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

kunst nugget

maybe

silverharp wrote: »

its one profession though where kids see it up close, they would have a strong opinion one way or the other. One barrier to entry that does come to mind though is it seems to be a hard profession to get into later in life? Youre right in the sense that there are people who after 10 or 20 years in one profession would happily take a paycut to do something that is perceived to be more fulfilling but outside of some private schools who might be more flexible it appears to be a difficult thing to do.

They are trying to change it up a bit and if I heard correctly, they are introducing springboard courses for older people for teaching shortly.

silverharp

kunst nugget wrote: »

They are trying to change it up a bit and if I heard correctly, they are introducing springboard courses for older people for teaching shortly.

I'd say relatively speaking that might attract more men. waits for grumbling by special interests though :rolleyes:

Calhoun

I remember young male teachers coming into the profession over the past 15 years or so back and allot of them were interested in making a difference in young peoples lives.

its not always the older cohort.

iptba

April 24, 2014 Irish Times

The gender gap in education at its widest for 50 years

Figures provided by the Department of Education yesterday show that 86 per cent of primary school teachers were female in the 2011/’12 school year, the last year for which it could provide figures.

The equivalent figure at secondary level was 68 per cent female versus 32 per cent male.

Calhoun

iptba wrote: »

April 24, 2014 Irish Times

What does that mean? even though women are more in number in teaching men get paid more?

hots

Calhoun wrote: »

What does that mean? even though women are more in number in teaching men get paid more?

Gender gap not pay gap. Teachers are all on scales afaik.

Pawwed Rig

Wibbs wrote: »

Who is P? But you are a good male role model, the more the merrier.

But that is the point. The more the merrier. But there aren't anymore. Later in years I suppose when they get into sports etc there will be male influencers but in creches and primary schools (from what I have seen) they are a female only zone. And with the best will in the world some of them have no idea how to deal with boys.

kunst nugget wrote: »

They are trying to change it up a bit and if I heard correctly, they are introducing springboard courses for older people for teaching shortly.

Actually I think older people are more suited for teaching. Younger people have the knowledge but are often lacking the life experience and temperment to do the job well.

tritium

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

I would fully support men in all those positions, it's others I think could have problems with it. Society is very biased against men these days. When my wife had to stay in the maternity after giving birth and was too sick to take care of our baby I took care of her overnight, visiting the hospital every day with her. My wife got lots of comments that I wouldn't be able to take care of our baby, mad stuff. She politely told them where to go and that I was well capable.

I was mentioning this topic to the wife now and she doesn't know any Radiographer that has trained in mammography. There is an unwritten rule that men cannot apply for the training which she thinks is ridiculous.

I believe on mammography that their is a conscious decision to exclude men in some organizations on the basis the women may feel uncomfortable

Pawwed Rig

tritium wrote: »

I believe on mammography that their is a conscious decision to exclude men in some organizations on the basis the women may feel uncomfortable

That is odd as the 2 consultants in Holles Street for pregnancy matters are men. Women are not thick and are more than happy to 'expose themselves' to a medical professional regardless of gender. Similarly I have had female doctors poke at my willy a few times.

Giving birth is a very intrusive event (from my observations). Thoughts of modesty are quickly left at the door when reality hits.

silverharp

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is odd as the 2 consultants in Holles Street for pregnancy matters are men. Women are not thick and are more than happy to 'expose themselves' to a medical professional regardless of gender. Similarly I have had female doctors poke at my willy a few times.

Giving birth is a very intrusive event (from my observations). Thoughts of modesty are quickly left at the door when reality hits.

The consensus seems to be that most women don't mind male GP's etc examining them, one exception being a smear test where there is a preference for a female nurse. There was a case recently in the UK where a patient objected to a trans nurse performing it and the hospital obliged , of course the patient was accused with muh transphobia from the usual quarters

Pawwed Rig

silverharp wrote: »

There was a case recently in the UK where a patient objected to a trans nurse performing it and the hospital obliged , of course the patient was accused with muh transphobia from the usual quarters

I would say the hospital shouldn't have obliged in that situation. The hospital provided a (presumably) competent person. If the patient doesn't like it then that is their problem. It is a free service after all in the UK.

silverharp

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would say the hospital shouldn't have obliged in that situation. The hospital provided a (presumably) competent person. If the patient doesn't like it then that is their problem. It is a free service after all in the UK.

its a valid argument but the health service clearly operates on the basis that tries to go with female patient's wishes if for example men are precluded from training in certain areas eg the breast check mentioned above.

citytillidie

GarIT wrote: »

From a historical point of view, it would improve documenting of family trees. From a medical point of view, it would improve the accuracy of family history and medical records.

From a practical point of view, asking your wife or partner for a DNA test of a child she says is yours can be a relationship ender, many men that would like a DNA test don't ask for one out of fear. If they were mandatory it would make that whole process easier.

It isn't fair for children to have a potentially incorrect father listed on their birth cert.

Currently, a woman can force a man to pay child support for a child that was born while you were married even if the child wasn't yours.

In the long term, it would eliminate undocumented fathers if the father of a child was filled in automatically based on comparing the DNA results of all new-born children with all children born previously. After ~50 years you won't need to DNA test fathers if every father is already tested and on file.

Also people have faked or stolen birth certs if your birth cert file contained a DNA profile that wouldn't be possible. If it was allowed to be used by the police it would solve many crimes and if it cant be used for that it would at least solve the identity of bodies that are found but can't be identified.

It would also help the child in the future, if the real father was a family medical history but another person is listed as the father it may never be picked up or looked for in the child

runawaybishop

No

tritium wrote: »

I believe on mammography that their is a conscious decision to exclude men in some organizations on the basis the women may feel uncomfortable

There is a legislative exemption for gender discrimination on the grounds of privacy.

LostinBlanch

maybe

This is very industry specific, but filmmaker Terry McMahon is seriously poking the bear with this article in Broadsheet.ie referencing initiatives aimed exclusively at female writers and directors.

The Irish Film Board has created five different initiatives exclusively for female writers and directors. They did so because the uptake from female writers for an earlier gender defined initiative was far less than expected. The reason for this was put down to “unconscious bias.” Perhaps this is true. So let’s examine the conscious facts.

The Irish Film Board has 18 staff members. 15 women and three men.

The Irish Film Board has seven board members. Five are women. Two are men.

Screen Training Ireland – the educational arm of The Irish Film Board – has six staff members. Six women and no men.

There are films made without Film Board support but, in general, this means that the decision behind the funding and the development of Irish cinema is made by 26 women and five men. (It’s difficult to ascertain precisely how many script editors the Film Board is facilitating but anecdotal evidence suggests the significant majority are women.)

We need to name the elephant in the room. The male elephant. We cannot move towards true equality until those five men are removed. And replaced by five women. It’s clear that those 5 men are the reason no scripts with central female roles are being written and directed by women.
. . .
Only when that ratio of 26 women to 5 men becomes 31 women to zero men can we finally have the kind of equality that we all deserve.

I'd say there's going to be some pushback against this. It'd be interesting to see how this is going to be reported.

tritium

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is odd as the 2 consultants in Holles Street for pregnancy matters are men. Women are not thick and are more than happy to 'expose themselves' to a medical professional regardless of gender. Similarly I have had female doctors poke at my willy a few times.

Giving birth is a very intrusive event (from my observations). Thoughts of modesty are quickly left at the door when reality hits.

I agree it didn’t make sense to me either back when I worked in a relevant area. Let’s just say that at the time I was very uncomfortable with the position - I’m not going to expand on that

GarIT

LostinBlanch wrote: »

This is very industry specific, but filmmaker Terry McMahon is seriously poking the bear with this article in Broadsheet.ie referencing initiatives aimed exclusively at female writers and directors.



I'd say there's going to be some pushback against this. It'd be interesting to see how this is going to be reported.

Google do it too, €10,000 scholarship for females with high results that want to study computer science and/or software engineering.

I once told a company (SAP) to **** off I wouldn’t interview with them when they bragged that even though only 10% if applicants are female 40% of the people they hire are female and they are looking to increase that to 50%. I was pretty much told I was sexist and the feeling was mutual.

LostinBlanch

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I'd say there's going to be some pushback against this. It'd be interesting to see how this is going to be reported.

Yes, but will it be reported, or quietly pushed into the background?

I mean, like, it's highly doubtful to be reported on RTE or any major media outlet.

Stories which relate to sexism against women are the business of the day. Anything which suggests otherwise is rarely reported and if it is, it's quickly dismissed into the background. It would be nice if a few shows actually held discussions about it, but I honestly don't see that happening.

backspin.

GarIT wrote: »

Google do it too, €10,000 scholarship for females with high results that want to study computer science and/or software engineering.

I once told a company (SAP) to **** off I wouldn’t interview with them when they bragged that even though only 10% if applicants are female 40% of the people they hire are female and they are looking to increase that to 50%. I was pretty much told I was sexist and the feeling was mutual.

That is extremely unfair on men doing IT degrees. They are basically being told all your hard work and study might not get you a job, but the women on your course will likely walk into a job with us.

I would love to see the reaction if primary teaching applied the same rules, and nursing. There would be uproar.

backspin.

I wonder will policies like that lead men away from studying those subjects. Despite all the pushing women aren't massively interested in STEM. They could end up with a shortage of graduates.

Sleepy

More than likely the policies will be reversed once the SJW's shift their attention elsewhere and commercial businesses start to realise such policies can only lead to sub-optimal hiring and higher costs due to maternity leave / the higher levels of female sick leave etc. Businesses rarely continue with policies that negatively impact the bottom line.

Calhoun

Businesses care only about one thing and that is the green, they will pander to anything. They aren't sexist by any means they don't care what it is either way.

What will and should start happening is more of our public bodies will come under further scrutiny, how can we have a film board that's dominated by women . It's not fit for purpose and should be shut down.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

More than likely the policies will be reversed once the SJW's shift their attention elsewhere and commercial businesses start to realise such policies can only lead to sub-optimal hiring and higher costs due to maternity leave / the higher levels of female sick leave etc. Businesses rarely continue with policies that negatively impact the bottom line.

Unless it makes it into law. What happens if the laws are changed so that departments have a minimum required number of females or the business gets fined? Gender Quotas are in, and they are being spread to many different industries.

TBH This is no longer the sole area of SJWs. Government agencies often have a majority of females versus males, and it's in their own interest to continue spreading the requirements for gender quotas that favor females. I know people tend to point to SJWs or "Feminists" for the pressure of these movements/initiatives, but we're already at the stage where many organizations who would normally regulate equality consist of a majority of females and have a bias to encourage female gender "guidelines"

Calhoun wrote: »

What will and should start happening is more of our public bodies will come under further scrutiny, how can we have a film board that's dominated by women . It's not fit for purpose and should be shut down.

Of course, it's fit for purpose... just as a majority of men would make it fit for purpose. Don't make its' purpose a gender thing. The problem is when there is a majority of females, but males are still being blamed for the failings of the department.

The point should be a recognition that females are just as responsible as males for the effectiveness of a department.

However, if the desire is for equality, then awareness should be increased to show the inequalities involved... and whether a majority of a gender is creating a bias in their decisions towards either their own gender or another gender.

I do think we need to move past this focus on which gender is a majority or minority. It's only an issue now because female rights activists have put such emphasis on male majority groups. However, we need to start examining which are more effective or prone to corruption/bias/sexism etc.

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Unless it makes it into law. What happens if the laws are changed so that departments have a minimum required number of females or the business gets fined? Gender Quotas are in, and they are being spread to many different industries.

TBH This is no longer the sole area of SJWs. Government agencies often have a majority of females versus males, and it's in their own interest to continue spreading the requirements for gender quotas that favor females. I know people tend to point to SJWs or "Feminists" for the pressure of these movements/initiatives, but we're already at the stage where many organizations who would normally regulate equality consist of a majority of females and have a bias to encourage female gender "guidelines"



Of course, it's fit for purpose... just as a majority of men would make it fit for purpose. Don't make its' purpose a gender thing. The problem is when there is a majority of females, but males are still being blamed for the failings of the department.

The point should be a recognition that females are just as responsible as males for the effectiveness of a department.

However, if the desire is for equality, then awareness should be increased to show the inequalities involved... and whether a majority of a gender is creating a bias in their decisions towards either their own gender or another gender.

I do think we need to move past this focus on which gender is a majority or minority. It's only an issue now because female rights activists have put such emphasis on male majority groups. However, we need to start examining which are more effective or prone to corruption/bias/sexism etc.

Sorry was being sarcastic didnt get the smileys in place:) of course its fit for purpose but under SJW logic its not fit for purpose or shouldn't be.

The problem we have right now is that if its a male dominated organization its seen as a problem but the female dominated gets a free pass. To turn that crap on its head we have to start holding these folks to the same standards they have for everyone else.

It should be a meritocracy thats what we should strive for but that isnt going to happen, so in the short term while we are still going through this process of calling out male groups we should be doing the same for the female dominated groups.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

It should be a meritocracy thats what we should strive for but that isnt going to happen, so in the short term while we are still going through this process of calling out male groups we should be doing the same for the female dominated groups.

Actually, I'd like to see some research was done on whether male/female dominated groups are more/less effective, more/less biased, etc. versus a more balanced (naturally one or two male/females, either way, being acceptable) group being most effective depending on the industry involved.

Lets see some research into the effects of all these movements to change the status quo, and whether it's actually such a positive thing or not. I'd be interested to see whether women are just as likely to behave the same as men in a given industry when they have the same influence/control.

Right now, there's this automatic assumption that all these changes will naturally bring about a more equal society... but I do wonder does it? Women can be just as biased/sexist as men (regardless of the claims that females can't be sexist)


Oh... Re Sarcasm... Sometimes I'm rather oblivious to other peoples sarcasm...

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, I'd like to see some research was done on whether male/female dominated groups are more/less effective, more/less biased, etc. versus a more balanced (naturally one or two male/females, either way, being acceptable) group being most effective depending on the industry involved.

Lets see some research into the effects of all these movements to change the status quo, and whether it's actually such a positive thing or not. I'd be interested to see whether women are just as likely to behave the same as men in a given industry when they have the same influence/control.

Right now, there's this automatic assumption that all these changes will naturally bring about a more equal society... but I do wonder does it? Women can be just as biased/sexist as men (regardless of the claims that females can't be sexist)


Oh... Re Sarcasm... Sometimes I'm rather oblivious to other peoples sarcasm...

Well if men and women are equal, and male dominated organizations can build up a institutionalized sexism ect then why shouldnt the same be for female run organizations?

There is also a fallacy in the assumption, if men no longer work in higher paid positions as organizations are female dominated how is it more equal?

On the sarcasm, you missed it as i was being lazy and was on my phone. If you ever see a post from me that looks off and has loads of spelling mistakes its because im using my phone.

Pawwed Rig

Calhoun wrote: »

Businesses care only about one thing and that is the green, they will pander to anything. They aren't sexist by any means they don't care what it is either way.

Which would mean that they should tend towards hiring women as they can pay them less

#genderpaygap

givyjoe

Calhoun wrote: »

Well if men and women are equal, and male dominated organizations can build up a institutionalized sexism ect then why shouldnt the same be for female run organizations?

There is also a fallacy in the assumption, if men no longer work in higher paid positions as organizations are female dominated how is it more equal?

On the sarcasm, you missed it as i was being lazy and was on my phone. If you ever see a post from me that looks off and has loads of spelling mistakes its because im using my phone.

Easy, men are (historically) bad and can't be trusted to do the right thing re: equality, but of course women can and would never dream of consciously (or unconsciously) discriminating against men.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

Well if men and women are equal, and male dominated organizations can build up a institutionalized sexism ect then why shouldnt the same be for female run organizations?

Yup. Agreed.

There is also a fallacy in the assumption, if men no longer work in higher paid positions as organizations are female dominated how is it more equal?

Yes, but Men are always going to be more driven to achieve the higher positions. Although, "always", might not be much longer if society changes the mannerisms of enough men. Competition in the workplace is more commonly attributed to men than to women. More women claim to be uninterested or uncomfortable with the aggressive competition which is a notable sign of the corporate (or any highly specialist fields) landscape. There's also the perspective that men are more likely to be single at later ages than women, either due to life choices, or population differences (that generally there are more men than women in a country), and thus men are more likely to make their career important at later ages, whereas women will focus on the family.

Now... Gender quotas and the pressure to "place" more women at higher positions will definitely affect things, but TBH, I do think that sometime pretty soon, activists will be forced to recognize that there will always be more men in higher positions due to the choices we make in life. Even if activists manage to bring in better conditions for women (with children), there will still be a major shortage of women willing to participate. Really depends on how the "back to work" schemes develop once the children have grown up and the woman has more time available once more.

The problem is the focus on women's rights being the same as equality. It's not a focus that mens rights and female rights is equality. The focus is firmly focused on equality being about raising females beyond... whatever. (Or that time has moved on, and inequality towards women is essentially gone the way of the Dodo, but the justifications for raising women's rights continues)

Calhoun

That or they will be forced to realize they are just swichijg it on its head rather than going for true equality.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

That or they will be forced to realize they are just swichijg it on its head rather than going for true equality.

Considering the lack of media attention when there is a female majority... do you think they care?

Think of the ratio of teachers. Now, I've seen that reported quite a few times on various media, but it's never really been examined as a negative thing. Oh, they might suggest that more men should go into teaching, but there is very little attention given to why men don't do it anymore or the negative effects of a female majority. If anything, you see reasons being given that such a majority will reduce the "negative" sides of male behavior... When there was a male majority, the focus was on the negatives (once the "equality" movement got underway)

So, TBH I doubt that females, on their own, will acknowledge the lack of equality. It'll just be shoved into the background chatter. At least, until men get organized in large numbers and start campaigning for actual equality.

gizmo555

backspin. wrote: »

That is extremely unfair on men doing IT degrees. They are basically being told all your hard work and study might not get you a job, but the women on your course will likely walk into a job with us.

It's also, on the face of it, illegal:

Equality in the workplace.

The Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 outlaw discrimination in a wide range of employment and employment-related areas. These include recruitment and promotion; equal pay; working conditions; training or experience; dismissal and harassment including sexual harassment. The legislation defines discrimination as treating one person in a less favourable way than another person based on any of the following 9 grounds:

• Gender: this means man, woman or transsexual ...

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering the lack of media attention when there is a female majority... do you think they care?

Think of the ratio of teachers. Now, I've seen that reported quite a few times on various media, but it's never really been examined as a negative thing. Oh, they might suggest that more men should go into teaching, but there is very little attention given to why men don't do it anymore or the negative effects of a female majority. If anything, you see reasons being given that such a majority will reduce the "negative" sides of male behavior... When there was a male majority, the focus was on the negatives (once the "equality" movement got underway)

So, TBH I doubt that females, on their own, will acknowledge the lack of equality. It'll just be shoved into the background chatter. At least, until men get organized in large numbers and start campaigning for actual equality.

What do you think happens when you get a disenfranchised society, if there is no future for men why buy into established norms.

If the current politics prevails it will be swings and round about and it will switch on its head. Even us talking about it right now is helping it.

LostinBlanch

maybe

Calhoun wrote: »

What do you think happens when you get a disenfranchised society, if there is no future for men why buy into established norms.

That's the nightmare scenario, nothing good can come from continually demonising and alienating an entire demographic. But some* on the feminist side either can not or do not want to see this.

calhoun wrote:

If the current politics prevails it will be swings and round about and it will switch on its head. Even us talking about it right now is helping it.

Again, I think this is important and it is recognised by some on the feminist side who try to shut down any such discussions. Look at the videos of feminist protestors shutting down conferences on male suicide in Canadian universities a couple of years ago. Who knows, maybe some people of a similar mindset would prefer if threads like this were shut down.


*note I said some, not all.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

What do you think happens when you get a disenfranchised society, if there is no future for men why buy into established norms.

Just as it took a long time for women to get together, form movements, and build up momentum for women's rights, I suspect that men will follow suit. I don't see any real opposition to the way society is setting the male gender up for guilt, and even though we've had movements about the inequalities in custody cases for decades, there is still very little momentum to the causes.

I do think that most men will just knuckle down and see it as another difficulty /challenge to face, rather than seek to address an injustice.

Oh, we'll see the occasional woman come out and tell of the injustice of the system against the male gender, and there'll be various groups spread across the world fighting for male rights (as is there is now), but I don't really expect to see men coming together in a cohesive manner and demanding equality. Nor do I expect any "equality" organisation whether public or private to really campaign for it either.

If the current politics prevails it will be swings and round about and it will switch on its head. Even us talking about it right now is helping it.

I agree that our talking about it helps. Boards has always been the way that I expand on ideas (often by my making silly mistakes and being corrected ), and gain supporting information for my own arguments with others. And while we rail at El_D for the manner of his arguments and/or posting style, he's the kind of opposition that any discussion on equality for men will have to face. Which is why having accurate information, and statistics to support our arguments is necessary.

I don't believe that genuine equality will happen anytime soon. Nor do I think the momentum of female rights will slow down anytime soon either. We're going to see much more of these female majorities in choice industries, along with further regulations/laws to "protect" their rights, all of which justified because of a minority of sexist behavior or references to the past injustices women faced... The changes to the present won't be relevant.

LostinBlanch

LostinBlanch wrote: »

That's the nightmare scenario, nothing good can come from continually demonising and alienating an entire demographic. But some* on the feminist side either can not or do not want to see this.

Again, I think this is important and it is recognised by some on the feminist side who try to shut down any such discussions. Look at the videos of feminist protestors shutting down conferences on make suicide in Canadian universities a couple of years ago. Who knows, maybe some people of a similar mindset would prefer if threads like this were shut down.

I'd be curious what the posters think about whether we can really point to feminism as the cause of all the changes over the last decade regarding female rights, and social perception towards men?

It's just that feminism, in general, has been losing support from the average/normal women for years... but the changes occurring continue to happen. Instead, we see the governments/media/organizations taking a hand in promoting "an equality" which is definitely pointed at women rather than both genders.

Would you consider that, while we tend to assign responsibility to feminists, shouldn't we identify who else is pushing these changes? (rather than simply saying "feminism")

Am I making sense?

Calhoun

Who knows if men will just see it as another obstacle and get on with it, you only have to look at the foreign fighters going over seas to fight for ISIS ect. My fear is that without a cause for men to get behind that is rational folk will go another way.

So in a way we as men that are concerned at somepoint will have to get off our asses and come up with a simple and respectable approach to it.

backspin.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe that genuine equality will happen anytime soon. Nor do I think the momentum of female rights will slow down anytime soon either. We're going to see much more of these female majorities in choice industries, along with further regulations/laws to "protect" their rights, all of which justified because of a minority of sexist behavior or references to the past injustices women faced... The changes to the present won't be relevant.

The media is a very powerful force behind feminism. At the min they are fully on board with pushing it and with sh*tting on men. The media itself is becoming increasingly feminized too. But they have the power to lead a pushback. We have often seen how they can go after someone for perceived misogyny or racism and pretty much destroy them. Until we see misandry getting even a fraction of that treatment it will be an uphill battle for men.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

Who knows if men will just see it as another obstacle, you only have to look at the foreign fighters going over seas to fight for ISIS ect. My fear is that without a cause for men to get behind that is rational folk will go another way.

So in a way we as men that are concerned at somepoint will have to get off our asses and come up with a simple and respectable approach to it.

We need a martyr... I suspect we need a law to come into being that pisses men off completely, which is completely unjustified, and for a good/respectable man to be crucified by the system... and then for it to go viral. Then, maybe...

silverharp

another attack on men, woman cant do the training, lower the standard

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/police-review-tests-dog-handlers-avoid-discrimination/

Police to review tests for dog handlers to avoid discrimination

Police forces must change the way they recruit dog handlers after a female officer won a landmark sex-discrimination case showing that the system was too “tough” for some women.

WPC Kim-Louise Carter was awarded £15,000 after failing a fitness test which involved a 10-mile run, then carrying a dog over a course before running with it a further 100 yards.

Wibbs

maybe

Never mind attacks on men, that's bloody ridiculous. It's “tough” for some women. Some, not even women in general. I couldn't pass that course. Not a hope. I'm neither fit nor strong enough, should I then make a legal claim that I be treated differently and get a pass for turning up. Bloody hell.

Police to review tests for dog handlers to avoid discrimination

Surely, they're encouraging discrimination when the higher rules/obligations apply to men but not women? It's bizarre how these cases are being passed by equality groups. It seems obvious that they're encouraging discrimination rather than reducing it.

Pawwed Rig

Might be a silly question but why does a dog handler need to be able to run 10 miles?
Also what is wrong with this woman that she cannot? It is difficult but anyone without any underlying medical/physical issues could do it with a bit of training. Any of the 10 mile runs I goto have a large contingent of women running. My wife just ran a marathon and she was not the only girl in the race.

Wibbs

maybe

+1 if anything women have proven themselves to be better as gender at some ultra endurance events. I certainly know more women who are regular runners than I do men.

LostinBlanch

maybe

Deleted User wrote: »

We need a martyr... I suspect we need a law to come into being that pisses men off completely, which is completely unjustified, and for a good/respectable man to be crucified by the system... and then for it to go viral. Then, maybe...

Fair play to you for stepping up to the plate and volunteering Klaz.

The hero we need.

Pawwed Rig

Actually it help if I read the article:D. Seems she did the 10 mile but it was carrying a 35kg dog over rough terrain is what failed her. I wonder is there a reason for this to be in the test?

Wibbs

maybe

I've seen special forces lads carrying their dogs alright. Maybe because two legs can be better than four over some rough terrain?

LostinBlanch

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Fair play to you for stepping up to the plate and volunteering Klaz.

The hero we need.

Ok. You can help me find the right law to be abused by.

(I'm single, don't have children and self-employed)

LostinBlanch

maybe

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be curious what the posters think about whether we can really point to feminism as the cause of all the changes over the last decade regarding female rights, and social perception towards men?

It's just that feminism, in general, has been losing support from the average/normal women for years... but the changes occurring continue to happen. Instead, we see the governments/media/organizations taking a hand in promoting "an equality" which is definitely pointed at women rather than both genders.

Would you consider that, while we tend to assign responsibility to feminists, shouldn't we identify who else is pushing these changes? (rather than simply saying "feminism")

Am I making sense?

See, I think that's the bit where feminists would claim to be successful. Their acolytes are now in positions of influence which they can use to forward this agenda. Empire building it's called, even in this thread there have been examples of this with stories of men being encouraged to go for positions, not getting them and lesser qualified women were promoted over them. I know that's anecdotal but how many other similar examples are there?

Women in media are of course going to keep the drumbeat going as they are the ones most likely to benefit. Look at the current agenda about the lack of female presenters on radio. There are only a certain number of places available and of course they are going to agitate for (certain) male voices to be silenced so they can take over.

Of course there are some exceptions, like Charlotte Gill in the London Times dismissing feminism as a cult. It's behind a paywall, but I have quoted elements below. She is writing about how the #metoo McCarthyite campaign against men goes too far.

Critics were quick to dismiss Deneuve, the Twitter mob crying that she was elite and out of touch. Clearly it’s unthinkable that one of the world’s most beautiful women might know a thing or two about predatory men.

What Deneuve and other women who question the legitimacy of #MeToo have discovered is that feminism has become more of a cult than a social movement. Increasingly it demands that women think and read in the same way, and worship the same idols as #MeToo, the Lenny Letter (the online feminist newsletter) and the ridiculous Women’s Equality Party. Actresses have even been asked to congregate in uniform, as they were at the Golden Globes, to show their allegiance to the cause. We non-believers are often made to feel we’re in denial, or waiting to be saved.

Perhaps the worst element of the #MeToo movement is its McCarthyite edge. What was originally a campaign to condemn bad men has morphed into suspicion against an entire gender. The methods of interrogation to “out” perverts are similar to the lists compiled during the 1950s witch-hunt of supposed communists, only in more 21st-century form.

It must be her internalised misogyny obviously :rolleyes:

deaddonkey15

silverharp wrote: »

another attack on men, woman cant do the training, lower the standard

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/police-review-tests-dog-handlers-avoid-discrimination/

“Where a standard test had negative impacts on members of a protected group, here women, then it either needs to be changed or objectively justified, “ said the judge.

What?