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

Cookie_Monster

givyjoe wrote: »

Although, it doesn't seem to have been an obstacle to the Kiwi Prime Minister.

yet to be seen, there is no way she is going to have a full normal schedule right up until leave date, then there's 6 weeks with no PM, who knows what kind of restrictions after (if any).
Plus once you have a kid that age you cannot remain 100% committed to the job

Saruhashi

fly_agaric wrote: »

Don't think its comparable. Read another article on that this morning and seemed like they were duped somewhat. They definitely weren't hired on as a female equivalent of male strippers/"nude butlers" anyway.
The arrogance + self regard of these billionaires/1 % who seem to lord it over the rest of us all now in Western democracies is amazing. You'd think with all the stuff flying around at the moment they'd have the cop on not to stage a very public "party" of that nature, but I suppose you live in a sort of hermetic bubble universe when you've those levels of power & wealth.

It seems like they've been having this party for many years though.

I'm having a bit of a hard time believing that nobody knew what this party was like.

A "men only" gathering that costs more that 1k per ticket where the hostesses are informed beforehand what they need to wear, including lingerie. Auctions for strip club visits etc.

Allegedly the agency that interviewed and employed the hostesses had told guests that personal and private time with the hostesses could be facilitated through the agency.

If 2017 was the first ever year the party was held then maybe I could accept this shock and outrage. The fact that it has been going on year after year with essentially the same format tells me that people knew full well what was going on here.

I don't think they were ever in a bubble. I think that year after year the guests and the hostesses and people connected to them and the charities that would benefit and the media all knew what was going on but there was nothing to be gained in shouting it from the rooftops.

Now that there is a clear benefit in being "outraged" at such things it's a big deal.

To be clear, TO BE REALLY F-ING CLEAR, I think that the fact that these events are held and the way the hostesses are treated is sleazy and gross. I'm just not even slightly surprised.

I think the truth is that people who are suddenly acting like it's the most outrageous thing ever have known for years that this kind of stuff goes on.

I am sure that when the women were interviewed for the job nobody said "listen the guests are going to grope you and make sexual comments and advances" but surely when your potential employer says "you have to wear a sexy outfit and the correct lingerie to this super expensive all male event" there is some kind of red flag?

Are we really so naive when it comes to the excessive debauchery of the excessively rich? #NotAllRichPeople

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

If 2017 was the first ever year the party was held then maybe I could accept this shock and outrage. The fact that it has been going on year after year with essentially the same format tells me that people knew full well what was going on here.

Yes, there was nothing to be don't about that kind of behaviour in the past, but the climate has changed.

Saruhashi wrote:

I think the truth is that people who are suddenly acting like it's the most outrageous thing ever have known for years that this kind of stuff goes on.

Which 'people'are you referring to here? I didnt know about this event let alone what the hosts endure. Did you know?

The agency who hired the women knew. They had staff circling the event who prodded the hosts who weren't interacting enough with the quests. They weren't floating wait staff. They had assigned tables and they stood beside the tables all night and we're expected to interact with the quests continually. If they had staff circling to keep an eye on the women to make sure they interacted with the guests, they knew exactly what was happening.

The woman in charge of hiring and managing the women feigned outrage that such a thing would happen. Is that what you're referring to?

Saruhashi wrote:

I am sure that when the women were interviewed for the job nobody said "listen the guests are going to grope you and make sexual comments and advances" but surely when your potential employer says "you have to wear a sexy outfit and the correct lingerie to this super expensive all male event" there is some kind of red flag?

Yes I'm sure it was a red flag. People who are desperate to make ends meet are more vulnerable than people with plenty of money. What's your point.

Who knows how many of the hosts got £1000 for a sneaky blowjob after the event and are keeping quiet about it now. But that's not really the point, is it?

Has anyone managed to find a reason to put this in the sexism against men thread? Is anyone seriously claiming this is an example of sexism against men? I'd love to hear the argument that makes men the real victims in this story.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Has anyone managed to find a reason to put this in the sexism against men thread? Is anyone seriously claiming this is an example of sexism against men? I'd love to hear the argument that makes men the real victims in this story.

I think the point was that male staff at venues can be treated poorly by female guests, especially hen parties etc, and nobody really cares.

I definitely took that quite a bit off topic, for sure.

So yeah, you are probably right. My post doesn't really belong in this thread. I'm out.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

I think the point was that male staff at venues can be treated poorly by female guests, especially hen parties etc, and nobody really cares.

If you mean sex workers like strippers, then I think punters leering over them is part of the join description. Uninvited touching is always out of order. Take a look at the thread about men claiming to have been touched up by hen parties, then saying they didn't expect it to change.

The so both men and women get touched up. The difference is that

Saruhashi wrote:

So yeah, you are probably right. My post doesn't really belong in this thread. I'm out.

Oh no, stay and defend the sexual assault of wait staff at work. Lol.

Men happen to be the perpetrators in this specific instance, not the victims so probably best to bug out. It's amusing that a number of posters have brought this as up but nobody has actually been able to make a link to men's rights or sexism.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

The so both men and women get touched up. The difference is that

Typo. The difference is that women are standing up together and forcing people to discuss instances of sexual harassment against them. Men aren't doing the same.

I can't holding against someone who objects to sexual harassment, just because someone else doesn't object to their sexual harassment.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh no, stay and defend the sexual assault of wait staff at work. Lol.

Yes. I definitely think customers should be free to sexually assault wait staff at work. Not only do I think it's OK, I also defend these actions.*

That's not a misrepresentation of my views at all. No way.

Haven't we already been over this a few times?

"Lol"

*these are not my actual views

Zulu

No

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh no, stay and defend the sexual assault of wait staff at work. Lol..

:rolleyes: It never ceases to amaze me: both your blatant misrepresentation of posters, and your belligerent and antagonistic posting.

Have you no interest in fostering civil discourse?

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

Yes. I definitely think customers should be free to sexually assault wait staff at work. Not only do I think it's OK, I also defend these actions.*
That's not a misrepresentation of my views at all. No way.
Haven't we already been over this a few times?

Lol. Maybe I need to start putting asterisk with explanatory notes when I'm being intentionally ironic.

I just think it's hilarious that anyone would even think to out this in a thread about men's right. It's not exactly the kind of issue you can campaign on but it is the kind of issue you can give out about. Oh wait, now I get it.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me: both your blatant misrepresentation of posters, and your belligerent and antagonistic posting.

Lol it was a joke based on the idea of this issue being brought up in a sexism against men thread.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. Maybe I need to start putting asterisk with explanatory notes when I'm being intentionally ironic.

Maybe you do because you are absolutely woeful at getting a point across.

I just think it's hilarious that anyone would even think to out this in a thread about men's right. It's not exactly the kind of issue you can campaign on but it is the kind of issue you can give out about. Oh wait, now I get it.

I think the "men's rights" thread is another thread?

Anyway, who cares? You think it's hilarious and others want to give out about it. Fine.

Can't you just privately ask the moderators to clean up the thread or become a mod yourself or something?

Now you've dragged the thread even further off topic that it already was. I am definitely out this time.

Calhoun

Guys its simple as, if you don't like a poster style you don't respond to them. By feeding debate you feed your own annoyance.

Note though i dont really care what you do but might help folk from getting upset.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

I think the "men's rights" thread is another thread?

Oh don't worry, someone has brought it up in that thread too. Embarrassing as it might seem, they also haven't found a reason to link their outrage to men's right either.

Saruhashi wrote:

Anyway, who cares? You think it's hilarious and others want to give out about it. Fine.

Yes I think it's hilarious that someone could by reflex consider this a case of sexism against men.

Saruhashi wrote:

Can't you just privately ask the moderators to clean up the thread or become a mod yourself or something?

Yeah maybe I should. I'll ask Wins to recommend me. Lol. *

Saruhashi wrote:

Now you've dragged the thread even further off topic that it already was. I am definitely out this time.

Best not to pursue it. It's a naked example of seeing any bad behaviour by some men as an attack on all men, which is ridiculous.

*For the humourless, that was a joke based on a juxtaposition of my statement with its likelihood of happening.

Zulu

No

Calhoun wrote: »

Guys its simple as, if you don't like a poster style you don't respond to them.

Ah yeah, I do get that. In the main I don't even read their posts anymore.

tritium

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/pensions/men-to-miss-out-on-40-per-week-after-regina-dohertys-pensions-fix-36528297.html

Really looks like putting a fix in to keep the loudest voices happy.

JRant

Just seen a report on RTE news about a girl only event taking place to encourage more women in to the world of STEM (not that there are any barriers). Seems to be for transition year students.

http://www.iwish.ie/

Had a look through the event hosts webpage, well low and behold there is this gem on the front page
"The lack of female participation in STEM means we are leaving 50% of the talent pool behind. Changing this can solve the current skills gap in the industry"

Without a hint of irony they complain about 50% of the talent pool behind, while simultaneously leaving 50% of the talent pool behind.
What I really don't understand is how much traction this type of stuff gets and is never questioned. Girls are not being "left behind", in fact they are far out performing boys in both secondary and third level yet this is never brought up. It's all about how excluded women are in STEM, although I've yet to see a single example of this, and it seems to be taken as gospel.

El_Duderino 09

JRant wrote:

Girls are not being "left behind", in fact they are far out performing boys in both secondary and third level yet this is never brought up.

Boys matched girls in the UK last year for the first time in years and it was brought up as a problem that boys have fallen behind. The Guardian brought it up first and it got loads of discussion in the uk. Not sure if the discussion made it to Ireland or not.

It's not true to say it's never brought up, unpopular as it is to say. I'm sure I'm wrong for... reasons. But that's what happened.

JRant

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Boys matched girls in the UK last year for the first time in years and it was brought up as a problem that boys have fallen behind. The Guardian brought it up first and it got loads of discussion in the uk. Not sure if the discussion made it to Ireland or not.

It's not true to say it's never brought up, unpopular as it is to say. I'm sure I'm wrong for... reasons. But that's what happened.

It didn't make it here because it has nothing to do with here. Results of exam results in the UK has zero to do with results here and is clearly what I am discussing.
So yes, it is true to say.
Why are you bringing up something from another country anyway?

JRant

tritium wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/pensions/men-to-miss-out-on-40-per-week-after-regina-dohertys-pensions-fix-36528297.html

Really looks like putting a fix in to keep the loudest voices happy.

Let's not forget that on average women will receive their pension for approximately 4 years more than men as well.

Although the way current governments are going, people in their 30/40s now could be looking at over 70 years of age before receiving a pension.

El_Duderino 09

JRant wrote:

It didn't make it here because it has nothing to do with here. Results of exam results in the UK has zero to do with results here and is clearly what I am discussing. So yes, it is true to say. Why are you bringing up something from another country anyway?

It was discussed in these threads so it was discussed in Ireland. Naturally, I was very supportive of discussion of men's needs in education. I saw it at great news so it stood out in my memory.

Iseedeadpixels

El D please stop posting "lol"

Saruhashi

JRant wrote: »

Just seen a report on RTE news about a girl only event taking place to encourage more women in to the world of STEM (not that there are any barriers). Seems to be for transition year students.

http://www.iwish.ie/

Had a look through the event hosts webpage, well low and behold there is this gem on the front page
"The lack of female participation in STEM means we are leaving 50% of the talent pool behind. Changing this can solve the current skills gap in the industry"

Without a hint of irony they complain about 50% of the talent pool behind, while simultaneously leaving 50% of the talent pool behind.
What I really don't understand is how much traction this type of stuff gets and is never questioned. Girls are not being "left behind", in fact they are far out performing boys in both secondary and third level yet this is never brought up. It's all about how excluded women are in STEM, although I've yet to see a single example of this, and it seems to be taken as gospel.

Yeah, if there is a skills gap in the industry then surely they'd need to work on getting both boys and girls into STEM?

Do we have peak saturation level for boys in that every boy who is, or will be, interested in STEM is already, or will be, working towards a career in the industry?

Or can the skills gap only be filled by girls?

There's a skills gap in the industry so lets try to get every single individual we can interested in this industry to fill the gap? No. We only want to fill the gap with non-male identifying people.

I don't know so much about people being "left behind" as once the kids get out of school they will be free to pursue whichever careers they are interested in.

I think what we are seeing here is that there is a trend "women are less interested in STEM" and it has been decided that the trend needs to be changed. However, I'm not sure the way to reverse the trend is to be exclusionary.

It kind of feels like if they can't get girls interested in STEM they will at least make sure they ignore boys who might be interested.

I wonder if we do have young lads who are interested in attending some science events but are being told that those events are "girls only".

Is there a concern that if the conference is gender neutral then you will see a load of boys showing up and girls will be inclined to stay away?

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Boys matched girls in the UK last year for the first time in years and it was brought up as a problem that boys have fallen behind. The Guardian brought it up first and it got loads of discussion in the uk. Not sure if the discussion made it to Ireland or not.

It's not true to say it's never brought up, unpopular as it is to say. I'm sure I'm wrong for... reasons. But that's what happened.

It’s been a steadily worsening problem for decades. Boys performance has been below girls in most subjects (stem is the exception). There’s been considerable research as to why that has been brought up in this forum. One of the main reasons it’s started, slowly, to get airtime in mainstream media is because advocates for males have refused to let it go.

You know, the whinging you’ve accused men’s rights groups of doing in some of your previous contributions here.

silverharp

in the UK it says the top grade only they didn't say overall depending on how you define it. What they did was get rid of course work/ and modules. Ireland seems to be going the opposite way and introducing course work that wasn't there before

El_Duderino 09

Iseedeadpixels wrote:

El D please stop posting "lol"

Lol. Will do lol*

* For the humourless, that was a joke based on agreeing to stop posting lol and then posting lol.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote:

It’s been a steadily worsening problem for decades. Boys performance has been below girls in most subjects (stem is the exception). There’s been considerable research as to why that has been brought up in this forum. One of the main reasons it’s started, slowly, to get airtime in mainstream media is because advocates for males have refused to let it go.

You know, the whinging you’ve accused men’s rights groups of doing in some of your previous contributions here.

Oh no. That's genuine, real world campaigning to address an inequality. More power to them. They deserve great credit. It was the Guardian who raised it in the UK and brought it to mainstream discussion last year.

Very different from the whinging that I have called whinging.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

in the UK it says the top grade only they didn't say overall depending on how you define it. What they did was get rid of course work/ and modules. Ireland seems to be going the opposite way and introducing course work that wasn't there before

That's right. In any case they used that score to highlight that men have slipped behind in education and spark a much needed discussion.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh no. That's genuine, real world campaigning to address an inequality. More power to them. They deserve great credit. It was the Guardian who raised it in the UK and brought it to mainstream discussion last year.

Very different from the whinging that I have called whinging.

Eh no, it most definitely was not the guardian that raised it, jumping on a bandwagon doesn’t earn brownie points I’m afraid.

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/27199/1/CDP-2016-0151.pdf

Plenty of links in there to groups who have raised this (and indeed some media sources brushing it off). Of course this isn’t a new phenomena. Here’s a link to a report from somewhat earlier. Many of the conclusions will be familiar to anyone who’s followed this topic on here
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090108131527/http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RTP01-07.pdf

Of course the Guardian *has* reported on this in the past, they just haven’t cared to make much issue of it in for example the 7years since they printed this

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2010/sep/01/girls-boys-schools-gender-gap

tritium

The telegraph for all its flaws has been one of the main outlets banging the drum (whinging?) about the issue of educational disadvantage for boys in the UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11965045/White-working-class-boys-are-the-worst-performing-ethnic-group-at-school.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/our-education-system-must-stop-ignoring-its-bias-against-boys/amp/

Ironic given the derisory ‘Torygraph’ moniker often thrown at it then that it’s a Tory education secretary who’s been credited with the changes that have closed some of the gap

fly_agaric

Saruhashi wrote: »

It seems like they've been having this party for many years though.

I'm having a bit of a hard time believing that nobody knew what this party was like....
I am sure that when the women were interviewed for the job nobody said "listen the guests are going to grope you and make sexual comments and advances" but surely when your potential employer says "you have to wear a sexy outfit and the correct lingerie to this super expensive all male event" there is some kind of red flag?

Yes, you're right. Some of the hostesses might have been naive or else the depravity & lechery was worse than they'd expected when they signed up!

Saruhashi wrote: »

I don't think they were ever in a bubble. I think that year after year the guests and the hostesses and people connected to them and the charities that would benefit and the media all knew what was going on but there was nothing to be gained in shouting it from the rooftops.

They thought they could carry on exactly as before despite what has been happening for the last few months; maybe that was naive but then I consider that none of these people are ignorant, nor are they poorly advised. The obscene wealth they possess and the power they wield over others every day of their lives because of it is the only good reason I can think of as to why they didn't cop the fact that holding such an event in public at this time might not be a good idea. I suppose it is a transparent "bubble", they may know what is going on outside, but feel it doesn't apply to them!

Saruhashi wrote: »

Now that there is a clear benefit in being "outraged" at such things it's a big deal. I think the truth is that people who are suddenly acting like it's the most outrageous thing ever have known for years that this kind of stuff goes on.

Are we really so naive when it comes to the excessive debauchery of the excessively rich? #NotAllRichPeople

Yes, definitely. I hope outrage at such behaviour lasts for a while + keeps some people who abuse their power on their toes but will probably die down soon and the media/public interest will be shifted elsewhere/people will get more canny in keeping their nastiness out of public view.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh no. That's genuine, real world campaigning to address an inequality. More power to them. They deserve great credit. It was the Guardian who raised it in the UK and brought it to mainstream discussion last year.

Very different from the whinging that I have called whinging.

Eh no, it most definitely was not the guardian that raised it, jumping on a bandwagon doesn’t earn brownie points I’m afraid.

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/27199/1/CDP-2016-0151.pdf

Plenty of links in there to groups who have raised this (and indeed some media sources brushing it off).  Of course this isn’t a new phenomena. Here’s a link to a report from somewhat earlier. Many of the conclusions will be familiar to anyone who’s followed this topic on here
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090108131527/http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RTP01-07.pdf

Of course the Guardian *has* reported on this in the past, they just haven’t cared to make much issue of it in for example the 7years since they printed this

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2010/sep/01/girls-boys-schools-gender-gap

Ah, I was talking about this article at the time of exam results in 2017 - the article that sparked discussion of boys lagging behind girls consistently for the last number of years. Yes it was the Guardian article that sparked the discussion in the UK at that time. It was a really useful discussion and a lot of people had no idea that boys had been lagging behind. Thanks Guardian. 
Its great that there was a Commons report and a debate on the subject in 2016 and thanks for linking to a Guardian article about a piece of educational psychology research from 2010. I'm not sure why you linked to that but thanks for the research anyway.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote: »

Yes, you're right. Some of the hostesses might have been naive or else the depravity & lechery was worse than they'd expected when they signed up!

TBH I somehow suspect that nobody had any problems with the event until the reporters drew up their article about the event, and likely encouraged some witnesses to be offended.

These kinds of parties are fairly common internationally, and the girls "invited" would know that they're there to be pretty, attentive and be propositioned. These kind of women are seeking a rich/wealthy boyfriend or someone to support them, or simply willing to earn their wage in such an environment.

I've looked through a variety of these articles but none of them really state how the women were selected. It's not as if they were guests. They were hired to act as hostesses. (and if you ever speak to an actual hostess, you'd know what kind of behavior they expect from private parties)

They thought they could carry on exactly as before despite what has been happening for the last few months; maybe that was naive but then I consider that none of these people are ignorant, nor are they poorly advised.

They probably thought the confidentiality contract would help in most cases, and likely didn't think two reporters would gate crash their event, go "undercover", etc.

And lets cut the BS a bit here. None of the women were forced to be there. They weren't forced to stay. Nobody was physically harmed. Some of them were "touched", or propositioned but again, they could have removed themselves from the environment at any time.

This is just more of this victim/infant mentality that suggests that women can't make their own decisions, and they need someone else to protect them. Those women put themselves in that party...

Yes, definitely. I hope outrage at such behaviour lasts for a while + keeps some people who abuse their power on their toes but will probably die down soon and the media/public interest will be shifted elsewhere/people will get more canny in keeping their nastiness out of public view.

Personally, I see it as a BS situation, and unlikely to help anyone, especially the charities that would have benefited originally. But hey! that's ok.. because "women" are safer now.

I wonder has anyone asked whether hostesses are happy with their livelihood being demolished this way... :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/aug/17/a-level-results-show-first-rise-in-top-grades-in-six-years

Looking back, the main national daily newspapers covered the story. The guardian was credited with sparking the debate but it might not have been all down to them

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah, I was talking about this article at the time of exam results in 2017 - the article that sparked discussion of boys lagging behind girls consistently for the last number of years. Yes it was the Guardian article that sparked the discussion in the UK at that time. It was a really useful discussion and a lot of people had no idea that boys had been lagging behind. Thanks Guardian. 
Its great that there was a Commons report and a debate on the subject in 2016 and thanks for linking to a Guardian article about a piece of educational psychology research from 2010. I'm not sure why you linked to that but thanks for the research anyway.

Well you seem smart enough to understand why. I linked it because you’d posted nonsense crediting the guardian with something they didnt actually do, bringing the topic of boys educational disadvantage into the mainstream. I don’t really know why you linked it, or indeed continue to defend it once debunked-i could be cynical here given the way you post here but I prefer not to. So for illustration I helpfully demonstrated how theyd actually jumped conveniently on a bandwagon that they’d ignored for a long time. I even helpfully showed how a variety of commentators had picked up a torch that the Guardian had ignored (very unlike the Guardian...). So I guess, given the significant number of media sources quoted in that commons report, that when you say “a lot of people had no idea” you really mean “anyone who only gets their commentary from the Guardian had no idea”. I’m afraid that as much as the Guardian likes to big up their social credentials this is one they really can’t take any credit for.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Well you seem smart enough to understand why. I linked it because you’d posted nonsense crediting the guardian with something they didnt actually do, bringing the topic of boys educational disadvantage into the mainstream. I don’t really know why you linked it, or indeed continue to defend it once debunked-i could be cynical here given the way you post here but I prefer not to. So for illustration I helpfully demonstrated how theyd actually jumped conveniently on a bandwagon that they’d ignored for a long time. I even helpfully showed how a variety of commentators had picked up a torch that the Guardian had ignored (very unlike the Guardian...). So I guess, given the significant number of media sources quoted in that commons report, that when you say “a lot of people had no idea” you really mean “anyone who only gets their commentary from the Guardian had no idea”. I’m afraid that as much as the Guardian likes to big up their social credentials this is one they really can’t take any credit for.

Right, well since you got snippy about it and decide to bring ‘the way I post’ into it, I’ll set you straight.

I said the guardian sparked a discussion last year (that’s 2017) in the uk. I read the guardian article at the time and it was discussed in tv and radio politics shows. It was credited as a guardian report hit it seems that all the major papers covered it at the same time.

So sideswipes at guardian readers aside, I brought it up because it happened (last year). If you’re going to get snippy, at least read the posts

And the discussion highlighted that lots of people didn’t know that boys were behind girls in exam results so we’ll done the guardian and the other publications that covered the story and brought it to public attention. Wouldn't you agree?

Maybe you read all the House of Commons reports, but most people don’t.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Right, well since you got snippy about it and decide to bring ‘the way I post’ into it, I’ll set you straight.

I said the guardian sparked a discussion last year (that’s 2017) in the uk. I read the guardian article at the time and it was discussed in tv and radio politics shows. It was credited as a guardian report hit it seems that all the major papers covered it at the same time.

So sideswipes at guardian readers aside, I brought it up because it happened (last year). If you’re going to get snippy, at least read the posts

And the discussion highlighted that lots of people didn’t know that boys were behind girls in exam results so we’ll done the guardian and the other publications that covered the story and brought it to public attention. Wouldn't you agree?

Maybe you read all the House of Commons reports, but most people don’t.

Oh I’d say well done to all the media outlets that have been covering this for a number of years. Well done too to those who highlight this discrepancy on an almost annual basis, many of whom are credited in the commons report for their (pre 2017) coverage. I am actually reasonably pleased that your paper of choice eventually got around to reporting it too, regardless of whether it was bandwagonning since it means that an important message is shared with a demographic that wouldn’t be known for their awareness of this issue in spite of it being pretty oft repeated

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote:

Oh I’d say well done to all the media outlets that have been covering this for a number of years. Well done too to those who highlight this discrepancy on an almost annual basis, many of whom are credited in the commons report for their (pre 2017) coverage. I am actually reasonably pleased that your paper of choice eventually got around to reporting it too, regardless of whether it was bandwagonning since it means that an important message is shared with a demographic that wouldn’t be known for their awareness of this issue in spite of it being pretty oft repeated

Yes. Well done to the papers who covers it last August, such as the Guardian. How magnanimous of you. I didn't say it was my paper of choice and it's not my paper of choice as it goes, it's just too easy to get you to jump to conclusions. We're in agreement that it's a discussion that should be encouraged to help other people catch up with your enlightened self. Lol

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes. Well done to the papers who covers it last August, such as the Guardian. How magnanimous of you. I didn't say it was my paper of choice and it's not my paper of choice as it goes, it's just too easy to get you to jump to conclusions. We're in agreement that it's a discussion that should be encouraged to help other people catch up with your enlightened self. Lol

Ah, you’re a last worder I see, how cute! Yes well done to them, and the ones who covered it the year before and the year before that. And to the people who have been keeping it in the public eye for many years, speaking up to try to effect change. And I’ll gladly accept papers like the Guardian deciding to come late to the party if it means even more coverage since there are clearly people out there who think this is a new debate and anything that helps reach them and open their mind to this is a good thing

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote:

Ah, you’re a last worder I see, how cute! Yes well done to them, and the ones who covered it the year before and the year before that. And to the people who have been keeping it in the public eye for many years, speaking up to try to effect change. And I’ll gladly accept papers like the Guardian deciding to come late to the party if it means even more coverage since there are clearly people out there who think this is a new debate and anything that helps reach them and open their mind to this is a good thing

Is there any point explaining again that it rose to the level of public discussion last august? I know because I was living and working in the up at the time. It was discussed in the TV and radio news and even in my work at lunchtime. HOC reports are not exactly hot topics of discussion by normal people. In any case I'm sure were standing shoulder to shoulder celebrating the fact that an important topic became part of public discourse for a time and raised awareness of the issue.

So when there is widespread discussion of the topic you choose to denigrate the people who learns about it for not knowing about it sooner. Getting what you want and still complaining about it. Ah the MRAs. MRWs might be more apt.

Zulu

No

1. Make a point.
2. Level an insult.

Nice posting style [/sarcasm].

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is there any point explaining again that it rose to the level of public discussion last august? I know because I was living and working in the up at the time. It was discussed in the TV and radio news and even in my work at lunchtime. HOC reports are not exactly hot topics of discussion by normal people. In any case I'm sure were standing shoulder to shoulder celebrating the fact that an important topic became part of public discourse for a time and raised awareness of the issue.

So when there is widespread discussion of the topic you choose to denigrate the people who learns about it for not knowing about it sooner. Getting what you want and still complaining about it. Ah the MRAs. MRWs might be more apt.

Where exactly did I denigrate anyone?

I pointed out this has been an issue for some time - demonstrably true

I showed that it has been raised in media for some time - demonstrably true also

I acknowledged your point that you hadn’t seen this raised before last year- this was one of your points

I lauded the fact that some sources that traditionally have ignored this story had now brought it up. Clearly it’s a good thing if you’ve now been made aware of it.


Denigrate? I think you may not be using that word correctly

Wibbs

maybe

El_Duderino 09, opposing viewpoints are one thing but enough is enough. Your constant deflection, dishonesty about how other people post and low level baiting and snide digs have gone too far. Near enough to the level of trolling.

In short: Don't post in this thread again. We may revisit this thread ban down the line.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH I somehow suspect that nobody had any problems with the event until the reporters drew up their article about the event, and likely encouraged some witnesses to be offended.

From report, some of the "hostesses" got a bit more than they bargained for at the event so agree maybe they were foolish taking on that job, but they did "have a problem" with it. We would not have heard about that because they were told to sign a legal secrecy document before staring work. If I, as a legal ignoramus was doing that job serving a bunch of these masters of the universe, it would certainly tend to scare me into silence.

Deleted User wrote: »

These kinds of parties are fairly common internationally, and the girls "invited" would know that they're there to be pretty, attentive and be propositioned. These kind of women are seeking a rich/wealthy boyfriend or someone to support them, or simply willing to earn their wage in such an environment.

I don't know that seems more naive than thinking there will be no bad behaviour at all. That one of these rich pillar of UK society men, probably with trophy wife already and maybe mistresses too is going to play sugar daddy and sort out all your money worries? Might be like winning the lottery.

Do people not take such a job because they need the money. Jobs like that, serving at a one off event etc are a fast way to get some cash in hand + they'll put up with what they have to to be paid. Was a long night and it wasn't a massive wage for it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've looked through a variety of these articles but none of them really state how the women were selected.

Think the original Financial Times article said it was looks, slim, young and pretty.

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder has anyone asked whether hostesses are happy with their livelihood being demolished this way... :rolleyes:

People are always going to need staffing for events. Will be an improvement in conditions if the attendees feeling you up/sticking their hand up your skirt isn't a semi-implied part of that.
If they want strippers or escorts they can go hire them. I'm sure the men attending all have funds to fly themselves (first class or on their own jets) to somewhere they can hold a "charity" event and can hire as many sex workers for it as they like legally.

Saruhashi

I saw another article about the women in STEM event and it got me thinking a bit more about why these campaigns are run.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/video/news/founder-of-i-wish-stem-showcase-seeswish-for-female-pupils-come-true-466302.html

One of the things that stands out is that this seems to be a "girls only" event meaning that if there are boys who are sort of on the fence about STEM then there is no real push to get them in there.

By mentioning the % of women in STEM currently I feel that there is an implication that this % can only increase by asking companies to stop giving men the jobs and give then to women instead to balance the numbers.

So we have STEM events that exclude boys and we hassle STEM companies about their ratio of male to female employees. How is that not sexist?

Surely the right thing to do is have STEM events that are open to all and allow companies to employ the best candidates? If there is a gender disparity then I feel like the best idea would be to employ a watchdog group to make sure that the best candidates are getting the jobs. So if a company interviews 5 men and 5 women for 2 roles and gives both to men then as long as they can justify that those 2 men are the best for the job then it's allowed.

Why STEM specifically though? Is it just because of money? Is there anything specific about careers in STEM that make them particularly special or rewarding?

One of the things I was thinking is that "science" is seen as pretty trendy these days? So we want to see more "cool" women?

I'm not sure that it's quite so cool when "doing science" really means "getting into loads of debt and then working 65 hour weeks with only one day off".

We don't see the same push to get men into jobs within female dominated careers but actually a lot of those careers are seen as fulfilling in ways that are not simply "it's cool and you get loads of money".

We equally don't see the same push to get women into traditionally male careers where the salaries are lower and the work is harder.

The logic seems to be that you make more money in STEM therefore we need more women in STEM but then that really has nothing to do with equality, right? You'd need an equal push elsewhere in society to balance the genders across ALL careers before you could really claim it's about equality.

terryduff12

Get theses hard working well able Women out on the building site, get them out collecting bins, get them out mixing cement and carrying two buckets up a ladder for the blocklayer. Get them outside the warm office and watching snapchat all day. Only women you see on a site is the health and safety gang with their clipboards.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote: »

From report, some of the "hostesses" got a bit more than they bargained for at the event so agree maybe they were foolish taking on that job, but they did "have a problem" with it. We would not have heard about that because they were told to sign a legal secrecy document before staring work. If I, as a legal ignoramus was doing that job serving a bunch of these masters of the universe, it would certainly tend to scare me into silence.

I'm curious... do you think that these hostesses might have been pressured by the reporters to have a problem with the party?

You see, I'm assuming that these are "career" hostesses or women that are used to going to parties of the rich.

I don't know that seems more naive than thinking there will be no bad behaviour at all. That one of these rich pillar of UK society men, probably with trophy wife already and maybe mistresses too is going to play sugar daddy and sort out all your money worries? Might be like winning the lottery.

Bad behavior? um... What is bad behavior? Touching a hostess is quite normal in the hostess bars/clubs while you speak to them. Obviously not grabbing their breasts or such, but... The article suggests that the men behaved badly, but doesn't say that they went beyond what used to be considered normal touching for flirting (extremities)... And the only real reference of going overboard was related to the prostitutes that showed up.

Have you ever seen websites like seekingarrangements(dot)com or other similar websites? They're very popular mediums for women who want to hook up with a rich guy. This kind of setup isn't particularly popular in Ireland, but it's far more common in other countries.

Do people not take such a job because they need the money. Jobs like that, serving at a one off event etc are a fast way to get some cash in hand + they'll put up with what they have to to be paid. Was a long night and it wasn't a massive wage for it.

You have details on their wages?

They were hired to be beautiful at an all-male event. Told to dress in a partiularly sexy/elegent manner. That in itself is highly suggestive of their duties.

I'll still stand by the idea of choice. If your work is based around your physical beauty, and relates directly to parties/events, you're placing yourself in the crosshairs. Don't want that kind of attention? Do something else.

Think the original Financial Times article said it was looks, slim, young and pretty.

Yup. Got that part. Nothing else though. Nothing to say whether they were part of an angency, models, etc

People are always going to need staffing for events. Will be an improvement in conditions if the attendees feeling you up/sticking their hand up your skirt isn't a semi-implied part of that.

There is a rather big difference between being a waitress or simply working at an event.. and being a hostess (one of many). This kind of attitude demolishes context.

If they want strippers or escorts they can go hire them. I'm sure the men attending all have funds to fly themselves (first class or on their own jets) to somewhere they can hold a "charity" event and can hire as many sex workers for it as they like legally.

I lived in Asia for quite a bit of time. You could get a prostitute for roughly 20 euro. And yet, hostess clubs are extremely popular. You go to a club, sit and drink with a beautiful woman, flirt (lightly touch) with her, but there is no kissing or sex. You can try to arrange something but most of these clubs don't allow propositioning. These places are simply to relax, drink, and conversation with a woman. And they're expensive.

People go to these places for reasons other than sex. And that's the idea behind the hostess scene with parties. You have beautiful women who will laugh at your jokes, will flirt with you, etc, but usually doesn't lead to sex. And the article doesn't describe anything other than that, except where the reporters (who weren't hostesses) felt uncomfortable with the attention.

These kinds of parties are nothing new, and the women who attended them would have known what was expected of them. It's not like this was a new event, with no associated reputation or backstory. It's highly unlikely that the men suddenly changed their behavior just that night, for that event. They would have behaved the same way the previous party. It's only the reporters and the article that have raised this as being some seedy horrible event.

Personally, I think it's been blown totally out of proportion.

gizmo555

Saruhashi wrote: »

We equally don't see the same push to get women into traditionally male careers where the salaries are lower and the work is harder.

Or the work is more dangerous. I was reading stats on fatal workplace accidents in the UK recently. Few people would be surprised to know that men do riskier jobs, but I was still startled to see that 97% of workplace deaths are men. Can you imagine the furore if the genders were reversed?

iptba

gizmo555 wrote: »

Or the work is more dangerous. I was reaing stats on fatal workplace accidents in the UK recently. Few people would be surprised to know that men do riskier jobs, but I was still startled to see that 97% of workplace deaths are men. Can you imagine the furore if the genders were reversed?

When I looked previously in Ireland, they didn't give the gender breakdown of fatal workplace accidents. They gave a description of what happened so I'm pretty sure they knew the gender. For nearly all of them, it seemed to be jobs where the vast majority if not all of the workforce would be male.

They gave the gender breakdown for more minor injuries in the workplace but not deaths which is frustrating.

Wibbs

maybe

terryduff12 wrote: »

Get theses hard working well able Women out on the building site, get them out collecting bins, get them out mixing cement and carrying two buckets up a ladder for the blocklayer. Get them outside the warm office and watching snapchat all day. Only women you see on a site is the health and safety gang with their clipboards.

True, but I'd last pissing time on a building site. Probably flattened by a falling brick before lunch. Goes for many many men. Just that more men are willing and capable and want to work in that kinda environment.

gizmo555 wrote: »

Or the work is more dangerous. I was reading stats on fatal workplace accidents in the UK recently. Few people would be surprised to know that men do riskier jobs, but I was still startled to see that 97% of workplace deaths are men. Can you imagine the furore if the genders were reversed?

Aye, but like I say there is a large disparity in choice of work/career. Even though some "feminists" seem to think we're blank slates. When it suits... :rolleyes: A proportion of men are far more likely to take dangerous jobs than women would. Just like more women are going to go into the caring/health careers. I mean nurses are dealing on an hourly basis with pretty gross sh1t(literally) and few enough men go into that by choice. Outside of general office type work where things might be more equal, in general and on average men and women tend to want different careers and at the extremes these differences are more obvious.

One eyed Jack

gizmo555 wrote: »

Or the work is more dangerous. I was reading stats on fatal workplace accidents in the UK recently. Few people would be surprised to know that men do riskier jobs, but I was still startled to see that 97% of workplace deaths are men. Can you imagine the furore if the genders were reversed?

Personally, I don't care that there aren't more women in high risk jobs. I have no time for what has become modern feminism*, but instead of pointing out that women don't want to work in jobs with high fatality rates for men, shouldn't we as men be working to come up with ways to make these jobs safer for men that are already working in them? Of course the corollary effect of making any job safer is that it requires more automation which means less manual labour is required which means jobs become redundant.

So there is a trade-off there between high-paying, physically demanding, high risk jobs which men are generally better suited to, or making the task safer for men and reducing the value of the task to low-paid button pushing, which anyone regardless of gender with an IQ above single digits can do, for very low pay.



*Only the other day I was told that my wife made 'the sacrifice' to stay at home to raise our child while I 'carried on as normal', as if this wasn't a decision we made together at the time which suited us as a couple, while at the same time the same people want to encourage men to become stay at home fathers! I'm cynical of any such moves because what it suggests is that they believe women can't get ahead in the workplace on their own merits and compete against men for promotions on a level playing field. Their 'solution' appears to be to appeal to the 'opposing team' if you will to stay in the dressing room so they can score a few points.

That contradictory ideology simply doesn't work, neither at an individual level, nor at a societal level, which is why we have feminists taking gender studies courses in college complaining about the lack of representation of women in STEM careers, and feminists in STEM careers complaining because they can't find a man who wants to stay at home to raise their children.