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

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

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.

It’s a warning in he way those air crash investigations shows are warnings about the danger of air travel.

Everyone behaved well in the story. The man was a good citizen who saved a life. The doctors credited the man with saving her life. The police followed up an accusation of sexual assault and dropped it once the man explained that he was as following the instructions.

The bus driver was a wolly and made a serious accusation based on their ignorance of the AED. It doesn’t say whether the bus driver was a man or a woman and it certainly doesn’t mention feminism. So you’re a few steps away from demonstrating your accusation that feminists sealed women’s fate.

If you find a lost child on a shop, find a member of staff. I suppose you would have to think about it. It the procedure should be clear with children. Get a second adult to member of staff to witness and cover your ass.

You do that because it’s not what a predator would do. I value the measures to differentiate between the behaviour of a predator and a concerned citizen. It’s different to ‘the good ole days’ but lots of abuse happened back then that wouldn’t happen today.

People need to be mindful and adapt their behaviour. Predators have fit in with society because they could act like a concerned citizen and kidnap a child. If you alert a member of staff that there’s a lost child, you keep everyone safe by drawing a distinction between your behaviour and a potential predator.

It takes a small bit of thought but you can help keep everyone safe.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

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".

Although considering that consent can be withdrawn after the fact, she could be grateful for the rescue at that time and still be within her rights to shout violation later. Oh, Common sense suggests that a judge would throw it out of court, but there have been quite a few silly cases of suing (for stupid things) getting through in the last few years.

Triceratops Ballet

Deleted User wrote: »

Although considering that consent can be withdrawn after the fact, she could be grateful for the rescue at that time and still be within her rights to shout violation later. Oh, Common sense suggests that a judge would throw it out of court, but there have been quite a few silly cases of suing (for stupid things) getting through in the last few years.

I think there's actually something in law that prevents people who perform lifesaving cpr on others from being prosecuted for actions taken in the course of administering the treatment. I remember when I was doing my training in it someone queried it, and we were told not to worry about it, because it's quite common to break someones ribs for example doing cpr. The thinking being that saving someones life is more important, and people shouldn't fear repercussions for doing the right thing.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Although considering that consent can be withdrawn after the fact, she could be grateful for the rescue at that time and still be within her rights to shout violation later. Oh, Common sense suggests that a judge would throw it out of court, but there have been quite a few silly cases of suing (for stupid things) getting through in the last few years.

Can you withdraw consent after he fact? I don’t think so

If you need an AED you’re probably not conscious so doubt consent comes into it at all.

I think your concern is based a bit more in persecution fantasy than reality.

Sleepy

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I think there's actually something in law that prevents people who perform lifesaving cpr on others from being prosecuted for actions taken in the course of administering the treatment. I remember when I was doing my training in it someone queried it, and we were told not to worry about it, because it's quite common to break someones ribs for example doing cpr. The thinking being that saving someones life is more important, and people shouldn't fear repercussions for doing the right thing.

IIRC, it's called the "Good Samaritans Law". Not sure that Ireland actually has it enshrined in legislation however

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

IIRC, it's called the "Good Samaritans Law". Not sure that Ireland actually has it enshrined in legislation however

I remember a nurse telling me years ago that they were advised not to help for fear of being sued. but my memory tells me something changed in the meantime.

Buffman

On the issue of first aid 'sexism', this story was doing the rounds yesterday with regard to CPR.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5077643/Women-likely-receive-CPR-men.html

Women are less likely to receive CPR 'because people are reluctant to touch their breasts', study finds

• A study suggests women are less likely than men to receive CPR by a bystander
• Only 39% of women suffering a heart attack in public were given CPR as opposed to 45% of men
• There were no gender disparities in CPR rates when the victim was at home around those who knew them
• This is the first study to examine gender differences in receiving heart help from the public as opposed to professional responders

Only 39 percent of women suffering cardiac arrest in a public place were given CPR versus 45 percent of men, and men were 23 percent more likely to survive, the study found.
It involved nearly 20,000 cases around the country and is the first to examine gender differences in receiving heart help from the public versus professional responders.

py2006

Oh the double standards...

• This is a site where women secretly take pictures of hot men on the underground
• Site users can then post comments underneath the picture and rate the image
• Signs that the man is wealthy were considered highly attractive by site users

Triceratops Ballet

py2006 wrote:

... This is a site where women secretly take pictures of hot men on the undergroundSite users can then post comments underneath the picture and rate the imageSigns that the man is wealthy were considered highly attractive by site users

That's a bit creepy alright. I don't like the idea of people sharing photos of others online without their knowledge.

That topless dude tho, who rides the tube like that? That one at least has to be posed

Triceratops Ballet

py2006 wrote: »

Oh the double standards...

• This is a site where women secretly take pictures of hot men on the underground
• Site users can then post comments underneath the picture and rate the image
• Signs that the man is wealthy were considered highly attractive by site users

Did you look at the site?
I had a look just now, and a sh1t load of submissions are from gay blokes as are the comments. Don't get me wrong I still think it's creepy to take a pic of someone without them knowing and posting it online for others to comment on. But it might not be the sexism fest the daily mail made it out to be :eek:

Calhoun

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Did you look at the site?
I had a look just now, and a sh1t load of submissions are from gay blokes as are the comments. Don't get me wrong I still think it's creepy to take a pic of someone without them knowing and posting it online for others to comment on. But it might not be the sexism fest the daily mail made it out to be :eek:

I think the point is had the shoe been on the other foot and we would have had a nice little hate train on the bold men of London.

Pawwed Rig

Calhoun wrote: »

I think the point is had the shoe been on the other foot and we would have had a nice little hate train on the bold men of London.

Have you seen the manspreading in some of those pics?

Disgusting

Calhoun

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Have you seen the manspreading in some of those pics?

Disgusting

Yah man I wasn't too happy with the whole look at my bulge shots going on. It's like " look at me and my giant sack" .

Peatys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeVKCj9_-Xc

silverharp

amusing but shouldnt compnies not run down their customers? :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3WwQkItiUM

Sleepy

Does anyone else find the notion that the Tinder HQ is supposedly so full of attractive women with a handful of subservient men rather amusing?

It's a Silicon Valley based tech company that was founded as a hookup app. It's a fair bet that a minimum of 70% of their workforce is comprised of white and asian men.

Looking at Wikipedia: "Tinder was founded by Sean Rad, Jonathan Badeen, Justin Mateen, Joe Munoz, Dinesh Moorjani, and Whitney Wolfe". Digging a little further, Wolfe, the sole female founder left while filing a sexual harrassment suit against the company. LOL

Calhoun

Sleepy wrote: »

Does anyone else find the notion that the Tinder HQ is supposedly so full of attractive women with a handful of subservient men rather amusing?

It's a Silicon Valley based tech company that was founded as a hookup app. It's a fair bet that a minimum of 70% of their workforce is comprised of white and asian men.

Looking at Wikipedia: "Tinder was founded by Sean Rad, Jonathan Badeen, Justin Mateen, Joe Munoz, Dinesh Moorjani, and Whitney Wolfe". Digging a little further, Wolfe, the sole female founder left while filing a sexual harrassment suit against the company. LOL

Probably why all the virtue signalling going on. Its crazy with all the recent revelations on Hollywood and at home you would really have to look at someone virture signalling and think what are they hiding.

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

Does anyone else find the notion that the Tinder HQ is supposedly so full of attractive women with a handful of subservient men rather amusing?

It's a Silicon Valley based tech company that was founded as a hookup app. It's a fair bet that a minimum of 70% of their workforce is comprised of white and asian men.

Looking at Wikipedia: "Tinder was founded by Sean Rad, Jonathan Badeen, Justin Mateen, Joe Munoz, Dinesh Moorjani, and Whitney Wolfe". Digging a little further, Wolfe, the sole female founder left while filing a sexual harrassment suit against the company. LOL

one thing I found amusing were all the hand drawn and coloured in graphs ,y'know cos that's how they roll in Silicon Valley. its complete cringe , the lesbian security guard, the male eye candy receptionist . Meanwhile the "expert" they bring in is as fake as the douchebags shes out to highlight. Its a pitty the comments and votes are hidden or disabled, they obviously know they wouldn't survive the Youtube hive mind

H3llR4iser

py2006 wrote: »

Oh the double standards...

• This is a site where women secretly take pictures of hot men on the underground
• Site users can then post comments underneath the picture and rate the image
• Signs that the man is wealthy were considered highly attractive by site users

Obviously, I would have no issue whatsoever with that - if it wasn't that every now and then there is outcry about some group of "perverts" (usually on FB) that posts pictures of women taken in public and does the same "rating". In a nutshell, it's fine and dandy if the subjects of the rating and oogling are guys - who does the deed is frankly unimportant.

Also interesting, in a sad way, are some of the comments under the article (BTW, couldn't the author resist posting a bazillion pictures with it?) from MEN in response to other guys saying stuff like "there'd be calls for arrests if this was about pictures of women" - the general rebuttal is in the whereabouts of implying these guys must be nerds, virgins and whatnot. Reverse white knighting of the grandest kind.

Last, but interestingly - looks like women have an absolutely disgusting taste when it comes to men and men's style; All you need apparently are a tracksuit, a sports jersey and a lot of "bulk" powder. Good to know

El_Duderino 09

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Obviously, I would have no issue whatsoever with that - if it wasn't that every now and then there is outcry about some group of "perverts" (usually on FB) that posts pictures of women taken in public and does the same "rating". In a nutshell, it's fine and dandy if the subjects of the rating and oogling are guys - who does the deed is frankly unimportant

How can you say that? This site came to the attention of this thread because a major international newspaper published it to point out the outrageous content.

How can you read an article on a major newspaper and say it’s fine that it’s men? Do you think the paper is highlighting this site with the editorial slant that’s it’s grand behaviour? As far as I can see the article was fairly obviously pointing out how this behaviour is out of order.

The article has done a subtle job of it simultaneously caused people to get outraged AND caused the outraged people to believe there’s no outrage because it’s male victims rather than female.

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How can you say that? This site came to the attention of this thread because a major international newspaper published it to point out the outrageous content.

How can you read an article on a major newspaper and say it’s fine that it’s men? Do you think the paper is highlighting this site with the editorial slant that’s it’s grand behaviour? As far as I can see the article was fairly obviously pointing out how this behaviour is out of order.

The article has done a subtle job of it simultaneously caused people to get outraged AND caused the outraged people to believe there’s no outrage because it’s male victims rather than female.

Duderinos account has been hacked :pac:

H3llR4iser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How can you say that? This site came to the attention of this thread because a major international newspaper published it to point out the outrageous content.

How can you read an article on a major newspaper and say it’s fine that it’s men? Do you think the paper is highlighting this site with the editorial slant that’s it’s grand behaviour? As far as I can see the article was fairly obviously pointing out how this behaviour is out of order.

The article has done a subtle job of it simultaneously caused people to get outraged AND caused the outraged people to believe there’s no outrage because it’s male victims rather than female.

The article almost treats it as a "science study", at no point takes a position, goes as far as mentioning it "viewed as a bit of fun" and connects an actual study with it (women like muscular and wealthy men - wow, I can't believe that, I thought they loved skinny nerds working in McDonalds or unemployed fat slobs! I'm floored!). It does, in all fairness, take a quick shot at this by implying that "it was thought women had moved over from liking that". One sentence, exactly.

I'm genuinely curious as to your thought process about the article. Please highlight where the author is denouncing the site as sexist and inappropriate (something about which, again, I don't give a damn in absolute terms - let the ladies have whatever fun they want, as long as they don't complain about the same):

Academics looked at a website called Tube Crush. On the site, women secretly take pictures of men on the London Underground.

TubeCrush.net is filled with pictures of the capital's finest looking men on the Underground, uploaded by fellow commuters for others to rate and share.

It has proved exceedingly popular since it was set up in 2011 and has 11,000 likes on Facebook and nearly 10,000 followers on Twitter.

The website was set up to pay ‘Homage to the Hommes’.

The founder Steve Motion, who works as an account manager by day, claims the ethos of the site it to celebrate desirable men travelling on the tube.

Users can give a picture 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' depending on how attractive they are.

The site has around 3,000 visitors daily, 40 per cent of which are male.

He says only a handful of men have asked for their photos to be removed via the 'photo removal request' form.

But critics say the site is an example of ‘reverse sexism’ – and unlikely to be tolerated if it was pictures of women on the tube secretly taken by men.

Some critics said users of the site are treating men ‘like cattle’.

One protested it is hypocritical for women to argue against men objectifying women if women ‘do the same to men, albeit in a watered down, complimentary sort of way’.

The research by academics from Coventry and Aberystwyth University, which also highlighted that gay men use the site, said that ‘white male privilege is still an attractive quality in men for many straight women and gay men.’

They said in the photograph, many users particularly emphasised a man’s muscular biceps, pecs [pectoral muscles] and chest ‘the body parts which suggest physical strength.’

Many comments also praised powerful muscles – and indeed comments in which the women ‘estimated sexual prowess’ in the comments.

Women secretly taking pictures of men on public transport represents a form of ‘reversal of gender roles’, supporters of the website say in the research published in the journal Feminist Media Studies.

Lead researcher Adrienne Evans, from Coventry University’s Centre for Postdigital Cultures, said: ‘From smart-suited City workers to toned gym-goers flashing their flesh, the men featured in the photographs on TubeCrush show that as a culture we still celebrate masculinity in the form of money and muscle.

‘They are marking the middle-class, wealthy, mobile and sexually powerful male body, not as a political one as feminists intend it to be, but one that should be actively desired.'

‘This celebration of masculine capital is achieved through humour and the knowing wink, but the outcome is a reaffirmation of men’s position in society.

‘It’s a problem because although it appears as though we have moved forward, our desires are still mostly about money and strength.'

While sites in which unsolicited images of women – such as Women Who Eat on Tubes - have prompted a strong reaction, Tube Crush has been viewed more as a bit of fun.

silverharp

When I saw that it was the Daily Mail I expected a hit peace but like above its treated like a social experiment with an added "some people might think its reverse sexism yada yada" 2nd thought be suspicious of someone who says reverse sexism :pac:

The readers are outraged at the site, the newspaper isn't and the Gentlemen of Boards are rightly critical of both, the site and the tone of the article

vetinari

The last few pages of this thread are pretty weak on personal experiences. It might be a sign that sexism isn't as big a factor for guys as some posters here make out.

tritium

vetinari wrote: »

The last few pages of this thread are pretty weak on personal experiences. It might be a sign that sexism isn't as big a factor for guys as some posters here make out.

Maybe, or it could just be a few weak pages. I'd kind of relate it to one of those silly twitter tags that went around a few months back where several examples if sexism were along the lines of "waah my employer won't pay for my tampons". Didn't take away from other experiences in there though.

silverharp

I dont think the criticism is warranted, i dont think any of the more serious issues mentioned in the thread have gone away.

newport2

vetinari wrote: »

The last few pages of this thread are pretty weak on personal experiences. It might be a sign that sexism isn't as big a factor for guys as some posters here make out.

Try reading the previous 475 pages.

El_Duderino 09

vetinari wrote: »

The last few pages of this thread are pretty weak on personal experiences. It might be a sign that sexism isn't as big a factor for guys as some posters here make out.

It’s almost exclusively perceived sexism, far removed from the poster’s personal experience, such as in a media article.

Therrs an interesting experiment where they ask people what’s the state of X nationally (e.g. the NHS in the UK). People will respond that nationally it’s dreadful. People have to wait hours in A&E and wait 5 weeks for a doctors appointment. Then they ask how NHS in their own area performs and they say that their local service is actually very good. They personally got a doctors appointment in 3days and waited45 minutes in A&E. But nationally it’s dreadful.

I think you’re seeing the same phenomenon here. ‘Sexism is everywhere and all men are under attack from feminists. I haven’t personally been affected, but it’s everywhere’.

Calhoun

I think the thread has evolved beyond it's original purpose, we even have a resident feminist who keeps us all in line. It's fairly progressive as we get a bit if everything in it.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s almost exclusively perceived sexism, far removed from the poster’s personal experience, such as in a media article.

Therrs an interesting experiment where they ask people what’s the state of X nationally (e.g. the NHS in the UK). People will respond that nationally it’s dreadful. People have to wait hours in A&E and wait 5 weeks for a doctors appointment. Then they ask how NHS in their own area performs and they say that their local service is actually very good. They personally got a doctors appointment in 3days and waited45 minutes in A&E. But nationally it’s dreadful.

I think you’re seeing the same phenomenon here. ‘Sexism is everywhere and all men are under attack from feminists. I haven’t personally been affected, but it’s everywhere’.

a couple of things there, firstly a lot of the posts on here refer to the media narrative and how in some ways it condenses the public view, it doesn't affect you personally but same time if you were to analyse it you would have to conclude a bias which includes the amorphis public. For instance a bunch of media women laughing on tv because a partner cut her partner's penis off or another one where the audience were laughing that a boyfriend that had to lock himself in a bathroom and jump out a 1st storey building to get away from an abusive partner, there it took the host to point out the double standard of the audience

otherwise I havnt been through a divorce or family court nor have I had to deal with the State on any family matters so yep again sexism hasn't affected me but that's not really the point is it?

givyjoe

silverharp wrote: »

a couple of things there, firstly a lot of the posts on here refer to the media narrative and how in some ways it condenses the public view, it doesn't affect you personally but same time if you were to analyse it you would have to conclude a bias which includes the amorphis public. For instance a bunch of media women laughing on tv because a partner cut her partner's penis off or another one where the audience were laughing that a boyfriend that had to lock himself in a bathroom and jump out a 1st storey building to get away from an abusive partner, there it took the host to point out the double standard of the audience

otherwise I havnt been through a divorce or family court nor have I had to deal with the State on any family matters so yep again sexism hasn't affected me but that's not really the point is it?

Of course, if some folks don't like it, they can always lump it somewhere else. :rolleyes:.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

a couple of things there, firstly a lot of the posts on here refer to the media narrative and how in some ways it condenses the public view, it doesn't affect you personally but same time if you were to analyse it you would have to conclude a bias which includes the amorphis public. For instance a bunch of media women laughing on tv because a partner cut her partner's penis off or another one where the audience were laughing that a boyfriend that had to lock himself in a bathroom and jump out a 1st storey building to get away from an abusive partner, there it took the host to point out the double standard of the audience

otherwise I havnt been through a divorce or family court nor have I had to deal with the State on any family matters so yep again sexism hasn't affected me but that's not really the point is it?

It depends on the media and it’s intended audience. If you’re referring to Loose Women then it’s primarily for a middle aged female audience. I’d disagree with anyone laughing at cutting someone’s penis off.

If it’s the click bait stuff, then it’s being produced as much for you who opposes it as someone who actually supports it. You click on far more of those articles than the average person so, it works.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Of course, if some folks don't like it, they can always lump it somewhere else. :rolleyes:.

I’ve no idea who you’re referring to but I hope they don’t take your suggestion. They’d leave the thread to wallow in manufactured victim hood and convince each their it’s not safe to go outside for fear of feminist assassins.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’ve no idea who you’re referring to but I hope they don’t take your suggestion. They’d leave the thread to wallow in manufactured victim hood and convince each their it’s not safe to go outside for fear of feminist assassins.

Really, you've no idea?! That post just sums you up in a nutshell to be honest. Pretending that you don't know what folks are on about, while belittling posters experiences, observations and opinions.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It depends on the media and it’s intended audience. If you’re referring to Loose Women then it’s primarily for a middle aged female audience. I’d disagree with anyone laughing at cutting someone’s penis off.

If it’s the click bait stuff, then it’s being produced as much for you who opposes it as someone who actually supports it. You click on far more of those articles than the average person so, it works.

something is socially acceptable or it isn't, there aren't any "loose men" type shows where male criminal behaviour against women is celebrated and the male audience whoop away.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’ve no idea who you’re referring to but I hope they don’t take your suggestion. They’d leave the thread to wallow in manufactured victim hood and convince each their it’s not safe to go outside for fear of feminist assassins.

Really, you've no idea?! That post just sums you up in a nutshell to be honest. Pretending that you don't know what folks are on about, while belittling posters experiences, observations and opinions.

Lol. You’re giving your subtlety far too much credit.

It was tongue in check because you made such a thinly veiled suggestion for me to stop posting in this thread.

Who’s belittling anyone’s experience?

Pawwed Rig

givyjoe wrote: »

Really, you've no idea?! That post just sums you up in a nutshell to be honest. Pretending that you don't know what folks are on about, while belittling posters experiences, observations and opinions.

I don't know what your comment means either

givyjoe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't know what your comment means either

Oh well, perhaps you should read my post and El Dude's a litter closer, he said he didn't know who I was referring to, not that he didn't know what it means. I'm sure he's not in the habit of liking posts he doesn't understand.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Oh well, perhaps you should read my post and El Dude's a litter closer, he said he didn't know who I was referring to, not that he didn't know what it means. I'm sure he's not in the habit of liking posts he doesn't understand.

Lol. As above it was a tongue in cheek response to your thinly veiled suggestion that if I don’t like it, I should ‘lump it somewhere else’. I got the joke. I replied in jest. You might be taking your little joke too seriously.

silverharp

another one for the lol category , maybe they should change the ending and have sleeping beauty bring a sexual harassment case against the prince , now boys and girls what did we learn?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5110415/Mother-demands-son-s-school-ban-Sleeping-Beauty.html

Mother demands her six-year-old son's school take Sleeping Beauty off the curriculum because the princess does not give consent to be kissed and woken up by the prince
Sarah Hall, 40, North Shields, said fairytale promotes unacceptable behaviour
She argued it teaches children that it is okay to kiss a woman while she's asleep
Ms Hall said : 'It's about saying is this book still relevant, is it appropriate?'

iptba

vetinari wrote: »

The last few pages of this thread are pretty weak on personal experiences. It might be a sign that sexism isn't as big a factor for guys as some posters here make out.

The remit of the thread was changed so that it wasn't just about personal experiences.

I don't think one can surmise much by only focusing in on a tiny fraction of this long, ongoing thread.

Calhoun

silverharp wrote: »

another one for the lol category , maybe they should change the ending and have sleeping beauty bring a sexual harassment case against the prince , now boys and girls what did we learn?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5110415/Mother-demands-son-s-school-ban-Sleeping-Beauty.html

I think this was either a publicity stunt by her or its bitten her in the ass. She is a fairly public figure so doesnt look like iits going well for her.

lazybones32

There was a little snippet at the end of the hourly news update on Spin yesterday, on the need to prevent "femicide"... Women's Lives Matter (More)?

I think we have one of the lowest rates of intentional killing of females in Europe but never pass up an opportunity to push the cause, eh?

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote: »

There was a little snippet at the end of the hourly news update on Spin yesterday, on the need to prevent "femicide"... Women's Lives Matter (More)?

I think we have one of the lowest rates of intentional killing of females in Europe but never pass up an opportunity to push the cause, eh?

Jesus how can you oppose something like this? It’s not suggesting men should be killed. Any death killing is bad so if someone wants to draw attention to killings in any demographic, fair play to them.

How this could be classed as sexism, without adding in additional narratives that aren’t actually part of the message, needs to be explained.

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Jesus how can you oppose something like this? It’s not suggesting men should be killed. Any death killing is bad so if someone wants to draw attention to killings in any demographic, fair play to them.

How this could be classed as sexism, without adding in additional narratives that aren’t actually part of the message, needs to be explained.

Because rather than lets stop all killing its lets stop killing Women, as the poster said it smells of "Womens lives matter more" but trust you to find a issue with that :rolleyes:

silverharp

missed the beginning of it but on Sky they had someone on talking about domestic violence and she gave out some stats , the news guy asked her were they global or british stats, she had to say global. seems a bit disingenuous to conflate 3rd world issues so one can state hyperbolic stats

gizmo555

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

Because rather than lets stop all killing its lets stop killing Women, as the poster said it smells of "Womens lives matter more" but trust you to find a issue with that :rolleyes:

Here's another good example of this. Ciudad Juarez in Mexico was notorious for extreme violence in the context of drug cartel activities in the 1990s.

As this article describes:

"In the 1990s, the largest city on the Texas-Mexico border became infamous for its gruesome “femicides”—the murders of hundreds of women. The murders, held to be predominantly mysterious and sexual in nature, grew in the public’s imagination. Juarez developed an international reputation as a place of horrific violence against women, a reputation that has become an internationally dominant narrative about the city. The femicides of Juarez have spurred activism and academic study, and become a major part of artistic and cultural depictions of life in Juarez—from the Tori Amos song “Juarez,” to Roberto Bola novel 2666, to FX’s recent drama The Bridge."

However, the facts are that the percentage of women murder victims there was much lower than in the United States, at 10%. As Professor Molly Molloy of the New Mexico State University put it:

"If 300 people are killed and 30 of them are women, but the women’s murders are the ones that get all of the attention, I find that to be absolutely mistaken and wrong."

backspin.

Over the next week pay attention to how much focus there is on women's issues in the newspapers, radio, TV talkshows etc. You will be amazed when you start to notice it. It is non stop.

lazybones32

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Jesus how can you oppose something like this? It’s not suggesting men should be killed. Any death killing is bad so if someone wants to draw attention to killings in any demographic, fair play to them.

How this could be classed as sexism, without adding in additional narratives that aren’t actually part of the message, needs to be explained.

You've gone beyond a parody at this point and it's tiresome. I'm putting you on the ignore list, so there's no point in you replying to a post of mine seeking a reply.

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

Because rather than lets stop all killing its lets stop killing Women, as the poster said it smells of "Womens lives matter more" but trust you to find a issue with that :rolleyes:

It smells a bit of women’s lives matter more than men’s? If you see a poster for men’s health, do you consider it sexist because it smells a bit of men’s health being more important than women’s? So why would you consider this sexist?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How this could be classed as sexism, without adding in additional narratives that aren’t actually part of the message, needs to be explained.

Read the bit after the bit you bolder. Without adding narratives that aren’t actually there. I’d support this as much as a campaign to raise awareness of men’s killings, or any killings. To pick a problem with one is just whining. Typical of the men’s movement unfortunately.

Would anyone here honestly object to a campaign highlighting men’s killings?