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

Call Me Jimmy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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”

Language changes all the time naturally and unpredictably. When it is altered by decree for political reasons, yea that's newspeak.

JRant

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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”

This just shows a complete misunderstanding of how language changes organically and the difference between this and 'newspeak'. One is a natural occurrence the other is a forced change, I'll let you work out which is which.

Language changes all the time and is driven by common usage. To 'google' something has entered the dictionary, not because of a dictat by a certain group but through common usage and understanding of what that word now means.

These silly little people with their silly little word games are like toddlers trying to learn a language for the first time. They don't get to dictate what words other people use, which is what this ultimately boils down to. They want to control speech how they see fit and anyone that argues against them is (insert 'ist as appropriate).

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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”

Awesome, you've displayed your ignorance, and blatantly misrepresented me. All in a single post.

Kudos.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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

#sobrave

py2006

Pat Mustard wrote: »

#sobrave

#metoo

silverharp

what was silly about the whole thing is that the term freshmen is basically only used in the US. In Ireland it was freshers week and that was the end of it, if anyone asked, students said what number year they were in. Complete showboating by these numpties.

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

what was silly about the whole thing is that the term freshmen is basically only used in the US. In Ireland it was freshers week and that was the end of it, if anyone asked, students said what number year they were in. Complete showboating by these numpties.

That's not actually accurate. In trinity the official term for a 1st year is/was Junior Freshman 2nd is/was senior freshman 3rd is Junior Sophister, 4th is senior sophister. So I understand this to mean that in the case of 1st and 2nd years the change will be on official documentation, colloquially the students will still refer to themselves as freshers or 1st/2nd years

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

That's not actually accurate. In trinity the official term for a 1st year is/was Junior Freshman 2nd is/was senior freshman 3rd is Junior Sophister, 4th is senior sophister. So I understand this to mean that in the case of 1st and 2nd years the change will be on official documentation, colloquially the students will still refer to themselves as freshers or 1st/2nd years

I remember a mate of mine at the time getting good mileage out of telling me that Trinity was really the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth :pac: triggering or what? I never heard anyone use the terms above though, for me the natural evolution would be to abandon the term altogether and go with a numeric labelling

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

I remember a mate of mine at the time getting good mileage out of telling me that Trinity was really the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth :pac: triggering or what? I never heard anyone use the terms above though, for me the natural evolution would be to abandon the term altogether and go with a numeric labelling

I don't really oppose the change, call them whatever they want to be called
but numbers would definitely be better than being Junior Fresh! It sounds like a packet of mints for kids

Wibbs

maybe

Pat Mustard wrote: »

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.

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I don't really oppose the change, call them whatever they want to be called
but numbers would definitely be better than being Junior Fresh! It sounds like a packet of mints for kids

or more sinister something to do with child exploitation :pac:

El_Duderino 09

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

Language changes all the time naturally and unpredictably. When it is altered by decree for political reasons, yea that's newspeak.

JRant wrote:

This just shows a complete misunderstanding of how language changes organically and the difference between this and 'newspeak'. One is a natural occurrence the other is a forced change, I'll let you work out which is which.

Zulu wrote:

Awesome, you've displayed your ignorance, and blatantly misrepresented me. All in a single post.

So do you use words like spastic, fag and the dreaded 'n' word? Those words were in common usage during my childhood and they were purposefully removed from socially acceptable common usage. Is that a bad thing?

Do you oppose the fact that support for common usage of those words has been withdrawn?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

#sobrave

Thanks Pat. Change is hard for some people but I'm actually in favour of all kinds of change for the better. Like I support changing the way men are treated in in the legal system and family courts, health devices aimed at men, change in the way boys are dealt with in the education system.

It seems like nothing more than a point scoring exercise to you, but it's actually a fairly important topic. Some people are terrified of change. Even change to words upsets some people, doesn't it?

Will I Am Not

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So do you use words like spastic, fag and the dreaded 'n' word? Those words were in common usage during my childhood and they were purposefully removed from socially acceptable common usage. Is that a bad thing?

Do you oppose the fact that support for common usage of those words has been withdrawn?

Fag and the ‘n’ word are and were derogatory terms. Surely you can see the difference?

People still use the word ‘spa’ all the time.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

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

Blah

Pat Mustard wrote:

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.

Is it a huge problem for you? Are you unable to learn new words or something? If you learn a new word to you forget the name of something else?

Pat Mustard wrote:

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.

Ha! Think about this for a second. You're saying we shouldn't try to take control of our own language. It had to spring forth organically or else it's wrong - even when it's more accurate to consciously name something with a specific word?

Pat Mustard wrote:

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.

If you launched the campaign wouldn't you be the snowflake?

I looked up the etymology of midwife and its from middle English not meaning with and wife meaning woman. So it's a woman who stays with a woman in labour.
Ok Pat Mustard the IT lady isn't does not apply in the real world. But you'd be happy to be Pat Mustard the ITwife?

Pat Mustard wrote:

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

That's exactly what were doing. Got it in one!

Blah

Pat Mustard wrote:

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.

Lol. Everyone seems to be in agreement that THEY would never get worked up about something like words, then proceed to get worked up about words changing. Like I said, it's not something I would get worked up about. If the people directly affected are discussing change, then it's worth considering.

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So do you use words like spastic, fag and the dreaded 'n' word? Those words were...

You either do not understand the newspeak reference, or you are wilfully building a strawman.

Your posting history would suggest the later, but in the event you are simply ignorant, I suggest reading 1984, it's a fantastic read and very apt for the times we live in.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It seems like nothing more than a point scoring exercise to you, but it's actually a fairly important topic. Some people are terrified of change. Even change to words upsets some people, doesn't it?

As a general concept, change is neither good nor bad. However, unplanned, uncontrolled change may not be useful. As the old expression goes: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As an example, let's suppose you have a perfectly functioning car with a valid NCT: a Toyota Prius or something like that. Suppose I "change" your car so it will no longer pass the NCT. That wouldn't be very helpful, would it?

Now you might think that it's a stylish notion to accept change blindly but until the reason for the change is properly identified and until the change is properly planned, agreed and implemented, it remains a stylish yet impractical notion.

El_Duderino 09

The Fake Sheikh wrote:

Fag and the ‘n’ word are and were derogatory terms. Surely you can see the difference?

When's it offensive and when's it just some snowflakes making a mountain out of a molehill? If it's not offensive to you does it mean it can't be offensive to anyone else?

Zulu wrote:

You either do not understand the newspeak reference, or you are wilfully building a strawman.

Your posting history would suggest the later, but in the event you are simply ignorant, I suggest reading 1984, it's a fantastic read and very apt for the times we live in.

I get he 1984 reference. If you're going to get pedantic about it newspeak was used to curtail original thought. Freshman-fresher has absolutely no similar purpose. It's taking an old term which used to be accurate for all students and now is only accurate for about half students, and replacing it with a word that actually maps onto the group it's supposed to describe. Presumably a male fresher can still be accurately describe as a freshman. I don't know if there's a similar word for a freshman-woman.

Do you say things like Lady Policeman and Businessman-woman? The question is where do you draw the line with this stuff?

Will I Am Not

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

When's it offensive and when's it just some snowflakes making a mountain out of a molehill? If it's not offensive to you does it mean it can't be offensive to anyone else?



I get he 1984 reference. If you're going to get pedantic about it newspeak was used to curtail original thought. Freshman-fresher has absolutely no similar purpose. It's taking an old term which used to be accurate for all students and now is only accurate for about half students, and replacing it with a word that actually maps onto the group it's supposed to describe. Presumably a male fresher can still be accurately describe as a freshman. I don't know if there's a similar word for a freshman-woman.

Do you say things like Lady Policeman and Businessman-woman? The question is where do you draw the line with this stuff?

I didn’t mention offensiveness. Derogatory, understand?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

As a general concept, change is neither good nor bad. However, unplanned, uncontrolled change may not be useful. As the old expression goes: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But I think it's been established that the word in colloquial usage is fresher. So we're actually talking about formalising the word in exactly the way it's used by everyone except in the official usage. So which should we go with? The version used only in the administrative sense or the one used in on the street?

My Prius is passing the NCT without any trouble as it is. So why bother to change it now? Nobody uses freshman in reality in Ireland so the word is redundant in Ireland anyway. I can't really understand why it's so important to you to keep it.

El_Duderino 09

The Fake Sheikh wrote:

I didn’t mention offensiveness. Derogatory, understand?

What's your point? Is newspeak ok if the word is derogatory but not if it's only offensive?

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But I think it's been established that the word in colloquial usage is fresher. So we're actually talking about formalising the word in exactly the way it's used by everyone except in the official usage. So which should we go with? The version used only in the administrative sense or the one used in on the street?

Most recently, you were talking about change in general terms but now you're back to the very specific term "Freshman".

You can't discuss the issues so you muddy the waters. Predictable.

JRant

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So do you use words like spastic, fag and the dreaded 'n' word? Those words were in common usage during my childhood and they were purposefully removed from socially acceptable common usage. Is that a bad thing?

Do you oppose the fact that support for common usage of those words has been withdrawn?

Well here's the thing, when society as a whole stops using words or begins adding new ones that is the very definition of common usage.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Most recently, you were talking about change in general terms but now you're back to the very specific term "Freshman".

Oh no was discussing the term freshman until you brought up manholes and longshoremen. Lol.

Pat Mustard wrote:

You can't discuss the issues so you muddy the waters. Predictable.

Clumsy. You can do better than that. It doesn't cover the fact that you haven't addressed the point bout how the colloquial usage is not freshman, but fresher. Son do you think we should go with the colloquial usage in line with he natural evolution of the language as mentioned above? Or is this a special case for some, as yet unidentified reason?

El_Duderino 09

JRant wrote:

Well here's the thing, when society as a whole stops using words or begins adding new ones that is the very definition of common usage.

Aren't they examples of words that were changed because of political correctness (gone mad) too?

Since it seems so obvious to some posters, why not spell out exactly it's a grand to change the usage of some words had not others.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh no was discussing the term freshman until you brought up manholes and longshoremen. Lol.

Eh, no. You decided to talk about "change", more specifically in relation to your own courage in the face of "change".
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105413596&postcount=7248
We'll have a whiparound and get you a medal.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Clumsy. You can do better than that. It doesn't cover the fact that you haven't addressed the point bout how the colloquial usage is not freshman, but fresher. Son do you think we should go with the colloquial usage in line with he natural evolution of the language as mentioned above? Or is this a special case for some, as yet unidentified reason?

Now you are talking about the colloquialism "Fresher", which is something that you and I have not previously discussed. And you say that that "It doesn't cover the fact that you haven't addressed the point bout how the colloquial usage is not freshman, but fresher"

You and I didn't discuss that at all. That's why it wasn't covered.

More smoke and mirrors by you.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

Eh, no. You decided to talk about "change", more specifically in relation to your own courage in the face of "change"

We'll have a whiparound and get you a medal.

Now now. You brought longshoremen and manholes into the conversation so I'm not alone in going off topic. Since you want to get back onto of freshmen and Freshers...

Pat Mustard wrote:

Now you are talking about the colloquialism "Fresher", which is something that you and I have not previously discussed. And you say that that "It doesn't cover the fact that you haven't addressed the point bout how the colloquial usage is not freshman, but fresher"

You and I didn't discuss that at all. That's why it wasn't covered.

Others discussed it and I thought you might have read their posts as well as mine. I'll catch you up; the only posts that have mentioned it have agreed that the term freshmen isn't really in colloquial usage. Instead the kids use the term Freshers - I'll help keep you up to date with the young people's lingo, Daddy-o

Well do you think the normal usage is Freshers or Freshmen in Ireland? And do you think the language should evolve in accordance with normal usage? So should we go along with the normal usage in this case or not?

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It doesn't cover the fact that you haven't addressed the point...

Classic El_Duderino :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

I happened across this just now -


Psychological abuse within a relationship to become a crime


Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty told the Dáil that “we believe women” and that once they present their story “that’s the end of the road. There is no need for a piece of paper. There is no need for a barring order.”


Frankly, I'm disappointed it didn't occur to Ms. Doherty to suggest that victims of domestic violence would be believed, without any reference to their gender, as per the efforts of The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence.

A rather unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected oversight on her part.

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

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.

[...]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.

Common parlance like 'fresher'? Don't think freshman is in common parlance in Ireland. Maybe you know something I don't.

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

Language changes all the time naturally and unpredictably. When it is altered by decree for political reasons, yea that's newspeak.

As above, is the term freshman or fresher the natural usage in common parlance?

JRant wrote:

This just shows a complete misunderstanding of how language changes organically and the difference between this and 'newspeak'. One is a natural occurrence the other is a forced change, I'll let you work out which is which.

I think the normal usage is clearly fresher so why all the resistance to adopting the word in this specific case?

JRant wrote:

Language changes all the time and is driven by common usage. To 'google' something has entered the dictionary, not because of a dictat by a certain group but through common usage and understanding of what that word now means.

Is the common usage freshman or fresher in Ireland?

Zulu wrote:

Awesome, you've displayed your ignorance, and blatantly misrepresented me. All in a single post.

I think in actual fact the principal that common usage should dictate evolution of the language has been proposed by the same people that oppose adopting the term in common parlance. If there's a blatant misrepresentation, you needn't look too far. It's right there in front of you.

Why would those posters support natural evolution of the language but oppose it in this one very specific instance? Why indeed?

Zulu wrote:

Classic El_Duderino

Well a few posters jumped on the point that the language should evolve naturally in accordance with natural usage. It's also been pointed out that Freshers is the normal usage in Ireland. But it's classic El_D to try to discuss whether those principles apply to this case or not. I'll take your comment as a compliment.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I happened across this just now -


Psychological abuse within a relationship to become a crime


Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty told the Dáil that “we believe women” and that once they present their story “that’s the end of the road. There is no need for a piece of paper. There is no need for a barring order.”


Frankly, I'm disappointed it didn't occur to Ms. Doherty to suggest that victims of domestic violence would be believed, without any reference to their gender, as per the efforts of The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence.

A rather unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected oversight on her part.

"Last year British authorities prosecuted 155 people for engaging in coercive control, of which 59 were found guilty. Of those, 28 were sent to prison."

So... almost 2/3 were innocent? Am I reading this wrong? Surely, this isn't a great reason to promote such an initiative. I'd love to see the reasons why they weren't found guilty. Or why all of those convicted didn't see the inside of a prison cell...?

Any direct links to the research? I did look at your second link, wasn't sure which was what.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Last year British authorities prosecuted 155 people for engaging in coercive control, of which 59 were found guilty. Of those, 28 were sent to prison."

So... almost 2/3 were innocent? Am I reading this wrong? Surely, this isn't a great reason to promote such an initiative. I'd love to see the reasons why they weren't found guilty. Or why all of those convicted didn't see the inside of a prison cell...?

Any direct links to the research? I did look at your second link, wasn't sure which was what.

Couldn't find any links to research citing those figures klaz tbh, but indeed you read that correctly, but what has me even more confused now is that there were complaints that the conviction rate was too low because police in the UK weren't using the new law effectively -


Police failing to use new law against coercive domestic abuse


Interesting slant on the way that Guardian article is written, that they neglected to include this part of Ms. Bradley's comments -

Minister for Preventing Abuse and Exploitation Karen Bradley said:

“No one should live in fear of domestic abuse, which is why this government has made ending violence against women and girls a priority.

“Our new coercive or controlling behaviour offence will protect victims who would otherwise be subjected to sustained patterns of abuse that can lead to total control of their lives by the perpetrator.


It appears Ms. Bradley experienced the same gender bypass as her Irish counterpart, and that was really the point of linking to Cosc in my previous post. It's supposed to be an executive office of the Department of Justice and Equality, but given Ms. Doherty's oversight, I'm given to wondering if they actually have any interest in implementing the law in an unbiased fashion.

All evidence appears to point to the fact that as reluctant as I am to admit it - the only victims of domestic violence in their eyes really do appear to be women, and men are always the perpetrators.

silverharp

interesting side angle here, fathers cant use this law if they are denied access to their kids for no reason

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

interesting side angle here, fathers cant use this law if they are denied access to their kids for no reason

I'm not sure it would even apply under those circumstances silverharp tbh. The bill itself is here, and is written without respect to gender -


Domestic Violence Bill 2017

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Frankly, I'm disappointed it didn't occur to Ms. Doherty to suggest that victims of domestic violence would be believed, without any reference to their gender, as per the efforts of The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence.

A rather unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected oversight on her part.

Thanks for sharing that link. It’s great to see a body like that dealing with men and women victims of abuse.

Presuming it comes from sound evidence and research, it’s exactly the kind of thing that can be used to lobby government to begin to consider all victims of domestic abuse not just female victims.

My job is involved in giving ministers evidence to inform evidence based practice. You’d be surprised by how open politicians are to simple evidence when it’s easy to make and defend the point - they are made to look stupid so often defending indefensible government policy that they really like to have interesting evidence based sound bites. This type of organisation (assuming its credible) gives them the ability to make the point that men and women can be abused.

It also takes the normal people to show they want to hear that kind of information by supporting a politician got taking a stand.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This type of organisation (assuming its credible)gives them the ability to make the point that men and women can be abused.

I guess that's the point really - can an executive body like Cosc be considered credible, when one of it's major stakeholders either through sheer blind-spottedness, or thoughtlessness, something, means they make such an oversight in their announcements -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It appears Ms. Bradley experienced the same gender bypass as her Irish counterpart, and that was really the point of linking to Cosc in my previous post. It's supposed to be an executive office of the Department of Justice and Equality, but given Ms. Doherty's oversight, I'm given to wondering if they actually have any interest in implementing the law in an unbiased fashion.

It's blatant sexism, and if you're in a position to influence their thinking, it would be nice if you could remind them that the evidence suggests that just as much as the law should apply to men, it applies equally to women, and the goal should be about the protection of all victims of domestic violence, regardless of their gender.

With a new law like this being introduced too, I would like to see similar legislation being introduced specifically to address the needs of children as victims of domestic violence, similar to something I think silverharp may have been getting at, and that is children in domestic violence situations who are manipulated and controlled and coerced by one parent, or indeed both parents!

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With a new law like this being introduced too, I would like to see similar legislation being introduced specifically to address the needs of children as victims of domestic violence, similar to something I think silverharp may have been getting at, and that is children in domestic violence situations who are manipulated and controlled and coerced by one parent, or indeed both parents!

TBH I'd like to see better research into determining how to establish that such abuse is ongoing. The article is very vague regarding that aspect. I think we can all acknowledge that it's often very difficult to know what's happening in other peoples relationships, and the articles seem to be making the point that we just somehow know the abuse is happening, which makes me wonder how we would know? Oh sure, there are the obvious signs of domestic abuse, but this Act suggests following up on more than the obvious domestic abuse and expands into areas like 'control', and emotional coercion.

Simply encouraging people outside the relationship to make claims of abuse within another person's life seems a bit dangerous, without a clear way of determining that abuse is actually occurring, and which member of the relationship is really the aggressor. The article and subsequent comments are very vague on how to determine that state.

Iseedeadpixels

500 years time an important meeting of races occurs....

Alien: This is a great for both the people of (insert whacky alien name here) and Humankind....

Futuristic snowflake: eh sorry Im a huwoman not a human did you just assume my gender!

Thus ensued the beginning of the end of Human kind.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The article and subsequent comments are very vague on how to determine that state.

I'd imagine the only way it could possibly be determined is if there was a record of some sort of the events themselves. That's what's recommended to people experiencing physical domestic violence at least, it would help Gardaí involved in any investigation.

Meanwhile, the gender bypass continues -

TDs urged to pass new domestic violence bill making psychological abuse a crime


Safe Ireland, a national agency working on domestic violence, lobbied for the offence to be included in the new bill.

Sharon O’Halloran, the charity’s chief executive, described the amendments as an “historic breakthrough for women and children throughout this country”.

"These amendments mean that we now have a domestic violence bill that understands the true pernicious nature of domestic violence and that answers the needs of women and children."


Unsurprisingly, from the blurb on their website -


About SAFE Ireland

SAFE Ireland is the National Social Change Agency working on Domestic Violence in Ireland. We are working innovatively and strategically to transform culture and the response to gender based violence (GBV) in Ireland. Our particular GBV focus is on male violence against women and children in intimate/close relationships.


Strategic? Certainly. Innovative? Certainly not.

backspin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I happened across this just now -


Psychological abuse within a relationship to become a crime


Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty told the Dáil that “we believe women” and that once they present their story “that’s the end of the road. There is no need for a piece of paper. There is no need for a barring order.”


Frankly, I'm disappointed it didn't occur to Ms. Doherty to suggest that victims of domestic violence would be believed, without any reference to their gender, as per the efforts of The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence.

A rather unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected oversight on her part.

Regina doesn't seem to be too popular

http://www.thejournal.ie/tanaiste-new-poll-3724666-Nov2017/

tritium

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

Fag and the ‘n’ word are and were derogatory terms. Surely you can see the difference?

People still use the word ‘spa’ all the time.

Interestingly two of those words have perfectly acceptable long standing meanings. Its only relatively recent usage (evolution of language) that has seen alternative offensive usage. And more recent social usage thats seeing them fade away.

The third word was actually used in non perjorative form originally, becoming an insult later as it was wrapped up in the wider debate around slavery. While it may be jumped on now, its actually been slowly moving out of wide and acceptable usage for some time (evolution of language)

Delta1138

Well I'll tell you this one.

Am twenty five and I went to a job interview around September for a building company. I was going for an office job and in truth the owner, a man went and I approached me for it. So I go to this place and say who I am blah blah blah. So this girl tells me to go on through to the interview room. Now, even before I walked down the hall I could see a face being pulled behind her. So I wait, and I wait and I wait.

So about twenty minutes go by and three women come in and the interview begins, and in no way did they hide the fact they didn't read the cv, literally it was like I appeared from thin air. Then the questions come but not the usual talk about yourself, qualifications, employment history, no my sexuality, why I want a woman's job, I s€)t you not I was asked that. So the interview takes a nose dive, she asks me how do you feel taking orders from a woman given you went only to all boys schools? I replied probly the same way as when in said schools my teachers were manly women as were most of my bosses in previous jobs.

But here's the kicker, at the end of it, about five minutes from the start of the interview, a phone rings and they act like Ann franks family if the gestapo knock the door, so this one gets up and asks will you two be ok with him, like I was a rapist or something.at the end of it, they din't do the usual politeness like walk me out shake hands blah blah. So needless to say I didn't get that job.

py2006

Delta1138 wrote: »

Well I'll tell you this one.

Am twenty five and I went to a job interview around September for a building company. I was going for an office job and in truth the owner, a man went and I approached me for it. So I go to this place and say who I am blah blah blah. So this girl tells me to go on through to the interview room. Now, even before I walked down the hall I could see a face being pulled behind her. So I wait, and I wait and I wait.

So about twenty minutes go by and three women come in and the interview begins, and in no way did they hide the fact they didn't read the cv, literally it was like I appeared from thin air. Then the questions come but not the usual talk about yourself, qualifications, employment history, no my sexuality, why I want a woman's job, I s€)t you not I was asked that. So the interview takes a nose dive, she asks me how do you feel taking orders from a woman given you went only to all boys schools? I replied probly the same way as when in said schools my teachers were manly women as were most of my bosses in previous jobs.

But here's the kicker, at the end of it, about five minutes from the start of the interview, a phone rings and they act like Ann franks family if the gestapo knock the door, so this one gets up and asks will you two be ok with him, like I was a rapist or something.at the end of it, they din't do the usual politeness like walk me out shake hands blah blah. So needless to say I didn't get that job.

Eh, name, shame and complain!!!

tritium

tritium wrote: »

Interestingly two of those words have perfectly acceptable long standing meanings. Its only relatively recent usage (evolution of language) that has seen alternative offensive usage. And more recent social usage thats seeing them fade away.

The third word was actually used in non perjorative form originally, becoming an insult later as it was wrapped up in the wider debate around slavery. While it may be jumped on now, its actually been slowly moving out of wide and acceptable usage for some time (evolution of language)

Ahh but the n-word is still in common usage by black people. Spend any amount of time with Black people from Africa or America and you'll hear the n-word used excessively amongst friends and acquaintances. That's not in any way disappearing. It's only if a white person uses the word that it's seen as an insult.

Triceratops Ballet

py2006 wrote: »

Eh, name, shame and complain!!!

Agreed, this kind of unprofessionalism in interviewing is a disgrace. You really should at a minimum highlight the sexism to their superiors, if not the equality authority.

tritium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I happened across this just now -


Psychological abuse within a relationship to become a crime


Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty told the Dáil that “we believe women” and that once they present their story “that’s the end of the road. There is no need for a piece of paper. There is no need for a barring order.”


Frankly, I'm disappointed it didn't occur to Ms. Doherty to suggest that victims of domestic violence would be believed, without any reference to their gender, as per the efforts of The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence.

A rather unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected oversight on her part.

I got really angry when i read this. So angry that i started to draft a strong letter to the minister to complain. In the interests of context i checked the dail record of the debate to make sure i wasnt being unfair. Heres what was actually said by the minister

I will be very clear. If a woman - we are talking about women in the main - or a man who is suffering at the hands of an abusive partner presents at a local office and explains his or her story, that is the end of the road. There is no need for a piece of paper or a barring order. I must state very clearly, as I did a few minutes ago, that we believe women.

And in a later debate....

If a woman or a man arrives in a local office and tells us of an experience of domestic violence, we will believe them - end of story. There will be no requirement for court orders or protection orders or other legal structures in such cases. We will believe the person presenting and we will make changes to our internal IT systems so that their electronic record shows no letters for maintenance recovery will ever again be sent to them.

The irish times is a shameful ****ing rag....

Iseedeadpixels

Delta1138 wrote: »

Well I'll tell you this one.

Am twenty five and I went to a job interview around September for a building company. I was going for an office job and in truth the owner, a man went and I approached me for it. So I go to this place and say who I am blah blah blah. So this girl tells me to go on through to the interview room. Now, even before I walked down the hall I could see a face being pulled behind her. So I wait, and I wait and I wait.

So about twenty minutes go by and three women come in and the interview begins, and in no way did they hide the fact they didn't read the cv, literally it was like I appeared from thin air. Then the questions come but not the usual talk about yourself, qualifications, employment history, no my sexuality, why I want a woman's job, I s€)t you not I was asked that. So the interview takes a nose dive, she asks me how do you feel taking orders from a woman given you went only to all boys schools? I replied probly the same way as when in said schools my teachers were manly women as were most of my bosses in previous jobs.

But here's the kicker, at the end of it, about five minutes from the start of the interview, a phone rings and they act like Ann franks family if the gestapo knock the door, so this one gets up and asks will you two be ok with him, like I was a rapist or something.at the end of it, they din't do the usual politeness like walk me out shake hands blah blah. So needless to say I didn't get that job.

No doubt someone will be along to say stop bitching and whining!

I applied for a job before on Gumtree of all places and within 1 minute I got a reply saying I wasnt suitable, I knew exactly what he meant so replied "you forgot to put in because I dont have tits" he replied with a wink :rolleyes:

Second Yellow

ZX7R wrote: »

Female manager came in as i was cleaning them and said it would be imposable for me to clean them correctly as i was not a woman.

Cleaned toilets the odd time in a fast food job back in the day. The first time it was apparently implied that I was just doing the men's toilets. Wasn't a busy place, knew there was nobody in the ladies. Obstructed the door with another mob bucket and the yellow man. Manager comes looking for me after a bit, asking why I was taking so bloody long. Was told it should only have taken me the guts of X amount of time. When she realised the ladies were cleaned as well, she was a bit confused.

She almost accused me (not in an angry way) of taking credit for someone else having cleaned the ladies from the shift that had just finished. She only really inspected the ladies and was clearly somewhat suspicious of my work ethic for a short while afterwards, although never actually said anything. She commented on how clean the ladies were, in a sort of smartarse tone.

I can't remember how she put it exactly, but some time later she did pass comment a number of times, backhanded praise of sorts, that despite what a person might think, I was a good worker that would do jobs other fellas wouldn't (or couldn't) do properly.

I never had anything approaching what I would call an issue with the woman, she was otherwise very well-suited to her job.

Only a small thing, but I remembered it for whatever reason.

backspin.

I find it frustrating that there seems to be very little consequences to misandry and to racism against white people for that matter. But apparently we live in a patriarchy and we obviously have white privilege... There is absolute hell to pay for misogny or racism against non whites though. Shouldn't we try and apply equal standards across the board.

JPF82

So 6 months ago I became a proud Dad to a beautiful baby girl. Her first few days were not the easiest for her or my wife as the delivery was by emergency C Section and my daughter was then in ICU for the next 7 days. My wife had lost a good bit of blood and struggled to get to the ICU to see our daughter for a few days. She just wasn't able to. I was up in ICU most of the time, did the first nappy change, all feeds and everything any normal Dad would do in the situation. The only times I wasn't there was when I had to leave at night and during the day when I would be asked to leave for an hour. (I'm not looking for credit for that, just giving context).

Anyway, fast forward to the day we get to bring our beautiful girl home. The nurses are helping my wife and giving us some last minute advice etc. My wife was telling the nurse how great I had been and that I already had a great bond with my daughter.

ONE nurse responds "Well see how good he is when you get home".

As if I was some imbecile that would just not so anything at home. With the day that was in it, I let it slide, but it did f**king piss me off. My wife was none too impressed either. Overall, the staff in the Coombe were fantastic apart from that wally on the last day. The nurse was a bit younger than me so it wasn't some old fashioned nurse either.