's a difference in the genders. I personally don't find talking helpful when I'm going through anything and a few of my mates have said similar, it used to help a bit but now it just kinda becomes limiting and talking leads to thinking leads to over-thinking.

At the same time as being told it's good to talk, the whole "fragile male ego" line is always juuuuuust around the corner. I made a point recently (percentages are arguable) that basically a decent majority of women could walk into a pub and know that a decent majority of guys would go home with them that night. It ain't the case the other way around. I suffer from super-low confidence (sometimes good at hiding it apparently) and if I talk about the reasons or point out things like the above a certain type of person will come back with "Oh you're blaming others for your own shortcomings!". Again, making a general (and I think accurate) point about something as background for something is met with cries of sexism.
Yet, the other way around, when societal factors (however flakey or recently monetised) are used to discuss why women feel the way they do there is absolutely no arguing allowed and it's not the individual woman's fault in any way, it's purely the societal factor to blame.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

At the same time as being told it's good to talk, the whole "fragile male ego" line is always juuuuuust around the corner.

I must admit that I've never experienced this "fragile male ego" thingy applied to me. I've heard about it in articles and such, but I have no experience of it myself.

I made a point recently (percentages are arguable) that basically a decent majority of women could walk into a pub and know that a decent majority of guys would go home with them that night. It ain't the case the other way around.

A lot of that is due to cultural/social reasons. Firstly, that there is the very common social attitude that men approach women, which gives women the ability to judge and accept/reject the approach, therefore placing women on a pedestal higher than the men. Secondly, that it's extremely rare to go to a bar/club in the west where the majority are women... far more common is that there are more men than women, and hence, that also increases the social power of women.

I spent almost a decade living in Asia, and traveling through the M.East/Africa, and as a white male, I could walk into a bar, and leave five minutes later with a woman. The local men would have the same issues as you've described, but I wouldn't. Why? because in a large number of cultures, they placed a white male as being 'special'... (Wealthy potential, the color of skin, cultural differences etc) and outside their normal rules of dating. Nowadays, that's being reduced with local men becoming far more attractive than foreigners since there is more wealth in the hands of the locals.

So, society and culture play a huge part of how we perceive availability and demand. Western culture tends to put women above the average man in dating and emphasizes the rights of women for choosing their 'date'.

I suffer from super-low confidence (sometimes good at hiding it apparently) and if I talk about the reasons or point out things like the above a certain type of person will come back with "Oh you're blaming others for your own shortcomings!". Again, making a general (and I think accurate) point about something as background for something is met with cries of sexism.

Yup. You are not allowed to suggest reasons for the amount of influence or power that women have in our society, especially in the area of dating.

Yet, the other way around, when societal factors (however flakey or recently monetised) are used to discuss why women feel the way they do there is absolutely no arguing allowed and it's not the individual woman's fault in any way, it's purely the societal factor to blame.

Nah. It's not society's fault. It's the fault of male influence in shaping our society.

ligerdub

Saruhashi wrote: »

So really what you are saying is you don't want to get into a conversation about the relationship between MRAs and Feminists on a larger scale but just want to talk about what matters to you and your real life?

When someone bothers to look into why men don't seem to be heavily involved in Gender Studies and subsequent activism for men's issues it doesn't really matter to you what the conclusion is because you are really just interested in individual personal experiences?

Surely, from an MRA perspective, if MRAs are trying to get anything done about men's issues and Feminist Theory, Intersectionality and Feminist Activists themselves are a major roadblock to that then they will perceive Feminism as dreadful.

If I want to drive down a road from Point A to Point B and I can't because of a fallen tree blocking the road then it seems utterly unfair to me that you would be there saying "I don't know why you keep going on about this tree, just drive your car from A to B" over and over again.

When I try to explain that I can't get from A to B because a tree is blocking my path you keep saying "well, trees and roads and driving aren't really important to my life so I don't know why you are so worried about this tree".

I think here it's even worse than that because YOU won't even look at the road. Someone says "you know I measured the width of the road and the tree and the car and this car can't drive round that tree without falling of the road". Your reply is to utterly shamelessly, and without any inclination of embarrassment,
say "well I don't know about any of that I'm not interested in measuring things".

I can't ignore the tree though can I? I want to get something done and there is a thing blocking me. I can't get rid of the thing though because there is someone who instead of saying "yeah, maybe we should see about this tree" keeps hammering the point home that I am "feeling under attack" from trees and that I am just too obsessed with trees for my own good.

And who's this coming along to try and move the tree? It's the "generals in the gender wars". I shouldn't pay attention to them though. Shouldn't even learn their names or listen to what they have to say. Nah. Just drive from A to B. Forget the tree. Why do you keep mentioning tress? I don't see the need to move trees, personally. Can't you just ignore this "let's clear the road" crowd and drive from A to B?

There comes a point where I have to realize that you are just never going to get it.

People who are trying to do activism for men's rights are often blocked by Feminist groups. This puts them in conflict with one another.

Anyone discussing men's rights who can't at least acknowledge this conflict is not really doing much for the discussion, in my opinion.

"You should care about men's issues"
I do but these feminist groups are doing a lot to block MRA groups
"I don't know why you feel under attack"
Well, feminist groups are blocking progress on the issues I am interested in.
"I don't know why you keep bringing up feminists"

I think we are done here to be honest.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e6edee10709a24857dda78d5c01eed5f-c

elvis83

The one I've seen (which is sexist to both genders) is a manager not hiring a woman on the basis that she would 'distract' the men. That truly disgusted me - if she was the right candidate she should have gotten the job, and men shouldn't be thought of as mindless Neanderthals who can't function in the presence of a woman.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

So really what you are saying is you don't want to get into a conversation about the relationship between MRAs and Feminists on a larger scale but just want to talk about what matters to you and your real life?

When someone bothers to look into why men don't seem to be heavily involved in Gender Studies and subsequent activism for men's issues it doesn't really matter to you what the conclusion is because you are really just interested in individual personal experiences?

You've done your research alright. Can't deny that.

The idea that men are under constant attack is an academic one rather than one that men experience in real life.

Saruhashi wrote:

People who are trying to do activism for men's rights are often blocked by Feminist groups. This puts them in conflict with one another.

As I said earlier, that's definitely true. Any groups who are competing for the same spot are going to find themselves in opposition at times.

Saruhashi wrote:

Anyone discussing men's rights who can't at least acknowledge this conflict is not really doing much for the discussion, in my opinion.

I acknowledged the conflict. What I object to is the entire discussion being about feminism. To illustrate the point, there's one poster who regularly updated the men's rights thread about trending women's issues on twitter. I posted a link to a male celebrity publicising a mental health and suicide prevention Service, and one of the locals said they had no idea why I posted that in that forum.

Opposing feminism has become the overriding objective, in these threads at least. Meanwhile feminists are busy getting things done. Men's right advance more slowly as a result

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I acknowledged the conflict. What I object to is the entire discussion being about feminism. To illustrate the point, there's one poster who regularly updated the men's rights thread about trending women's issues on twitter. I posted a link to a male celebrity publicising a mental health and suicide prevention Service, and one of the locals said they had no idea why I posted that in that forum.

Opposing feminism has become the overriding objective, in these threads at least.

I'm the poster who has been posting the Twitter hashtags. I wasn't asked to do it and some people have questioned how interesting it is. But to put it in some context, I've done it ten times or less out of a large number of posts to the thread (556 posts according to a quick search).

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Meanwhile feminists are busy getting things done. Men's right advance more slowly as a result

What is it exactly that they are getting done?

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Meanwhile feminists are busy getting things done. Men's right advance more slowly as a result

What is it exactly that they are getting done?

Getting attention for women’s issues, awareness campaigns, establishing services to deal with women’s issues, changing public opinion, lobbying government for change in various areas.

For good or ill, they’re doing all the things that the locals in these threads are terrified by. Like it or not, they’re relatively effective

py2006

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Getting attention for women’s issues, awareness campaigns, establishing services to deal with women’s issues, changing public opinion, lobbying government for change in various areas.

For good or ill, they’re doing all the things that the locals in these threads are terrified by. Like it or not, they’re relatively effective

Questionable at best. For example what public opinion are they currently changing and who are these feminists exactly?

Exactly whom do you refer to in this thread as being terrified by this?

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote:

Questionable at best. For example what public opinion are they currently changing and who are these feminists exactly?

Exactly whom do you refer to in this thread as being terrified by this?

Oh here. This forum comes to life when discussing the things feminists do. Whether or not they are it in a positive light, they ones who complain about how much they get done are aware of it. Their whole argument hinges on feminism's success, for good or ill. I'll bet feminists forums aren't sitting about discussing MRA like the locals here, discuss feminism, mainly because the MRA movement isn't as effective for good or ill.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'll bet feminists forums aren't sitting about discussing MRA like the locals here, discuss feminism, mainly because the MRA movement isn't as effective for good or ill.

When men's rights activists have done things in the 3D world (I'm thinking mainly of in other countries) quite often feminists have complained about it in one form or another including with protests and disruption tactics.

Saruhashi

backspin. wrote: »

Gender studies courses are seen by most men as feminist propoganda.

Here's a good one. Offered by the Women's Center at the University of Connecticut.

The Men's Project: https://womenscenter.uconn.edu/programs-services/vawpp/the-mens-project/

So they definitely are looking for men to participate in Gender Studies but it seems like they would be more likely to be encouraged to be allies to women rather than to do something about "men's issues"


The Men’s Project is an eleven-week training that begins the week of January 29, 2018. The day and time will be determined by participant availability.

The program is supported by the UConn Women’s Center and the Asian American Cultural Center, whose staff serve as advisors and support for this initiative. The goal of the Men’s Project is to train male-identified students who will then positively influence their peers by challenging social norms that promote gender-based violence; understanding their connection to survivors of gender-based violence; and role modeling effective bystander interventions. The weekly meetings will focus on topics related to gender socialization, masculinities, social justice and gender-based violence. Previous year’s participants shared that the program was transformative, challenging, and that after the program their implementation of bystander intervention strategies greatly increased.

We will select approximately 20 male-identified students for this initiative. The purpose of the project is to identify and train individuals who may be seen as having influence with their peers. However, all male-identified students are encouraged to apply. We are looking for a diverse group of participants with unique experiences, perspectives, and backgrounds. Ideal candidates are students who relate well to other men; who are sensitive to issues of gender-based violence; and are open to collective and collaborative learning.

backspin.

Saruhashi wrote: »

Here's a good one. Offered by the Women's Center at the University of Connecticut.

The Men's Project: https://womenscenter.uconn.edu/programs-services/vawpp/the-mens-project/

So they definitely are looking for men to participate in Gender Studies but it seems like they would be more likely to be encouraged to be allies to women rather than to do something about "men's issues"


The Men’s Project is an eleven-week training that begins the week of January 29, 2018. The day and time will be determined by participant availability.

The program is supported by the UConn Women’s Center and the Asian American Cultural Center, whose staff serve as advisors and support for this initiative. The goal of the Men’s Project is to train male-identified students who will then positively influence their peers by challenging social norms that promote gender-based violence; understanding their connection to survivors of gender-based violence; and role modeling effective bystander interventions. The weekly meetings will focus on topics related to gender socialization, masculinities, social justice and gender-based violence. Previous year’s participants shared that the program was transformative, challenging, and that after the program their implementation of bystander intervention strategies greatly increased.

We will select approximately 20 male-identified students for this initiative. The purpose of the project is to identify and train individuals who may be seen as having influence with their peers. However, all male-identified students are encouraged to apply. We are looking for a diverse group of participants with unique experiences, perspectives, and backgrounds. Ideal candidates are students who relate well to other men; who are sensitive to issues of gender-based violence; and are open to collective and collaborative learning.

In other words plenty of scolding first and then responsibility to help keep women safe by potentially putting themselves in harms way. 100% female-centric.

Wibbs

maybe

Saruhashi wrote: »

male-identified students who will then positively influence their peers by challenging social norms that promote gender-based violence; understanding their connection to survivors of gender-based violence; and role modeling effective bystander interventions. The weekly meetings will focus on topics related to gender socialization, masculinities, social justice and gender-based violence. Previous year’s participants shared that the program was transformative, challenging, and that after the program their implementation of bystander intervention strategies greatly increased.

"male-identified students" eh? That's all you need to read really. Though grammatically should that not be male identifying students? Anyway, but yeah a course reinforcing the women are always victims and it's always men's fault followed by the other near given in "feminism" with regard to men, they have to put up, by fixing things(irony), including putting themselves in potential harms way, or shut up, if they have questions that challenge the catechism.

aww... shucks.. I thought It might be free and in Ireland. I'd do it just to write a real in-depth review from a boards perspective.

11 weeks? Isn't that a tad long? I read most feminist theory/philosophy in less than three days. (with plenty of breaks to scream in frustration out the back garden)

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

"male-identified students" eh? That's all you need to read really. Though grammatically should that not be male identifying students? Anyway, but yeah a course reinforcing the women are always victims and it's always men's fault followed by the other near given in "feminism" with regard to men, they have to put up, by fixing things(irony), including putting themselves in potential harms way, or shut up, if they have questions that challenge the catechism.

Aye, although for any lad unfortunate enough to take that course, that would be the least of his worries! :P

iptba

I don't claim to have read much of this but I skimmed a part of it after seeing the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission refer to the study:

Rich, J. (2014). ‘What do field experiments of discrimination in markets tell us? A metaanalysis of studies conducted since 2000’, IZA Discussion Paper No. 8584. Institute for the Study of Labor.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.653.4090&rep=rep1&type=pdf

These results reflect the findings of the other studies on gender discrimination, that is, statistically significant discrimination against men in the female-dominated jobs which is of a much higher order than any found for the integrated occupations or against females applying to male-dominated jobs.

Two consistent features can be identified from all the gender studies surveyed in this section. First, men applying for strongly female-stereotyped jobs need to make between twice to three times as many applications as do women to receive a positive response for these jobs. Second, women applying to male-dominated jobs face lower levels of discrimination in comparison to men applying to female-dominated jobs.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

When men's rights activists have done things in the 3D world (I'm thinking mainly of in other countries) quite often feminists have complained about it in one form or another including with protests and disruption tactics.

Yeah that’s probably true. Likewise these forums oppose most things feminists do. Along with complaining about the other side, they manage to get things done.

silverharp

dont catch toxic masculinity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tPpF7FqFQs

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

dont catch toxic masculinity

Ha! Classic Fox News. Pure Punch and Judy.

They couldn’t get the woman who posted the tweet do they got another woman to stand in and play the part for the segment.

The one interesting thing was her definition of toxic masculinity to do with men feeling they’re losing control. Is that a commonly held understanding of the term?

silverharp

i did think toxic masculinity was like original sin, maybe she committed a doctrinal error

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

i did think toxic masculinity was like original sin, maybe she committed a doctrinal error

She's an actor playing the part of a mad feminist. That's plain for all to see. It's a fox news theatre piece. IT wasn't meant to be a serious interview. It's like watching parody of an interview.

It's interesting because they both use the term toxic masculinity to describe a phenomenon that is often referred to in these threads. That being men losing power as minorities and women are taking positions previously held by men. This was raised over the last weeks with the discussion about men being the breadwinner and provider for the family. Its not referred to as toxic masculinity in these threads but it is recognised and discussed.

PCeeeee

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

She's an actor playing the part of a mad feminist. That's plain for all to see. It's a fox news theatre piece. IT wasn't meant to be a serious interview. It's like watching parody of an interview.

Hah?

https://www.womensmediacenter.com/shesource/expert/cathy-areu

No.

El_Duderino 09

PCeeeee wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

She's an actor playing the part of a mad feminist. That's plain for all to see. It's a fox news theatre piece. IT wasn't meant to be a serious interview. It's like watching parody of an interview.

Hah?

https://www.womensmediacenter.com/shesource/expert/cathy-areu

No.

I googled her and Catalina magazine which the host introduces her as editor of. There’s not a word about holding mad feminist beliefs in the bio you linked it the Wikipedia one (which might actually be the same).

I think she’s simply working as a Fox News contributor in that piece. They couldn’t get the author of the tweet so she’s playing the part of the mad feminist. Both the host and contributor are playing roles. It’s tongue in cheek. It’s theatre.

Do you think it’s a straight interview?

PCeeeee

I'm afraid I do. I would think it extraordinary that a woman with that bio would appear on Fox news playing the the part of a 'mad feminist'. I'm inclined to believe that playing a mad woman on telly would damage her reputation.

I agree with you that her views are as you put it, mad however such opinions are the norm in certain sections of academia in the US.

El_Duderino 09

PCeeeee wrote: »

I'm afraid I do. I would think it extraordinary that a woman with that bio would appear on Fox news playing the the part of a 'mad feminist'. I'm inclined to believe that playing a mad woman on telly would damage her reputation.

I agree with you that her views are as you put it, mad however such opinions are the norm in certain sections of academia in the US.

I think you’re putting too much faith in Fox News if you think it’s a straight interview. I have never heard of her before so I can’t say anything about her and her career beyond the bio you posted. It’s an entertainment piece. Look at it again and tell me if you think it’s a straight interview When you see her answer the question ‘ what’s the feminine version of toxic masculinity?’ And she answers that women are sugar and spice and all things nice... You’re being had, I’m afraid.

silverharp

as far as i can see she isnt a comedian so no reason for her to express views she doesnt believe . seems diversionary to want to dismiss the interview as a setup

PCeeeee

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think you’re putting too much faith in Fox News if you think it’s a straight interview. I have never heard of her before so I can’t say anything about her and her career beyond the bio you posted. It’s an entertainment piece. Look at it again and tell me if you think it’s a straight interview When you see her answer the question ‘ what’s the feminine version of toxic masculinity?’ And she answers that women are sugar and spice and all things nice... You’re being had, I’m afraid.

I think we can both agree one of us is completely wrong.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's interesting because they both use the term toxic masculinity to describe a phenomenon that is often referred to in these threads. That being men losing power as minorities and women are taking positions previously held by men. This was raised over the last weeks with the discussion about men being the breadwinner and provider for the family. Its not referred to as toxic masculinity in these threads but it is recognised and discussed.

At least one person used it to refer to "traditional masculinity" as I recall, which presumably could refer to a time before this change you refer to so there looks like there is a contradiction there. Was there no "toxic masculinity" one hundred or more years ago? Seems like it might be a word to beat men with.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

as far as i can see she isnt a comedian so no reason for her to express views she doesnt believe . seems diversionary to want to dismiss the interview as a setup

I don’t know if you’ve seen much of Fox News. It’s an entertainment network based on the news. It’s primary demographic is middle aged and older, white, blue collar men. This is exactly the kind of thing that would entertain them.

Of course it’s a setup. It features a host ridiculing a person who the core demographic wants to see being ridiculed.

She’s a stand-in for the actual author of the tweet. She’s playing the role of the woman who posted the tweet. That’s what Fox News contributors do, they present a perspective for the purpose of selling it or knocking down the straw man.

Just for the record, do you think this was a straight interview?

iptba

I have no idea whether she fully believes the views - anything is possible. But it does seem to be the case that "toxIc femininity" is not a widely used term by feminists so there does seem to be a double standard there. I like the fact he highlighted how when it suits some feminists they say there are no differences between men and women but when it suits them they say there are differences but generally only to say women are better than men/men are worse than women.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote:

I have no idea whether she fully believes the views - anything is possible. But it does seem to be the case that "toxIc femininity" is not a widely used term by feminists so there does seem to be a double standard there. I like the fact he highlighted how when it suits some feminists they say there are no differences between men and women but when it suits them they say there are differences but generally only to say women are better than men/men are worse than women.

Oh yeah. I forgot she actually said women are better than men! Ah lads. It's a performance aimed at men who want to see a feminist with mad views being destroyed. Enjoy the performance of the feminist strawman being blown away if that's what you like watching, but don't be caught believing it's a genuine interview.

When you say there's a double standard, what do you mean? Double standard where different feminists insentient term differently

iptba wrote:

At least one person used it to refer to "traditional masculinity" as I recall, which presumably could refer to a time before this change you refer to so there looks like there is a contradiction there. Was there no "toxic masculinity" one hundred or more years ago? Seems like it might be a word to beat men with.

I don't know if there was toxic masculinity 100 years ago. It's a relatively new term and I don't think it has standard usage. I think there are lots of definitions of toxic masculinity so nearly everyone is using the term to mean different things. Silverharp uses it as original sin, the fox news contributor quotes the woman she was standing in for who says it's to do with white men losing power to women and minorities, and I've heard it used to describe unhelpful aspects of masculinity. So men being aggressive fighting in war or on a rugby pitch is masculinity put to good use and fighting on the street on Saturday night is masculinity put to bad use (toxic masculinity). Trump would be a great example of negative application of masculine traits.

It's a bullsh1t term because it doesn't have a common usage. Im sure there's a dictionary definition but I don't see a standard usage.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know if there was toxic masculinity 100 years ago. It's a relatively new term and I don't think it has standard usage. I think there are lots of definitions of toxic masculinity so nearly everyone is using the term to mean different things. Silverharp uses it as original sin, the fox news contributor quotes the woman she was standing in for who says it's to do with white men losing power to women and minorities, and I've heard it used to describe unhelpful aspects of masculinity. So men being aggressive fighting in war or on a rugby pitch is masculinity put to good use and fighting on the street on Saturday night is masculinity put to bad use (toxic masculinity). Trump would be a great example of negative application of masculine traits.

It's a bullsh1t term because it doesn't have a common usage. Im sure there's a dictionary definition but I don't see a standard usage.

I agree the term is problematic. But to respond to what you said, if toxic masculinity is masculinity put to bad use, why isn't there "toxic femininity" for femininity put to bad use/women behaving badly.

Or if "toxic masculinity" means a negative or unhelpful role model of masculinity is, why isn't there "toxic femininity".

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote:

I agree the term is problematic. But to respond to what you said, if toxic masculinity is masculinity put to bad use, why isn't there "toxic femininity" for femininity put to bad use/women behaving badly.

Or if "toxic masculinity" means a negative or unhelpful role model of masculinity is, why isn't there "toxic femininity".

I don't know. You can coin the term 'toxic femininity' if you like. I won't use of the same as I don't use 'toxic masculinity'.

Which behaviours could be termed 'toxic femininity'?

py2006

iptba wrote: »

I agree the term is problematic. But to respond to what you said, if toxic masculinity is masculinity put to bad use, why isn't there "toxic femininity" for femininity put to bad use/women behaving badly.

Or if "toxic masculinity" means a negative or unhelpful role model of masculinity is, why isn't there "toxic femininity".

Toxic Feminism!

PCeeeee

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know. You can coin the term 'toxic femininity' if you like. I won't use of the same as I don't use 'toxic masculinity'.

Which behaviours could be termed 'toxic femininity'?

Are there feminine traits that are generally considered bad? I have certainly never heard such discussed.

Pawwed Rig

PCeeeee wrote: »

Are there feminine traits that are generally considered bad? I have certainly never heard such discussed.

Infantising other women is one that I have noticed. This has been discussed here a few times.
Shaming other women and men who don't follow their beliefs is another.

El_Duderino 09

PCeeeee wrote:

Are there feminine traits that are generally considered bad? I have certainly never heard such discussed.

Pawwed Rig wrote:

Infantising other women is one that I have noticed. This has been discussed here a few times. Shaming other women and men who don't follow their beliefs is another.

You could attribute those to women and call it toxic femininity if you like. There are some behaviours which are a bit more serious and can be attributed to men. The point the tweeter in the Fox News segment made becomes relevant this stage. Almost all the mass shootings are committed by men.

So would you be happy with 'toxic femininity' referring to infantising and shaming other women, and toxic masculinity referring to mass shootings and the like?

PCeeeee

Wouldn't be happy with either tbh. If we all agree that there are clear male/female traits then I don't see how it helps us to label one of those traits toxic.

They are a product of our evolution surely and understandable as such. That is not to say all of the various quirks inherent in our species are desirable in the environment that prevails at this stage of our evolution but sectioning off portions of this species and labeling them toxic....that's a vy bad idea.

We do that for race. I'm not sure anyone would defend that as a good idea.

El_Duderino 09

PCeeeee wrote:

Wouldn't be happy with either tbh. If we all agree that there are clear male/female traits then I don't see how it helps us to label one of those traits toxic.

Well it depends if you're labeling the behaviour or the trait or the person. If the trait is aggression, aggression Inna rugby pitch or battlefield is commendable. Aggression outside a chipper on a Saturday night is not commendable. If you have to label anything toxic, it would be the behaviour rather than the trait or the person.

PCeeeee wrote:

They are a product of our evolution surely and understandable as such. That is not to say all of the various quirks inherent in our species are desirable in the environment that prevails at this stage of our evolution but sectioning off portions of this species and labeling them toxic....that's a vy bad idea.

I've no problem labeling mass shootings as bad behaviour (toxic in the context of this discussion).

But you're switching between labeling the trait, the behaviour and people. For example, mass killing seems to be done by men rather than women so there must be a big biological component to it. So it's accurate to call mass killings almost exclusively masculine behaviour as it happens in our species.

Like I said, I don't use the term because there's no agreed usage.

Sleepy

gizmo555 wrote:

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 ...

Sleepy wrote: »

Wow... this is interesting. We have him booked for a gig in a few weeks in a sports club where I do a bit of bartending.

I've been at quite a few of his shows at Oxygen / Electric Picnic back in the day and he's a brilliant entertainer, the audience participation is great craic when you're in the mood for it.

If he tries a stunt like this in the club, however, I suspect he'll be met with guffaws and told to g'way and shite... The club wouldn't be male dominated either, gender wise it'd be close to a 50/50 split in a liberal, upper class area.

I'm really hoping he tries it TBH.

So the gig was this weekend and he got up to the same antics. A surprising amount of the lads (about 70/80% went along with it "for the laugh" up to, and including waltzing with each other to his prompting). I got the sense that most complied so as not to seen to be rude to a guest performing in the club, or to be seen to be spoiling the party atmosphere

There was a fair bit of eye-rolling and comments about him trying to "out-Bono Bono" from the rest.

He eventually tried turning the spotlight on the bar staff asking us to hold each others' hands aloft as part of this bit. He got told "no chance" and when he kept pressing, got given the finger and a very clear indication that pushing further would lead to an incident.

gizmo555

Sleepy wrote: »

So the gig was this weekend and he got up to the same antics.

Goes to show, if nothing else, how carefully rehearsed all his ad lib audience interaction is ...

Sleepy

To be fair, I don't think there's any pretense that it's ad-libbed... As one of the members commented "he's making the crowd do the entertaining for him"

silverharp

Now every CPR and Heimlich is a potential #metoo , cant be too careful , what a time to be alive :rolleyes:

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

Now every CPR and Heimlich is a potential #metoo , cant be too careful , what a time to be alive :rolleyes:

Lol. Hadn't thought of that.

silverharp

Sorry ladies. Feminists just sealed your fate.....

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Sorry ladies. Feminists just sealed your fate.....

Clearly any decent human being would use the AED if necessary to save someone’s life. You can choose to behave however you like, of course.

You haven’t read the article, have you?

Where do you get these old articles? Are you signed up to a mailing list of screenshots of article headlines about sexism, or go you go looking for them yourself?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Sorry ladies. Feminists just sealed your fate.....

For anyone who hasn’t read the article, including the poster who posted the screenshot of the headline, it’s about a man who happened upon a traffic crash and used an AED device resuscitate one of the passengers.

The device requires contact with the skin on the torso and gives verbal instructions to guide a complete novice though the process.

A bus driver saw him cut the person’s clothes off as directed by the AED. The man was questioned in relation to the traffic accident and then the bus driver made a statement to police about the guy cutting off the injured woman’s top.

Police questioned the man briefly and he said that it was a legitimate part of the process. And the police realised nothing had happened and left it.

The man was since credited with saving the woman’s life and was given a certificate of appreciation. He’s a bit of a hero. The end.

silverharp

its a warning though, its a bit like seeing a lost kid in a supermarket etc., these days men have to second guess themselves in case of the risk of getting an earful from some crazy mother.

Sleepy

I did some defibrillator training last year and a few of the ladies attending the same course echoed the same opinion when it we were being instructed to remove any bra before applying the pads directly to the skin (the underwiring can cause burns apparently). There was a few "but what if you're in the middle of one of the courts?!" comments and the instructor was pretty brief in his answer: "I think most people would rather live with the embarrassment than die of their modesty".