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

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Actually it helpd 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?

Yeah I was thinking that. I'd rather/easier run 15 or 20 miles than carry five stone of dog.

silverharp

Tobias Late Belly wrote: »

Yeah I was thinking that. I'd rather/easier run 15 or 20 miles than carry five stone of dog.

sure fk it just shoot the dog

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Wha?

Pawwed Rig

silverharp wrote: »

sure fk it just shoot the dog

I don't think that would make it weigh any less

GarIT

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't think that would make it weigh any less

Maybe the dog was dead and that might be why they need to carry it back after running 10km after a suspect.

Tobias Late Belly

Tobias Late Belly wrote: »

Yeah I was thinking that. I'd rather/easier run 15 or 20 miles than carry five stone of dog.

I thought it meant she ran the 15/20 miles, and then carried the dog over a course (not that the course itself was 15/20 miles long)

JRant

I believe that part of the test is too ensure the handler can carry the dog if it gets injured, which is a real possibility. They are supposed to work as a team after all. If one half of the team can't do their end then it's not much of a team really.

Pawwed Rig

JRant wrote: »

I believe that part of the test is too ensure the handler can carry the dog if it gets injured, which is a real possibility. They are supposed to work as a team after all. If one half of the team can't do their end then it's not much of a team really.

That seems reasonable

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Tobias Late Belly wrote: »

Wha?

I meant that it as someone with a female body, I can see how it would be massively challenging to be able to carry that weight that distance, and very doable (as an only basically fit person, but with time and training) to run that distance.

I'd be better able to run for a lot farther than is on the test than to carry 5 stone for the specs of the test, basically.

I think it's absolutely fair that you can't get a specific and very physical role if you don't meet the physical requirements, and very obviously men are more likely to meet certain requirements of strengh, there will be women who can, but as long as the criteria are sound and theres equality of opportunity then yeah. The only reasonable objection I could see is if someone was effectively denied access to some sort of supervisory, administrative, off the front line role because they can't meet the physical requirements for the role of people they'd be working with, like if it's a blanket test for admission to a department or section regardless of the role within the department.

And at that point it's a systemic issue and not one that will be fixed by changing the criteria on one test.

terryduff12

But sure women can and do the same work as men that's why they should be paid the same oh wait they cant because there different not in a bad way, just get a few of the Trans fluids to say there men. Which is a small reason why the yanks don't want anyone posing as men in the army because there's a weight requirement men have to carry and it just wouldn't work.

Kidchameleon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So would you support an effort to get more men excited about teaching?

Why bother? What is stopping men from becoming teachers? What is stopping women going into stem? Nothing! There is no barrier. Men and women are physically and intellectually different. We have evolved different brains and preferences for the survival of the species, this is demonstrably provable from birth. I feel sorry for women who feel the same as I do about all of this. There is so much infantilizing(spelling?) of women going on everywhere around us, its crazy! Women dont need their hands held or to be shoved where the blue haired types think they should go. Women are awesome at what women do and men are awesome at what men do. Leave people be and you will see differences in distribution of the sexes. Women are more nurturing and will tend towards nurturing jobs (primary school teacher) and men are more object focused and will tend towards more technical positions. There are of course exceptions to these rules but you cant deny reality. These preferences are the majority. The problem at this present time in the story of humanity is that technical roles are currently more valuable in the free market and the feminists cant get their head around this.

* There does seem to be a barrier for men wanting to get into child care.

**https://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf

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.

Nothing stopping men going into teaching, they just dont want to in general. Men are good at technical tasks and at the moment technical is where the money is at. It's as simple as that.

backspin.

The problem is there are no organisations out there with HR policies aiming to give 40 to 50% of jobs to men.

Areas where men dominate: We need more women.

Areas where women dominate: Ah well whatever.

py2006

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/

"Meanwhile, the fitness test, which had the same pass mark for men and women, had proven more difficult for women to pass compared to men, a factor suggesting it was discriminating against women."

So they are saying men and women are not equal?

“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."

Protected group??????

Surely there is only a case if NO women ever passed this exam??

Pawwed Rig

A protected group is a legal term based on employment law and protects against discrimination for that group ie disability, sex orientation, religious beliefs. Gender is one such group.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

A protected group is a legal term based on employment law and protects against discrimination for that group ie disability, sex orientation, religious beliefs. Gender is one such group.

So, we need to re-evaluate a more balanced perspective as to what discrimination includes?

A skill/physical based system of tests needed for a specific role shouldn't be considered grounds for discrimination.

I recently saw an advertisement for flight crew for an airline. The ad had height requirements, and I'm 6 inches too tall. Is that discrimination? Hardly. It's the practical considerations for an airplane. We really need to draw the line about discrimination.

Pawwed Rig

Deleted User wrote: »

I recently saw an advertisement for flight crew for an airline. The ad had height requirements, and I'm 6 inches too tall. Is that discrimination? Hardly. It's the practical considerations for an airplane. We really need to draw the line about discrimination.

A company can discriminate for height purposes all they want as that does not fall into a restricted group unless the person making the claim tags it as a sexism issue/disability issue however if you can prove the the height restriction is for good reason that cannot be remedied then discriminate away.

For example if I am making a film about Kurt Cobain then I can discriminate on all sorts of grounds quite legally for the main acting part

Quazzie

I'm sure the little scrote running away from the police dog will slow down in future to allow for the chance of a slower female officer accompanying the canine.

silverharp

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/ant-mcpartlins-wife-divorce-settlement-11729914

Ant McPartlin's wife Lisa Armstrong could get up to £15million in a divorce settlement
Ant's wife, who he wed in 2006, would be entitled to 50 per of his assets - said to be around £30million in total

fullstop

JRant wrote: »

I believe that part of the test is too ensure the handler can carry the dog if it gets injured, which is a real possibility. They are supposed to work as a team after all. If one half of the team can't do their end then it's not much of a team really.

Maybe they should train up a Bichon Frise for her instead of a heavy dog.

Quazzie

silverharp wrote: »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/ant-mcpartlins-wife-divorce-settlement-11729914

Something I've always wondering about these cases. Are their assets combined and then split? If so, she is entitled to half in my opinion, because he is getting half of hers too.

GarIT

silverharp wrote: »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/ant-mcpartlins-wife-divorce-settlement-11729914

I really don't see how this has anything to do with sexism, they were married for 11 years, of course both of them are entitled to 50% each of the assets they collectively owned before the divorce.

silverharp

GarIT wrote: »

I really don't see how this has anything to do with sexism, they were married for 11 years, of course both of them are entitled to 50% each of the assets they collectively owned before the divorce.

as Bill Burr would say "is this the line to lose half your sh1t?" , its sexist to the extent that men have to support women even if you are not married to them anymore. and if it ever starts happening that lots of women had to support men then the laws would change :pac:

in this case it looks like she is financially independent and she had no bearing on him becoming successful , they dont have any kids either.

wowy

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.

Unsurprisingly Una Mullally (I'm not going to link that and give the IT the additional clicks...) had an opinion today saying that there's not enough woman in leading, directing, writing or production roles. She mentioned the gender-driven initiatives in passing at the end, but obviously didn't mention the points made in the broadsheet article above.

She does quote the chair of the IFB:

In reaction to the Ifta nominations, Annie Doona, chair of the Irish Film Board was unequivocal. After congratulating the nominees, she said in a statement, “I would like to express my disappointment at the gender imbalance that has emerged in the shortlists for almost every category of award . . . It is vitally important that the stories Irish films portray represent a contemporary image of Ireland in all its diversity, inclusivity and originality of voice.” Doona said that the upcoming female-driven titles “prove that this imbalance is shifting and it is a shift we will unyieldingly support”.

The author of the broadsheet piece above might contest her point about the IFB striving for diversity and inclusivity.....

silverharp

more for information

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Wibbs

maybe

I liked that back and forth. Both gave as good as they got. That's the kinda debate I like to see. Though she went a bit whataboutery a bit too often. You could tell both got into it. Always good.

JRant

Brilliant, the interviewer tried putting words in his mouth on numerous occasions and he just calmly keeps to the point and corrects her on each occasion. I particularly liked the part where he stumps her with the free speech argument.

Have to say I've listened to a lot of his lectures and even though I don't agree with some of his positions he really is a brilliant mind.

Now, I'm off to clean my room and rescue my father from the belly of a whale, roughly speaking

ahnowbrowncow

No

Never seen or heard of him before but that was fairly impressive. No matter how often she interrupted and misrepresented him, he always seemed relaxed and had a prompt, well reasoned response.

JRant

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Never seen or heard of him before but that was fairly impressive. No matter how often she interrupted and misrepresented him, he always seemed relaxed and had a prompt, well reasoned response.

He has a great lecture series up on YouTube called Maps of Meaning. It really is well worth a watch. He is a rare mixture of academic brilliance and practical knowledge that is sadly lacking in most of academia these days.

He's brilliant. She tried to twist his words too much though, and that blocks out a lot of his message. He's right though... She wasn't listening to what he said... she was just looking for reasons to attack his position. The second he blocks her, she switches to something else.

Ha! Gotcha. Brilliant.

hots

Equal outcome Vs Equal opportunity is nail on the head. There should be no gender-specific barriers, what happens beyond that is fair game.

Saruhashi

silverharp wrote: »

more for information

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Hm. Her approach is very much like a certain poster around these parts.

silverharp

Saruhashi wrote: »

Hm. Her approach is very much like a certain poster around these parts.

lol, lucky I wasn't drinking coffee


I saw this summation elsewhere

Jordan Peterson: Y
Interviewer: So you're saying X?

Repeat for 29 minutes.

py2006

My god she is deplorable. A typical example of today's feminists.

Did I actually hear her say, "Pink cycle helmets cost more than blue ones"?????

DEFTLEFTHAND

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/

This is where this type of thing becomes dangerous. Denial of the physical differences between the two sexes.

I've read similar stories from the USA in recent times. Most notably the New York Fire Department who were sued by women who couldn't pass the rigorous physical test.

It's truly scary to think about it. Lives could be lost for the sake of 'equality'.

H3llR4iser

silverharp wrote: »

more for information

It's amazing how hard she tries to peddle the same "rinse & repeat" concept with her "are you saying that...". She seems devious and manipulative, but I'm starting to think the interviewer might be simply failing to understand his points due to her boiling with anger.

Most spectacular is when he uses her as her own example - basically, you're there and have the level of success you achieved because you're good at what you do, not because somebody decided you should be there because of being a woman...

silverharp

A short but good take down of Cathy Newman

Douglas Murray‏ @DouglasKMurray · 11m11 minutes ago


 More

New blog: 'Cathy Newman should be ashamed of her catastrophic interview with Jordan Peterson':

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/watch-cathy-newmans-catastrophic-interview-with-jordan-peterson/

Saruhashi

silverharp wrote: »

lol, lucky I wasn't drinking coffee

I saw this summation elsewhere

Jordan Peterson: Y
Interviewer: So you're saying X?

Repeat for 29 minutes.

Yeah, it is basically this.

It's actually something you'd see used against people who identify themselves as MRAs.

So you might be interested in a specific men's rights issue but because one guy somewhere doesn't want women in Star Wars all MRAs need to shoulder that burden.

So you drop the MRA label but then it's a case of you are interested in men's rights issues and so are MRAs so you are just like them and one of them wants women out of Star Wars so you do too and you're pathetic.

He says this to her when he points out that the group identity comes before the individual for a lot of "leftists". She doesn't seem to be self aware enough to see that she does exactly this when she tries to tie him to the alt-right and then tries to burden him with the responsibility for the actions of his followers.

It's becoming increasingly common to try to tie people to certain groups or labels in order to silence their opinion. I even saw it last week when there was a bit of a kerfuffle over Radiohead apparently suing Lana Del Rey over some copyright issue. Suddenly there was talk of "alt-right", "MRA" and "sexist" Radiohead fans. Yeah, Radiohead are well known for their extreme right wing following... WTF.

Even the "lobster" thing. She won't let that go because the idea that humans are similar to lobsters and that we could learn something about humans from studying lobsters sounds absurd if it is boiled down to just that simplistic comparison. In reality though he makes valid points about evolution and valid points about the nature of humans based on our evolutionary history.

I always understood why certain religious people had problems with the idea of evolution. It's not only a complex idea it's a very cold and uncaring idea too. It could leave you feeling unimportant and insignificant if you think about it too much.

It looks like the interviewer is kind of adopting that viewpoint to an extent. The idea that homo sapiens males and homo sapiens females might have fundamental differences that affect behaviors and characteristics due to millions of years of evolution doesn't sit right because it means there is nothing we can do about it and the "guiding hand" in our behavior is cold and uncaring.

Something that strikes me about the "pay gap" arguments is that there seems to be an impression that women should be entitled to high paying positions by virtue of being women or at least their path to the high paying positions should be more "gentle".

When Peterson says that men have to "fight" to get into positions of power and maybe that women are less able for that fight the response is along the lines of "well maybe women shouldn't need to fight for it". As if it is somehow a viable option.

A successful society is successful largely because of the competitive nature of that society. If you want something you need to go and get it. The bigger your goal, the bigger the challenge, the bigger the fight.

Standman

No

Wibbs wrote: »

I liked that back and forth. Both gave as good as they got. That's the kinda debate I like to see. Though she went a bit whataboutery a bit too often. You could tell both got into it. Always good.

Have to disagree, these kinds of debates always irk me. You can tell the interviewer is more concerned with appearing to "ask hard questions" than actually making any sense.

At times it was like he was talking to a tabloid-headline-generating robot that would just spit back whatever he had just eloquently said into a 1-sentence sensationalist soundbite. Over and over again.

Feminists (and those promoting feminist issues) seem to feel threatened by facts, statistics, and logical thinking. Every time he talks about evidence or proven research on something, she threw in something different again and again. The idea seems to be to blanket everything in issues so much that the truth can't be seen underneath.

The thing that gets me about the whole lack of women in the top jobs is that it assumes that all men are equal. It's like as if, every man has equal chance to reach those dizzying heights of top management. It totally ignores the millions of men who work in those companies who haven't the ambition, drive, education, intelligence or ability to get there. Instead, there must be some underhand reasons why women can't get there... It's not as if these women face the same challenges as all those men who do try to reach the top and burn out... and I have quite a few friends in middle management who did try, and failed utterly. You don't see focus groups complaining about their missed opportunities.

The gender position gap is inherently sexist.

py2006

Deleted User wrote: »

Feminists (and those promoting feminist issues) seem to feel threatened by facts, statistics, and logical thinking. Every time he talks about evidence or proven research on something, she threw in something different again and again. The idea seems to be to blanket everything in issues so much that the truth can't be seen underneath.

The thing that gets me about the whole lack of women in the top jobs is that it assumes that all men are equal. It's like as if, every man has equal chance to reach those dizzying heights of top management. It totally ignores the millions of men who work in those companies who haven't the ambition, drive, education, intelligence or ability to get there. Instead, there must be some underhand reasons why women can't get there... It's not as if these women face the same challenges as all those men who do try to reach the top and burn out... and I have quite a few friends in middle management who did try, and failed utterly. You don't see focus groups complaining about their missed opportunities.

The gender position gap is inherently sexist.

Well said.

tritium

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/entertainment/music/the-chainsmokers-alex-pall-allegedly-caught-cheating-by-girlfriend-tori-woodward-in-cctv-video/ar-AAuOBoR?li=AAdfeCr&ocid=spartanntp

So now posting CCTV of an ex's possible indiscretions is about empopwerment Particularly depressing to see this quote:

“if there was ever a time to hold powerful men accountable for their disgusting behavior, it’s now.”

Like hey guys, if any of you have ever had a girlfriend cheat on you, remember

#METOO!!

****ing shameful trivialisation of what victims of people like Weinstein have been through.

I'm confused. I've read the article but... It's about him cheating on her and being caught? No mention how she got the photos...

TBH... I'm skeptical and just wonder whether it's a publicity stunt to increase their band's profile/make more sales.

The Black Oil

First heard of Peterson due to gender pronouns. If he's in the UK he might have been invited to speak at Oxford Union. He's an interesting bloke, but the extent to which some worship the ground he walks on is a little odd.

silverharp

The Black Oil wrote: »

First heard of Peterson due to gender pronouns. If he's in the UK he might have been invited to speak at Oxford Union. He's an interesting bloke, but the extent to which some worship the ground he walks on is a little odd.

he has tapped a vein with 30 odd years of pressure building


I spotted this on youtube this morning , he's passionate and sincere and fairly unique in this space. I guess also he is credible and has credentials

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ER1LOarlgg

The Black Oil

When he first came to public (internet) attention I don't doubt there was a sense of relief for some - finally some pushback against the consensus, asking necessary questions, etc. And I don't see a reason to doubt his capacity as a clinical psychologist - not sure if he practices or just teaches. The state of colleges and certain social issues in North America seem a bit troubling to say the least. If there was an Irish version of him that would be welcome (I'm discounting some our more troll ish male journalists, their pushback never seems to stick).

But like any speaker, take with a grain of salt.

The Black Oil

The Black Oil wrote: »

If there was an Irish version of him that would be welcome

I'm still hoping that Wibbs will step up to the plate and starts swinging at the issues (in the media).

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

Hm. Her approach is very much like a certain poster around these parts.

Lol. Of course you could pull on your big boy panties and say what you mean.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. Of course you could pull on your big boy panties and say what you mean.

So you're saying you are thinking about me not wearing any panties? Or you're saying you're thinking about me wearing my little boy panties? Offt. I don't know which is worse.

You see, I meant it as a joke and part of the joke was not mentioning the "certain poster" by name.

That's, like, how the humor (or at least my attempt at humor) works here.

So I am saying "she sounds like a certain someone" wink wink nudge nudge so it's like a little in-joke for regular posters on the thread.

It's a bit more boring and a bit less subtle if my post was WAHAHAHAHA HOO WOO OMG LOL SHE'S JUST LIKE EL_DUDERINO_09!

You see?

I guess if you have to explain the joke, it's not funny.

Anyway. Yes, the lady in the video uses the same tactics and argumentation style as you (yes! you!) do. With pretty much the same results.

backspin.

The Black Oil wrote: »

First heard of Peterson due to gender pronouns. If he's in the UK he might have been invited to speak at Oxford Union. He's an interesting bloke, but the extent to which some worship the ground he walks on is a little odd.

I don't think too many people worship him. But he is an intelligent man going against the grain of excessive PC. Someone who so far the left have not been able to take down. We need voices like his. That's why I support him.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. Of course you could pull on your big boy panties and say what you mean.

So you're saying you are thinking about me not wearing any panties? Or you're saying you're thinking about me wearing my little boy panties? Offt. I don't know which is worse.

You see, I meant it as a joke and part of the joke was not mentioning the "certain poster" by name.

That's, like, how the humor (or at least my attempt at humor) works here.

So I am saying "she sounds like a certain someone" wink wink nudge nudge so it's like a little in-joke for regular posters on the thread.

It's a bit more boring and a bit less subtle if my post was WAHAHAHAHA HOO WOO OMG LOL SHE'S JUST LIKE EL_DUDERINO_09!

You see?

I guess if you have to explain the joke, it's not funny.

Anyway. Yes, the lady in the video uses the same tactics and argumentation style as you (yes! you!) do. With pretty much the same results.

Lol. If you had a point to make, you could just make it and maintain control of your bowels.

Interesting interview alright. I doubt much of the commentary would chime with his opening remarks about how some men need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves.

Is his comment that lots of men go through life without hearing complements true? He based that assertion on the fact that so many men take validation from his lectures. Is that the experience of many posters here?