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

El_Duderino 09

lazybones32 wrote: »

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.

Stick your fingers in your ears all you like. If you can’t bare to have to actually explain your position.

Some posters just want to spout any old rubbish and have everyone nod in agreement and say how dreadful the feminist conspiracy is. Childish behaviour but, each to his own.

If you feel oppressed because someone is drawing attention to women being killed, then you’ll need to ignore a lot more than me asking how that’s sexism against men. Best of luck in your safe space. Lol.

El_Duderino 09

backspin. wrote: »

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.

Yes, confirmation bias is an interest and powerful phenomenon.

More to the point, it would be more productive to advocate for highlighting men’s killings -or sit around whining about the women’s movement having success. Whichever you think is more productive. If you feel you’re winning by noticing pro-women messages,then have at it.

Wibbs

maybe

gizmo555 wrote: »

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."

It's an extremely common narrative in the media and culture. Has long been so even in the misogynistic past and in current actually patriarchal societies. In the valued stakes children come first of course, followed by women and then men. Men are subconsciously seen as the "disposable" gender. Popular culture and storytelling reinforces this and has done for a long time. The warrior dying for a cause type meme an obvious one. “Come back with your shield, or on it” as the Greek phrase went. Even the Suffragettes got actively on board with handing out white feathers to men not in uniform in WW1. They were extremely active in sloughing off the past when it came to gender equality(arguably more than their great granddaughters), but stuck with that view.

More recently look at the Boko Haram story that revved up international condemnation when they took schoolgirls hostage. "Bring our girls home" went the meme. Zero mention of the backstory, especially the part where on the first raids on schools Boko Haram shot, hacked to death, burned the men and boys and sent the girls home to be "good muslims". Then they changed tack, again killed all the boys they found and took the girls hostage. And that was the point where the international outcry and FaceBook outrage kicked off. You want to raise attention? Killing men/boys won't do it, kill take hostage women/girls and people lose their sh1t. The terms used in reporting deaths can be informative of this deeply held view. When it's mostly men killed they are usually referred to as "people". Today in [insert war torn sh1thole here] dozens of people were killed. If it's women or kids involved they're more likely to be directly referenced. Even the idea of "civilian casualties" is more about women and kids. When war became mechanised and more likely to include civilians this was reported as one of the biggest horrors of modern warfare.

This isn't some daft "red pill" conspiracy either. One could argue it runs so deep because it is part of our history and biology going waaaay back. Look at ancient wars and battles. The vanquished men are killed or enslaved, the women are enslaved, but rarely killed and often "married off" to the male victors. In practical terms and for once small bands of humans if all but a few of the men died, but the women survived you can survive as a group, if all but a few of the women died, your group is a goner. So on a purely biological front men in general are indeed more "disposable", women more precious(if fertile) and children the future and this hind brain notion is likely why that idea still exists today and why the safety of women is seen as more important in cultures.

gizmo555

Coincidentally, the Irish Times published an article today on a study by Women's Aid on sentences for manslaughter where women had been killed by their partners. They conclude that on average, sentences at 7.8 years are shorter than for women killed by strangers, for whom the average sentence is 10.6 years. (They excluded murder, because that gets a mandatory life sentence.)

It would be interesting to see a similar comparison between manslaughter sentences for women and men who kill their partners. Thinking, for example, of Norma Cotter, who I mentioned earlier in this thread and who got a 3.5 year sentence for manslaughter after shooting her husband dead as he slept, I'd be surprised if the average for women isn't substantially lower than for men.

Women's Aid suggest killing an intimate partner should be considered an aggravating factor that should increase the sentences, because of the betrayal of trust. I wouldn't necessarily disagree - so long as it applied to women in exactly the same way as to men.

Carlos Orange

No

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.

There is a fairly obvious implicit message in having an International Day for the Elimination of Violence against women but no International Day for the Elimination of Violence against men or even International Day for the Elimination of Violence. Either violence against men doesn't exist or it is considered a lesser problem. I imagine men experience more violence than women so why is it a lesser problem?

Iseedeadpixels

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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?

Nope because there are just as many womens health posters, ads, books, mags etc.

I do remember loose women laughing at movember saying it was silly etc and distracting from breast cancer awareness, now imagine men laugh at daffodil day.

I really hope this "male feminist" thing is working for you because I would honestly be mortified to be one.

El_Duderino 09

psinno wrote: »

There is a fairly obvious implicit message in having an International Day for the Elimination of Violence against women but no International Day for the Elimination of Violence against men or even International Day for the Elimination of Violence. Either violence against men doesn't exist or it is considered a lesser problem. I imagine men experience more violence than women so why is it a lesser problem?

So establish a day to highlight violence against men if you feel it should get more attention just like someone did for the day you’re upset about.

I asked a question which nobody has attempted to answer. If there’s a campaign to highlight an issue from men’s point of view (education, health etc.), do you also consider it implicitly sexist? Is any campaign that highlights any particular group implicitly ‘ist’ and bad , in your view?

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

Nope because there are just as many womens health posters, ads, books, mags etc.

Do what the standard? If you judge a woman’s issue gets enough attention, then it’s implicitly sexist. If a man’s issue gets equal attention it’s not sexist?

Has it occurred to you that these events, days, campaigns etc. don’t just happen spontaneously? Some group makes it happen through hard work and overcoming the opposition from all the naysayers.

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

I do remember loose women laughing at movember saying it was silly etc and distracting from breast cancer awareness, now imagine men laugh at daffodil day.

Ok. I disagree with them. Why are you telling me about that?

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

I really hope this "male feminist" thing is working for you because I would honestly be mortified to be one.

Yeah thanks. It’s working out grand. I mostly use it to weasel my way in with women because of my crushing insecurity around real men - that’s the narrative about in these parts, right?

Since you asked, It doesn’t come up. I don’t think I’ve ever said the words ‘male feminist’ in real life. It only seems to be an issue to people on these threads -a surprising number of whom have said they can’t get a girlfriend or are bossed around by their wives. You don’t need to worry about me.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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?


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?

Im curious el_d you seem to be a frequent poster here but have a handful of posts in forums that would be considered a parallel to this forum, and maybe one that might be considered remotely critical at that. What gives? Do you honestly think that gender debate is only unbalanced or needs a devils advocate on one side on boards?

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Im curious el_d you seem to be a frequent poster here but have a handful of posts in forums that would be considered a parallel to this forum, and maybe one that might be considered remotely critical at that. What gives? Do you honestly think that gender debate is only unbalanced or needs a devils advocate on one side on boards?

I think advocating for men’s rights is important. I see a forum dedicated to men’s rights, used mostly to bitch about how successful the feminist movement has been. That’s so far removed form the point of advancing men’s rights in areas that matter that it’s focused almost exclusively on feminism. And any challenge to that is taken as an attack on men. Can you see how crazy that is?

You quoted a post which actually asks a lot of questions such as the one below.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

Does anyone think the campaigns for prostate cancer implies that prostrate cancer is the most important cancer and all other cancers are trivial by comparison? I’d bet the answer is no.

By extension, a campaign to highlight women’s killings isn’t a slight against men, it’s just highlighting women’s killings. I am opposed to women’s killings so I have no problem with the campaign. I also oppose men’s killings so I would support a similar campaign to highlight men’s killings is there is one.

Does anyone remember back as far as last week when we had International men’s day? Posters were split on whether ‘Day of...’ is useless anyway, but now when it’s a day of a woman’s issue, it’s a big deal again. Does anyone else see how ridiculous that is?

An esteemed poster wrote a post about how ‘days of...’ are pointless and they don’t pay any attention to them when writing about IMD and then wrote a lengthy post in opposition to this femiside day about how men’s lives are seen as less valuable than women’s. Maybe IMD was a golden opportunity to discuss an important men’s issue like men’s killings if that’s important to you. And maybe international day of elimination of violence against women is a good day to discuss violence against women.

But the approach the poster actually took was to complain that IMD is useless and the day for highlighting violence against women was the time to complain that nobody talks about violence against men.

Such an opportunity to do something FOR men wasted and then attempt to denigrate someone else’s opportunity to highlight an issue which is important to women.

I hope that helps you understand.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think advocating for men’s rights is important. I see a forum dedicated to men’s rights, used mostly to bitch about how successful the feminist movement has been. That’s so far removed form the point of advancing men’s rights in areas that matter that it’s focused almost exclusively on feminism. And any challenge to that is taken as an attack on men. Can you see how crazy that is?

You quoted a post which actually asks a lot of questions such as the one below.



Does anyone think the campaigns for prostate cancer implies that prostrate cancer is the most important cancer and all other cancers are trivial by comparison? I’d bet the answer is no.

By extension, a campaign to highlight women’s killings isn’t a slight against men, it’s just highlighting women’s killings. I am opposed to women’s killings so I have no problem with the campaign. I also oppose men’s killings so I would support a similar campaign to highlight men’s killings is there is one.

Does anyone remember back as far as last week when we had International men’s day? Posters were split on whether ‘Day of...’ is useless anyway, but now when it’s a day of a woman’s issue, it’s a big deal again. Does anyone else see how ridiculous that is?

An esteemed poster wrote a post about how ‘days of...’ are pointless and they don’t pay any attention to them when writing about IMD and then wrote a lengthy post in opposition to this femiside day about how men’s lives are seen as less valuable than women’s. Maybe IMD was a golden opportunity to discuss an important men’s issue like men’s killings if that’s important to you. And maybe international day of elimination of violence against women is a good day to discuss violence against women.

But the approach the poster actually took was to complain that IMD is useless and the day for highlighting violence against women was the time to complain that nobody talks about violence against men.

Such an opportunity to do something FOR men wasted and then attempt to denigrate someone else’s opportunity to highlight an issue which is important to women.

I hope that helps you understand.

Well, no, not really. Youve identified elsewhere as a feminist, yet you post frequently on a forum where mens rights issues would be expected and infrequently where womens rights issues would be expected. You critique the approach to those mens rights topics but have no opinion as a feminist on the appriaches to any womens (or mens) issues. And you openly admit previously to having zero familiarity with many of the key players in mens rights issues in spite of being a feminist who contributes on mens rights


Im not trying to have a dig at you, its just, well, odd. Kind if like a fish choosing to spend all their life on land and wondering why it was uncomfortable.

ancuncha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Does anyone think the campaigns for prostate cancer implies that prostrate cancer is the most important cancer and all other cancers are trivial by comparison? I’d bet the answer is no.

By extension, a campaign to highlight women’s killings isn’t a slight against men, it’s just highlighting women’s killings. I am opposed to women’s killings so I have no problem with the campaign. I also oppose men’s killings so I would support a similar campaign to highlight men’s killings is there is one.


I hope that helps you understand.

Your very wrong,
Prostate cancer is a male only health issue same as ovarian cancer is a women's only issue and i have no issue with campaigns for either

However it's all about context,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender

A campaign to highlight women’s killings, when women's killings in Ireland is 13.3% verses male killings of 86.7% is incredibly dismissive of the of the male killings with an overwhelming majority of victims being men
Therefore it is very sexist to completely overlook men.

Different story if it was Iceland with 100% victim women (with one death) or i wouldn't have an issue in Japan with 52.9% women, even though it's practically 50/50

Wibbs

maybe

tritium wrote: »

Do you honestly think that gender debate is only unbalanced or needs a devils advocate on one side on boards?

Funny enough the same kind of "devils advocate" posting elsewhere would get nuked PDQ. I know, I used to nuke them myself. I personally figured that here we shouldn't do that. No sense in creating willing "martyrs" for any cause. It's less about devils advocate mind you and more about pretty transparent goalpost shifting and general disingenuousness on display, with the usual if thinly veiled "no woman would have you" stuff on the regular.

Then again I've generally found debating "feminists" is like herding cats. Pointless, with a lot of discordant mewing and not enjoyable for either party. Though as a group they're certainly not alone in that in these days of binary beliefs. Left/Right/Red Pill/Whatever you're having yourself are as bad.

As for "male feminists"? I would say the majority are just guys who see "feminism" as an equality movement, just like the majority of women who would self describe as such. Hell. I would have self described as such myself in the past. And that's how most would approach it. Though it has become increasingly obvious to anyone but the most blinkered and not up to speed on what current "feminism" - and in the mainstream - represents that it has become anything but an egalitarian philosophy. Though it has many strands it always boils down to women are always agentless victims and it's always men's fault. So to be an informed "male feminist" must require epic levels of cognitive dissonance, or some odd masochism at play.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Well, no, not really. Youve identified elsewhere as a feminist, yet you post frequently on a forum where mens rights issues would be expected and infrequently where womens rights issues would be expected. You critique the approach to those mens rights topics but have no opinion as a feminist on the appriaches to any womens (or mens) issues. And you openly admit previously to having zero familiarity with many of the key players in mens rights issues in spite of being a feminist who contributes on mens rights


Im not trying to have a dig at you, its just, well, odd. Kind if like a fish choosing to spend all their life on land and wondering why it was uncomfortable.

I support lots of feminist advocacy and I support men’s rights advocacy. I can’t stand the way bitching about feminist success is mistaken for men’s rights advocacy. One regular poster has so little interest in men’s rights that they posted the only use for IMD was to ‘smoke out’ feminists who opposed the day. So while they offered no support for the day, they saw themselves in the position to judge others support for the day. So what if some daft bint opposes IMD? Lots of the male posters in the same thread opposes IMD for one reason or another. Lots of posters opposed the day of elimination of violence against women too and it achieved nothing (unless you consider whinging about feminism to be a success).

If I came across a bread bitching about men for some spurious reason, I’d oppose it too. Just as a demonstration, have a look in The Ladies Lounge and see how many men bashing thread you can see from the last month. There was no thread bashing IMD in TLL. That great was here. There was also no thread bashing the day highlighting violence against women. That was here too.

I don’t know about the characters in the gender wars - funny enough that was held against me both for my ignorance of the issues and that I was a liar for pretending not to know about them. Do you know a lot about those characters? What do I need to know about the gender wars to know that it’s ridiculous to say IMD is useless and then say the anti violence day is sexist against men. Wouldn’t they either both be useless or both be sexist against the other gender?

Before anyone asks, I don’t expect the hive mind etc. But I do expect men’s rights forum to focus on men’s rights. Seeing The only use for IMD to smoke out feminists who oppose it, is ridiculous and insulting to the men’s rights movement. It stands out in my mind as one of the most ridiculous things I’ve seen on boards.

El_Duderino 09

ancuncha wrote: »

Your very wrong,
Prostate cancer is a male only health issue same as ovarian cancer is a women's only issue and i have no issue with campaigns for either

However it's all about context,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_statistics_by_gender

A campaign to highlight women’s killings, when women's killings in Ireland is 13.3% verses male killings of 86.7% is incredibly dismissive of the of the male killings with an overwhelming majority of victims being men
Therefore it is very sexist to completely overlook men.

Different story if it was Iceland with 100% victim women (with one death) or i wouldn't have an issue in Japan with 52.9% women, even though it's practically 50/50

Which bit am I very wrong about?

Prostate cancer is a male only problem. But do you see prostate chances campaigns as denigrating heart disease which actually kills more men than prostate cancer? Of course not. The same way as I do t see a campaign highlighting women’s deaths as a slight against men’s killings. Anyone who wants can set up a campaign to highlight men’s killings. Funny enough I’d be the only consistent one here when I support that campaign and don’t see it as a sexist campaign against women.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I support lots of feminist advocacy and I support men’s rights advocacy. I can’t stand the way bitching about feminist success is mistaken for men’s rights advocacy. One regular poster has so little interest in men’s rights that they posted the only use for IMD was to ‘smoke out’ feminists who opposed the day. So while they offered no support for the day, they saw themselves in the position to judge others support for the day. So what if some daft bint opposes IMD? Lots of the male posters in the same thread opposes IMD for one reason or another. Lots of posters opposed the day of elimination of violence against women too and it achieved nothing (unless you consider whinging about feminism to be a success).

i wonder who you are talking about :rolleyes: not that I need to explain myself but i am not an mra because I dont know a lot about the core issues. I do wish them well

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough the same kind of "devils advocate" posting elsewhere would get nuked PDQ. I know, I used to nuke them myself. I personally figured that here we shouldn't do that. No sense in creating willing "martyrs" for any cause. It's less about devils advocate mind you and more about pretty transparent goalpost shifting and general disingenuousness on display, with the usual if thinly veiled "no woman would have you" stuff on the regular.

You’ve mentioned before how you used to ‘nuke’ dissenting posters before in other forums. Whether it’s to allow discussion or to prevent martyrs, the men’s rights threads need something to prevent them turning into exclusively bitching about feminism.

And I’ve always said then I’m paraphrasing other posters on these threads. There’s no need to be to veiled about it. The posts stating I must be trying to weasel my way in with women and I must have an inferiority complex about real manly men or I must be under the thumb. No veils used in those instances. When it turns out that those accusations are more grounded in the posters own insecurity’s based on their own experiences, it’s interesting to say the least.

Wibbs wrote: »

Then again I've generally found debating "feminists" is like herding cats. Pointless, with a lot of discordant mewing and not enjoyable for either party. Though as a group they're certainly not alone in that in these days of binary beliefs. Left/Right/Red Pill/Whatever you're having yourself are as bad.

As for "male feminists"? I would say the majority are just guys who see "feminism" as an equality movement, just like the majority of women who would self describe as such. Hell. I would have self described as such myself in the past. And that's how most would approach it. Though it has become increasingly obvious to anyone but the most blinkered and not up to speed on what current "feminism" - and in the mainstream - represents that it has become anything but an egalitarian philosophy. Though it has many strands it always boils down to women are always agentless victims and it's always men's fault. So to be an informed "male feminist" must require epic levels of cognitive dissonance, or some odd masochism at play.

I just use feminism as can equality movement. I don’t agree with things just because I support the movement. Likewise I don’t go along with every poster with victim complex about being a man.

I asked for an explanation for how women’s anti violence day is sexist against men. It was roundly agreed that it is sexist against men and one poster considered it ‘beyond parody’ to even ask the question.

There’s plenty of helpless victim hood to go round. It’s not just a feminist phenomenon

ancuncha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Which bit am I very wrong about?

Prostate cancer is a male only problem. But do you see prostate chances campaigns as denigrating heart disease which actually kills more men than prostate cancer? Of course not. The same way as I do t see a campaign highlighting women’s deaths as a slight against men’s killings. Anyone who wants can set up a campaign to highlight men’s killings. Funny enough I’d be the only consistent one here when I support that campaign and don’t see it as a sexist campaign against women.

Prostate cancer and heart disease are two different problems with different symptoms, both should have a campaign

How is women's deaths by murder different to men's deaths by murder?
Where is the campaign for to stop men's deaths (that are the overwhelming majority)?

El_Duderino 09

ancuncha wrote: »

[

Prostate cancer and heart disease are two different problems with different symptoms, both should have a campaign

How is women's deaths by murder different to men's deaths by murder?
Where is the campaign for to stop men's deaths (that are the overwhelming majority)?

Oh I’d say the reasons for male and female killings are different. Wouldn’t you think so? A really quick google search found this and a few other articles ranging from the 70s to modern day.

Around half of all murdered women are victims of an intimate partner.

So men and women’s murders have different causes which makes the argument easy that they should have different campaigns.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/534306/

Where’s the day of violence against men? Do you want it handed to you on a plate? Do you think world leaders and the UN in woke up one morning and decided simultaneously to hold a day against violence against women? I’d say it took dedicated work and years of active lobbying to make that day a reality. IMD proves that men can also organise days to bring attention to men’s issues. So it’s a matter of making it a reality. It won’t just happen by itself.

Hint- whining about women’s anti- violence day as sexist, and then asking where’s men’s anti violence day should cause you to ask whether your issue is that it’s actually sexist or that men haven’t also organised a similar day.

Which is it? Is the women’s day sexist and bad or do you wish men had a similar day?

ancuncha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh I’d say the reasons for male and female killings are different. Wouldn’t you think so? A really quick google search found this and a few other articles ranging from the 70s to modern day.

Around half of all murdered women are victims of an intimate partner.

So men and women’s murders have different causes which makes the argument easy that they should have different campaigns.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/534306/

Where’s the day of violence against men? Do you want it handed to you on a plate? Do you think world leaders and the UN in woke up one morning and decided simultaneously to hold a day against violence against women? I’d say it took dedicated work and years of active lobbying to make that day a reality. IMD proves that men can also organise days to bring attention to men’s issues. So it’s a matter of making it a reality. It won’t just happen by itself.

Hint- whining about women’s anti- violence day as sexist, and then asking where’s men’s anti violence day should cause you to ask whether your issue is that it’s actually sexist or that men haven’t also organised a similar day.

Which is it? Is the women’s day sexist and bad or do you wish men had a similar day?

Why gender it?
do you think that no men have been killed by an intimate partner?

Don't the issues involved go across gender, if not evenly spread there still present in both genders, why not focus on the issues, instead of ignoring the vast majority of victims?

Can it not be killing is bad, rather than just killing women is bad?

Also i see you sublty shifting the issue from murder victims to violence. so,
http://www.thejournal.ie/refuge-male-domestic-abuse-1548071-Jul2014/
Whats you answer for this?

El_Duderino 09

ancuncha wrote:

Why gender it? do you think that no men have been killed by an intimate partner?

Don't the issues involved go across gender, if not evenly spread there still present in both genders, why not focus on the issues, instead of ignoring the vast majority of victims? Can it not be killing is bad, rather than just killing women is bad?

Of course they could be. We can have generic cancer campaigns but we also have specific campaigns too. A cancer campaign isn't a slight against heart disease. It just is what it is.

ancuncha wrote:

Also i see you sublty shifting the issue from murder victims to violence. so,

First off, it's a day against violence against women including murder so I'm not shifting anything. Read back on the first few posts about the topic in this thread. They went straight to stats about men and women's killings. Now that's suddenly a case of shifting he goalposts. Make up your mind about what your arguing because it's hard to follow you around. I'm studying goalposts? Lol

ancuncha wrote:

Whats you answer for this?

What's the question for me to answer? How in the name of jaysus I'd that a question for me to answer? My opinion is that there should be refuges for male victims of domestic violence. I'd support anyone who tries to establish one.

Look. You're wriggling and jiggling around with the point here. You say there should be different campaigns for different forms of cancer for obvious reasons, but anything to do with female specific violence is strictly sexist - and you want a men's day also. So would the men's day be sexist too or not? Or would the 2 sexist days cancel each other out in some weird accounting?

In all seriousness, would a similar day to highlight violence against men also be sexist and would you also oppose it?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Which is it? Is the women’s day sexist and bad or do you wish men had a similar day?

You're studiously avoiding answering this question. I think it's an important part of the issue so it would be great if you would give an opinion. Cheers

ancuncha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're studiously avoiding answering this question. I think it's an important part of the issue so it would be great if you would give an opinion. Cheers

It's not sexist itself the fact there is no male counter part is sexist and i would fully support a men's day.

I'm not wiggling at all, i am on the same topic of murder victims all the time.
You relied to me about up the cancer thing and violence, so i answered them parts
I'm glad to think there should be men's shelters, so do i

As were now on violence -
Whats your opinion (given the lack of a men's violence day) on this concerning male victims of violence
http://www.victimsweek.gc.ca/res/r512.html

silverharp

well fuk you fake news

El_Duderino 09

ancuncha wrote:

It's not sexist itself the fact there is no male counter part is sexist and i would fully support a men's day.

This is interesting. Earlier you thought there should be a generic anti violence day, now you want a day for men too.

Don't you think it's interesting that you're so vehemently opposed to this day, but in actual fact what you want is a similar men's day?

ancuncha wrote:

I'm not wiggling at all, i am on the same topic of murder victims all the time. You relied to me about up the cancer thing and violence, so i answered them parts I'm glad to think there should be men's shelters, so do i

The cancer thing was to parse out whether your opposition to this day would carry to any other type of campaign. As you've come around to seeing that you're not opposed to this campaign at all, and what you actually want is a men's anti violence day, I think it was a worthwhile discussion. I think there should be a campaign to highlight violence against men too. As I've said throughout this discussion.

ancuncha wrote:

As were now on violence - Whats your opinion (given the lack of a men's violence day) on this concerning male victims of violence

I think there should be a men's violence day or whatever would be the most effective way to highlight violence against men. Simple as that. The article you linked above backs up the point I made earlier that the types of violence against men and women are different so it makes sense to have separate campaigns.

I don't expect there to be a hive mind in the men's rights movement, but this discussion has thrown up a really interesting point. While some posters thought the women's Day was sexist in and of itself, others thought it wasn't sexist at all but men should have a day to highlight their concerns around violence too.

They were united in feeling victimised but they never even thought to discuss their differences between them. Instead they used me as an intermediary and ne'er the twain shall meet - until someone goes about setting up a men's day and finds a lot of unexpected opposition from men who have never discussed the issue and automatically oppose it.

I'd wager a lot of men would actually support the day if they got beyond their 'I oppose whatever the feminists are up to' reflex, and actually started thinking about what they want for men's rights rather than simply opposing feminists.

ancuncha

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is interesting. Earlier you thought there should be a generic anti violence day, now you want a day for men too.

Don't you think it's interesting that you're so vehemently opposed to this day, but in actual fact what you want is a similar men's day?



The cancer thing was to parse out whether your opposition to this day would carry to any other type of campaign. As you've come around to seeing that you're not opposed to this campaign at all, and what you actually want is a men's anti violence day, I think it was a worthwhile discussion. I think there should be a campaign to highlight violence against men too. As I've said throughout this discussion.



I think there should be a men's violence day or whatever would be the most effective way to highlight violence against men. Simple as that. The article you linked above backs up the point I made earlier that the types of violence against men and women are different so it makes sense to have separate campaigns.

I don't expect there to be a hive mind in the men's rights movement, but this discussion has thrown up a really interesting point. While some posters thought the women's Day was sexist in and of itself, others thought it wasn't sexist at all but men should have a day to highlight their concerns around violence too.

They were united in feeling victimised but they never even thought to discuss their differences between them. Instead they used me as an intermediary and ne'er the twain shall meet - until someone goes about setting up a men's day and finds a lot of unexpected opposition from men who have never discussed the issue and automatically oppose it.

I'd wager a lot of men would actually support the day if they got beyond their 'I oppose whatever the feminists are up to' reflex, and actually started thinking about what they want for men's rights rather than simply opposing feminists.

i never said i was opposed to the women's day, i said i think it's sexist not to have a men's day when men suffer as much and maby more than women and that genderising this is not needed and harms the cause (as it ignores the mens part), rather focus on the issues that all go accross gender to varying degrees, this would more likely lower the violence as a whole

sexist doesn't automatically mean opposed
for example
men holding a door open for a woman is probably a bit sexist, but i don't think that this should stop as it's a kind and gentlemanly thing to do

sexism like anything can have good points and bad, most of the time it's bad and it is in this case as it harm the cause agaist violence as a whole

i just don't think in terms of black and white, any sane person in this world with their eyes open doesn't either

The cancer point is different as there are different cancers with different symptoms, causes and treatments i'm not sure how many cancers but it must be in the 100's or even 1000's
Violence may have different causes, but ulimately the effect is the same - people get hurt no matter the gender.

El_Duderino 09

ancuncha wrote: »

i never said i was opposed to the women's day, i said i think it's sexist not to have a men's day when men suffer as much and maby more than women and that genderising this is not needed and harms the cause (as it ignores the mens part), rather focus on the issues that all go accross gender to varying degrees, this would more likely lower the violence as a whole

It doesn’t actively ignore the men’s part the same as lung cancer campaigns don’t actively ignore heart disease. They each have merit. I thinking someone goes to the trouble of raising awareness of one harm, they shouldn’t be criticised for ignoring other harms.

You say there should be a men’s day, but who should provide the men’s day? Presumably it’s I to people to advocate for it and make it happen.

ancuncha wrote: »

sexist doesn't automatically mean opposed
for example
men holding a door open for a woman is probably a bit sexist, but i don't think that this should stop as it's a kind and gentlemanly thing to do

sexism like anything can have good points and bad, most of the time it's bad and it is in this case as it harm the cause agaist violence as a whole

That’s a nuanced point and worth a separate discussion. For my own part o think it’s kind and gentlemanly to hold a good for anyone who needs it like someone carrying things. I see treating all women as if they are delicate flowers is counterproductive and a bit condescending. But that’s a separate issue.

If you’re assuming that sexism is baked into the cake for good or bad, then don’t you have to also assume that other people will assume sexist positions for good or bad? Like men should hold doors for ladies because it’s a man’s role, mothers should have custody of children mom divorce settlement because caring is a mothers role.

I think if you want to re-examine and change some gender stereotypes then you have to be at least willing to re-examine and maybe change them all to be consistent.

So where holding the door shows kindness, consideration and a certain degree of supplication, I’m happy to modify that to help people who I judge need it, or when it just makes sense to hold the door for someone, like when the door opens back towards you. Sure we’ve all seen someone stretching to hold a door that opens away from them so they can let women through, so they end up standing in the doorway and just causing a nuisance. I’m going off topic.

ancuncha wrote: »

The cancer point is different as there are different cancers with different symptoms, causes and treatments i'm not sure how many cancers but it must be in the 100's or even 1000's
Violence may have different causes, but ulimately the effect is the same - people get hurt no matter the gender.

There are lots of causes of cancer and types of cancer, the result is the same as people get hurt or die. If it makes sense to group cancers together or campaign for them separately, then fine. Likewise there are lots of different causes of violence and types of violence and people get hurt or die.

If it makes sense to divide the causes and types of violence by gender and campaign got them separately, I’ll support anyone who goes to the trouble of successfully lobbying to have the campaign recognised.

Dividing it by men and women is a pretty broad stroke anyway. It’s covering half the population and c. 20% of all violence. That’s not too shabby. If you took any other subgroup you would struggle to get to such high numbers.

Immigrants, sex workers, refugees, ethnic groups, religious groups, sexual orientation. I’d say men is the only group which would have bigger numbers than the current women’s campaign (also 50% population and c. 80% of the violence). That’s why I think women’s violence is a perfectly valid topic and men’s violence would be a very rich seam to campaign on. It’s a matter of campaigning to have it recognised.

It kind of sounds like you’re waiting for the feminists who organised the women’s anti violence day to also establish a men’s anti violence day. Is that what you’re expecting to happen?

citytillidie

no more freshmen in Trinity

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/trinity-college-to-phase-out-use-of-word-freshman-for-genderneutral-term-36360455.html

El_Duderino 09

citytillidie wrote: »

no more freshmen in Trinity

I’m inclined to ask where exactly the sexist angle is with this story. Is it sexist against men or women?

The people who are precious enough to get upset about the word ‘freshman’ are kinda the same as people who would get upset about changing it.

I think the term ‘freshers’ is used in practice anyway. So it should be easy to formalise it as the colloquial term.

It's not sexist but it's bloody crap.

Calhoun

I would say what's wrong with the word men that it needs to be outlawed. Funny actually as commented elsewhere freshmen is not a term typically used in Ireland freshers is.

More than likely a SJW publicity stunt but it does need to be questioned as it brings up the whole question of what is wrong with the word man being associated with words. Is censoring really what we want to see in our institutions of knowledge and supposed critical thinking.

Whats next? we ban the teaching of white male philosophy like in some parts of the UK.

citytillidie

Calhoun wrote: »

I would say what's wrong with the word men that it needs to be outlawed. Funny actually as commented elsewhere freshmen is not a term typically used in Ireland freshers is.

More than likely a SJW publicity stunt but it does need to be questioned as it brings up the whole question of what is wrong with the word man being associated with words. Is censoring really what we want to see in our institutions of knowledge and supposed critical thinking.

Whats next? we ban the teaching of white male philosophy like in some parts of the UK.

Just need some one in the next new class at the college to start referring to themselves as the Fresh Prince of Trinity.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m inclined to ask where exactly the sexist angle is with this story. Is it sexist against men or women?

The people who are precious enough to get upset about the word ‘freshman’ are kinda the same as people who would get upset about changing it.

I think the term ‘freshers’ is used in practice anyway. So it should be easy to formalise it as the colloquial term.

So if "fresher" is OK to use but "freshman" is not OK to use then what's the logic there?

Which part of the word "freshman" is causing an issue and why?

I wouldn't personally get upset over something like this but I would find it interesting to pick apart the reasoning behind this idea that terms containing "man" need to be replaced with a new term.

Is it really that big of a deal to call a female, or non male identifying, student a freshman?

py2006

Are they offended by being human beings too??

Wibbs

maybe

Saruhashi wrote: »

So if "fresher" is OK to use but "freshman" is not OK to use then what's the logic there?

Which part of the word "freshman" is causing an issue and why?

It's only causing an issue to idiots and the gullible of brain. This nonsense has come about because of post modernist thinking that crept into sociopolitical thought in universities over the last twenty years*. And spread from there as students went into media and politics and HR depts. This intersectionality/social justice/feminism/gender politics ballsology had an on the surface laudable aim; to reduce prejudice and offence. Cool beans, but the major problem with post modernist thinking is that there is no definite, no certainties, it inhabits the grey areas. Again grand, on the surface. The first problem with this is nobody can be right, or wrong, so can talk utter nonsense as lecturers and the like ad nauseam. The second problem comes when one explores grey areas one is also forced to define some as an inclusive thing. Then others who feel left out add their own definitions and so forth. Until we get the mess for example of LBGT followed by a list of letters that look like a scrabble accident. Don't you define me you oppressor! I'll define myself! etc.

This stuff always starts easy and sensibly enough. So chairman is replaced by chairperson, though why one couldn't simply apply chairwoman when required is beyond me. Then again I'm not a post modernist.

Add in increasing polarisation of thought across the board and the fragile who see the reality of the world as too much and instead of adjusting to it will spend time forcing other people to make the world safe for their emotional fragility.

It;s a mixed bunch. And as I say we see it across the board. So those whining on about gender neutral nonsense see across from them equal whiners freaking out about it. This particular example is a storm in a teacup, it's the overall background reasoning that's more to watched.




*It's also associated with the left, but I personally wouldn't as most folks on the left consider it equally daft.

From the reaction of my fellow Trinity Alumni on FB the ones in their 20s mostly aren't on board. Even the more right-on ones. This is reminiscent of the crap in Canada where before there's been any "offence" a company will be brought in (for profit) to come up with a strategy for a company or a college. They manufacture the assent of a small but vocal minority to put pressure on. It's like the idea of a glazing company paying kids to break windows.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

This stuff always starts easy and sensibly enough. So chairman is replaced by chairperson, though why one couldn't simply apply chairwoman when required is beyond me. Then again I'm not a post modernist.

I would imagine that if it follows post-modernist thinking then gender essentialism is the order of the day there. Ie. Man and Woman are societal constructs and hence using the term "chairwoman" would involve recognising that there are two sexes.

That said, on the topic at hand, I couldn't give a fiddlers if Trinity call them "freshers". I have never in my life (including student life) heard anybody say the word "freshman", it was always, always "freshers".

Kidchameleon

Next up.... Isle of Man becomes "Isle of Person"

Wibbs

maybe

mzungu wrote: »

would involve recognising that there are two sexes.

Oh we've already gone down that post modernist rabbit hole M. There have been a few "professors" and "educated" media pundits that have suggested, nay stated, that there is little to no biological difference between the sexes. Nuclear powered defcon 1 retarded*. Like I said, living in the grey areas, means one completely disregards the black and white of obvious is bloody obvious.





* I like to throw in "retarded" as a word from time to time. To rustle feathers and bunch knickers and hopefully to open a few minds. Why? Because it's a perfect example of "correct think". "Oh noes, you're insulting the Differently Mental ©", or whatever the fcuk nomenclature is currently in play. Yet, mark me, if I type idiotic, or imbecilic, or moronic, or even plain stupid, that goes unremarked. Which makes little sense. All of the above words were once medical terms for the mentally challenged(), yet some flip their sh1t over "retarded"?. Now that's retarded.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote: »

So if "fresher" is OK to use but "freshman" is not OK to use then what's the logic there?

Which part of the word "freshman" is causing an issue and why?

I wouldn't personally get upset over something like this but I would find it interesting to pick apart the reasoning behind this idea that terms containing "man" need to be replaced with a new term.

Presumably the term comes from a time when women didn’t attend third level education. So any fresher could reasonably be expected to be a freshman. If that’s the case then the term was useful and accurate.

Now freshers are about 50:50 so the term freshman isn’t really as accurate.

Saruhashi wrote: »

Is it really that big of a deal to call a female, or non male identifying, student a freshman?

Not for me but I’m not in uni do it wouldn’t affect me anyway. IF it’s important to the people it applies directly to, them let them change the term. IF it’s not important to them, it’ll probably fizzle our. Why does the term need a gender attached to it if it’s not supposed to describe the person’s gender?

El_Duderino 09

Calhoun wrote: »

I would say what's wrong with the word men that it needs to be outlawed. Funny actually as commented elsewhere freshmen is not a term typically used in Ireland freshers is.

it brings up the whole question of what is wrong with the word man being associated with words. Is censoring really what we want to see in our institutions of knowledge and supposed critical thinking.

Holy moly is the word ‘man’ being outlawed? I’d be opposed to that.

Oh I see you were exaggerating the actual situation. Don’t you think that turning it into a real problem -man being outlawed- highlights that what’s actually happening isn’t really a problem. It’s just changing a word to reflect the change in who freshers are. They’re not all men so does it make sense to use a word that is not accurate anymore?

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s just changing a word to reflect the change in who freshers are. They’re not all men so does it make sense to use a word that is not accurate anymore?

You raise a point as a question because you don't have the balls to tackle it yourself.

Why is the word "Freshman" not accurate because they are not all men? Why is it relevant that they are not all men?

Are all words which contain the word "man" to be changed? What is the relevance of changing words which are already well understood, in order to incorporate meanings which have not already been adopted into common usage? To satisfy the perpetually outraged?

What about chairman, manhole, midshipman, longshoreman?

I hadn't seen you going in for this political correctness nonsense but sure here is another string to your bow.

Sleepy

I vote we change it to what NUI, Galway's Lit & Deb society used to coin freshers: GIBs*

*Green Ignorant Bastards

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s just changing a word to reflect the change in who freshers are. They’re not all men so does it make sense to use a word that is not accurate anymore?

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You raise a point as a question because you don't have the balls to tackle it yourself.

Ah, Pat. Setting the tone for the constructive pleasant dialogue you’re so famous for. Lol

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Why is the word "Freshman" not accurate because they are not all men? Why is it relevant that they are not all men?

Well, once they were all men, hence freshmen, now about half of them are men so it’s worth wondering if the word used to describe them should change to describe them accurately.

What’s the reason for keeping the gender specific term to describe a group who’s makeup has changed around the word?

Would you be happy if your job title was ‘IT Woman’? Pat mustard, IT Woman extraordinaire. It just wouldn’t make sense to specifically assign a gender to a word to describe only half the group accurately and the other half inaccurately.

The active part of the word freshman is ‘fresh’ to describe a novice. The man part was accurate, now it isn’t.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Are all words which contain the word "man" to be changed? What is the relevance of changing words which are already well understood, in order to incorporate meanings which have not already been adopted into common usage? To satisfy the perpetually outraged?

What about chairman, manhole, midshipman, longshoreman

I don’t have a strong opinion on those words. Are the people to whom they apply calling for them to be changed?

The word chairman has been replaced by Chair or Chairperson in my work which is the only place I really use it. Can you guess what happened as a result?

Policeman is another example of a word that was perfectly sensible when all police were men. Now police are not all men so why the determination to hold on to the old word?

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now freshers are about 50:50 so the term freshman isn’t really as accurate.

50:50? Really? I understood more girls than boys were attending 3rd level.

In fairness, with the education system failing boys, it probably makes sense to change it to freshwoman...

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The active part of the word freshman is ‘fresh’ to describe a novice. The man part was accurate, now it isn’t.

Fair play to you and your unwavering support for the perpetually outraged.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What’s the reason for keeping the gender specific term to describe a group who’s makeup has changed around the word?

Because it is a word of long standing, with a well-understood meaning which pertains to this day. Therefore, to contrive to coin a new phrase in the place of what exists is just the usual special snowflake crackpot nonsense. Which comes as no surprise from you.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, once they were all men, hence freshmen, now about half of them are men so it’s worth wondering if the word used to describe them should change to describe them accurately.

So bloody what. Unless a new expression has come into common parlance, then it is a contrived change. Even the male pronoun (he, him etc,) has become neutered through centuries of use. This is simply ridiculous political correctness, shoehorned into use on the pretext of accuracy.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Would you be happy if your job title was ‘IT Woman’? Pat mustard, IT Woman extraordinaire. It just wouldn’t make sense to specifically assign a gender to a word to describe only half the group accurately and the other half inaccurately.

This example does not apply in the real world. See above re male pronoun. However, if I was to qualify as a midwife for example, I would not launch some ill-conceived campaign to amend the well-understood, long established name of that profession, just to suit some special snowflakes.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The word chairman has been replaced by Chair or Chairperson in my work which is the only place I really use it. Can you guess what happened as a result?

A chair is an inanimate four legged object, so that's a commendable move towards equality between sentient beings and furniture in your workplace.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don’t have a strong opinion on those words.

Ah, El Duderino, this is the type of carry-on for which you are well known on this forum. You don't know much about the topic du jour but you are only asking a question or shooting the breeze and certainly not making anything that resembles a point. Isn't that it? Except about the "bitching" and the "whining", of course.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

50:50? Really? I understood more girls than boys were attending 3rd level.

In fairness, with the education system failing boys, it probably makes sense to change it to freshwoman...

You can advocate to change it to freshwoman if you like but I’d still say a gender neutral term would be most sensible.

It’s an interesting point though. Would you say it makes most sense to have the word be accurate to describe the group or how should we do these things? Should we just do things the way they’ve always been done and not deviate from traditions like women always getting preferential treatment in child custody cases?

Am I the only one here who’s not terrified of change?

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Am I the only one here who’s not terrified of change?

Not at all, I just don't like newspeak.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Am I the only one here who’s not terrified of change?

Not at all, I just don't like newspeak.

But you’re speaking newspeak. Language changes all the time does it bother you that language changed in the past or is it just change during your lifetime that you’re objecting to? “Stop the evolution of the language everyone, Zulu has arrived in the English speaking world and they don’t want any changes while they’re here”

gizmo555

Zulu wrote: »

50:50? Really? I understood more girls than boys were attending 3rd level.

It's actually more or less equal. According to these figures from the HEA, in 2015/16 51% of new fulltime undergraduate enrolments at 3rd level were women, 49% men. Part-time undergraduate enrolments were 48% women, 52% men.