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

the_pen_turner

that's true wibbs but when did you last hear a campaign to attract women into those careers . there are lots of room from female construction wrokers. leaving the heavy work aside you have hvac, telecoms, electrical , data cabling, fiber optic, satellite, heating engineer etc etc


problem is these jobs arnt glamourous so there is no campaign to push women into them

the_pen_turner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

a lot of those jobs with high fatality rates are in jobs where automation wont really work. like roofing, forestry , working underground in mines etc.

you will always have a proportion at will do something stupid . if that idiot is working in an office there isn't a lot that will risk their life. do something stupid on a building site or a farm etc and the risk to life goes up dramatically

One eyed Jack

the_pen_turner wrote: »

a lot of those jobs with high fatality rates are in jobs where automation wont really work. like roofing, forestry , working underground in mines etc.

you will always have a proportion at will do something stupid . if that idiot is working in an office there isn't a lot that will risk their life. do something stupid on a building site or a farm etc and the risk to life goes up dramatically

Wouldn't that provide a more plausible explanation as to why feminists would not want to encourage women into these jobs than simply the idea that they aren't particularly glamorous?

FWIW btw I do know a handful, and that's all it is, a handful, of women working in manual labour jobs, and they have absolutely no time for academic feminist ideals. They do however provide leadership and mentoring to young women to encourage them to take up a trade or profession such as mechanic, welder, engineer, construction, etc. As you point out there are plenty of skilled jobs that aren't glamourous, but they are just as rewarding and fulfilling at the same time.

The point I'm making is that it's leadership is required, and sorely lacking in the modern feminist movement, which has become more infatuated with identity politics and victimhood. I'd rather not see men going that way and pointing fingers because women aren't interested in doing high risk jobs that men haven't been forced into either.

Pawwed Rig

A point of view of a girl who lost her job due to the current trends

Wood, speaking to BBC Radio 5 live, said: "Everybody chooses to do a job, and I feel like if I'm being told I can't do this job, then my rights are being taken away.
"I have chosen to do this job. I go to work, I put on a nice dress and I escort darts players on to the stage. I smile and that is it. I don't honestly see what the problem is.
"Where do we stop with this? I would be immensely proud if I had a daughter [doing the job of a walk-on girl]."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/42841620

Saruhashi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Yes. We should do that. I would guess that the most dangerous jobs, in Western nations at least, are the jobs with the strictest health and safety regulations.

If we are talking in the context of gender equality in the workplace though then there is a major disconnect when people want to see gender equality in the comfortable and well paying jobs while completely ignoring gender inequality in dangerous jobs.

If you point out that over 75% of STEM workers are male, there is uproar because people see a STEM career as a glamorous high paying career. So we can say "women are 50% of the population so 50% of people in STEM should be women" and people will vigorously agree.

OK.

Then you point out that 97% of workplace deaths are men and the conversation about gender equality just evaporates. The people who care so much about everything being 50-50 are suddenly nowhere to be found.

Of course it's daft to say that we need to get more female fatalities in the workplace. That's awful.

However, when we are talking about men and women in STEM, we are viewing "Men" as a group and "Women" as a group.

So isn't it a fair trade for "Men"? You'll be 97% of workplace fatalities but you'll be represented in 75% of these comfortable and well paid STEM careers?

It's in areas like this where the group identity ideas for workplace equality break down. You won't find Feminists campaigning to have more female fatalities in the workplace. Even though women are under-represented in the stats.

Yup, and when that 50% of people being women is reached, then the actual percentage will be pushed into the background, but the promotion of women being given help in that industry will continue (who can deny that more women than men in the workplace isn't a good sign of changing social bias :rolleyes:), with the focus shifting to the best positions available (regardless of the actual requirements to achieve that position).

At the end of the day, every initiative to promote women in any workplace is justified by the actions (discrimination) of "men" in the past. That's not going to go away. Doesn't matter when you were born, but as a man, you are responsible for the discrimination that women had to face (Don't worry, even if they didn't face gender discrimination themselves, they'll find something to pass on to you)

Nobody complains about industries where there is a clear majority of women unless the salaries/benefits are low.... because this is not about equality. It is about superiority, in the name of balancing the past.

silverharp

Another IT whine even though the first few paragraphs say how well women are doing, twice as many lawyers graduating now are female relative to male


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/women-in-law-still-face-a-fight-for-gender-equality-1.3371389


Women in law still face a fight for gender equality

Prejudice and representation remain issues for women in the legal and justice sector

Up until very recently, almost the entire Irish justice and law enforcement structure was headed up by women.

Susan Denham, Nóirín O’Sullivan, Máire Whelan, Eileen Creedon and Frances Fitzgerald have since moved on from their former positions as chief justice, garda commissioner, attorney general, chief State solicitor and minister for justice respectively.

However Claire Loftus continues to hold the position of Director of Public Prosecutions, while Marie Cassidy is still Chief State Pathologist. The President of what is by far the busiest court in the land, the District Court, is Rosemary Horgan.

If lack of role models in senior positions is an issue for women in most sectors of society, then law and the justice arena generally is surely not one of them.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Sorry about delay...am not the best at these discussions + don't be on the site that often. Just going to respond to some of your post + questions in it (maybe rhetorical?), as I don't think we'll have any effect on each others minds on this.

Yes some of them were.
The description given in the source gives impression it was a particularly "rowdy" group, but I don't know what is "normal". Surely you'd be given the bums rush by a bouncer or something at any more, em sedate sort of event with less important people at it?

https://www.ft.com/content/075d679e-0033-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5

"Another woman, 28, with experience of hostess work, observing the braying men around her said this was significantly different to previous black tie jobs. At other events, men occasionally would try to flirt with her, she said, but she had never felt uncomfortable or, indeed, frightened. She reported being repeatedly fondled on her bottom, hips, stomach and legs. One guest lunged at her to kiss her. Another invited her upstairs to his room."

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

If you say so. The whole thing sounds seedy. Women in the West (or very limited Irish sample I know anyway) want to be quite wealthy in their own right through slaving at their career (as well as having boyfriend or husband preferably making as much as they do - not poorer!!).

I think most would be embarrassed to admit going out to snare a wealthy man who will "keep" them in a nice lifestyle anyway even if that might be what they want!

Deleted User wrote: »

You have details on their wages?

From the article:
"For those who met the three specific selection criteria (“tall, thin and pretty”) a job paying £150, plus £25 for a taxi home, began at 4pm."

I make that about £ 15 per hr ex the taxi fare if it ended at 2 am. 20 per hour at most.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

The agency is named as Artista in the article. Looked at the site and it just says they provide "staff for events" + gives an email, maybe its after getting hammered offline because of all this stuff?

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Even if you're required to look very pretty, engage in a bit of chat/(flirting) etc with the attendees in addition to serving drinks or food, I just don't think people doing that job should expect to be subjected to what was described in the article. Look don't touch.

You think its okay so long as it stays within some further boundary, so just have to agree to disagree.

I've never lived in Asia but don't think alot of the attitudes around these issues from that part of the world will really fly very far now with women in the West in 2018 whatever about "respecting other cultures" and all the pc crap we are bombarded with now!

fly_agaric

Saruhashi wrote: »

However, when we are talking about men and women in STEM, we are viewing "Men" as a group and "Women" as a group.

It is just about power; feminists belatedly realised "STEM" is "important" the last few years, but have been banging on about the professions, business and politics for years (sorry decades!).

In the media/entertainment industry for example the techies are pretty much all male + will be for quite some time to come but no one cares once "right" gender balance is there in research, writing directing, presenting etc.

The sound techs, cameraman, effects people, animators etc can safely stay rooting around in rats nests of cables or going blind staring at screens in the background once the feminist agenda is advanced in the most important places where decisions are made.

In fairness I don't think it is some dark secret etc, afaik feminist lobbies etc openly state its about advancing women + getting more women into important decision making jobs with high pay; not unsafe jobs with low pay where you don't get to set the agenda/boss people around etc.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote: »

Sorry about delay...am not the best at these discussions + don't be on the site that often. Just going to respond to some of your post + questions in it (maybe rhetorical?), as I don't think we'll have any effect on each others minds on this.

True enough. Probably should move away from the article itself, and talk generally.

And I appreciate the response, I enjoy reading other peoples viewpoints.

TBH, I've had a somewhat weird or different experience than many people I know. I've had a few girlfriends who worked in the dodgier areas, as strippers, or hostesses internationally. I've also known many women who viewed their appearance as just another asset to be leveraged for their gain. i.e. Get a wealthier boyfriend or supporter. I went down that road twice myself where I dated an older woman and I received expensive gifts from them. Interesting experience, although not something I'd repeat now.

The point is that, in my experience, there are many women who will play to the crowd for their own benefits, and women (and men) who work as hostesses (or any similar work, including models), are not going to be in that kind of work without experiencing propositioning or being touched as part of flirting. It's part of the roles they're playing. [My ex is a model in Korea. She models for sports related fashions. She'll go to parties regularly to raise her profile amongst those in the industry. Or she'll do "double-dates" with another model and two richer people from the industry. It's not a sexual event, but she will flirt with them, and she knows to expect being propositioned. It's part of her world. She's married and has a child, so won't accept their advances, but it's all part of the modeling environmnent]

I have a male friend working in a bar in Tokyo. He's simply a waiter. But he does his job wearing only swimming shorts. He will be propositioned by men & women daily. Other men will joke at him or shower him with insults. He's not being taken advantaged of because he's making excellent money and he enjoys most of the attention.

However, in today's society, someone will take offense on his behalf. Regardless of his feelings on the matter, someone else will decide that the attention he receives is inappropriate and shouldn't happen. And If he was a waiter in a cafe or such, in a "normal" setting, they would be correct. But he's not in a normal setting. It's a bar that advertises broadly that the waiters (all male) would be wearing just shorts. It's part of the job.

And that's why I find this "hostess" party interesting. I've spoken to friends who still work in "hospitality" industries, and they expect to get such attention as part of their work. For the most part, the men will be nice about it and will stop if asked. Occasionally, they'd meet someone too pushy, and they will move away (or someone will intervene/deflect).

But the way things are going, such behavior will be considered "bad" regardless of the circumstances, and regardless of whether the recipient finds it acceptable or not.

It's weird in a way. Media and movies are becoming more sexually explicit as time goes by, but society itself is becoming almost puritan (in the name of protecting women), but with a particular focus on whatever can be included as sexual assault or harassment.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote: »

And I appreciate the response, I enjoy reading other peoples viewpoints.

Fair enough, I always feel a bit guilty not getting back with a response a bit quicker (usually thread has moved many posts away from where it was by the time I get back to it).

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH, I've had a somewhat weird or different experience than many people I know. I've had a few girlfriends who worked in the dodgier areas, as strippers, or hostesses internationally. I've also known many women who viewed their appearance as just another asset to be leveraged for their gain. i.e. Get a wealthier boyfriend or supporter.

That's interesting context, was going off my own limited experience so don't know how widespread that view is still.

Deleted User wrote: »

However, in today's society, someone will take offense on his behalf. Regardless of his feelings on the matter, someone else will decide that the attention he receives is inappropriate and shouldn't happen. And If he was a waiter in a cafe or such, in a "normal" setting, they would be correct. But he's not in a normal setting. It's a bar that advertises broadly that the waiters (all male) would be wearing just shorts. It's part of the job.

And that's why I find this "hostess" party interesting. I've spoken to friends who still work in "hospitality" industries, and they expect to get such attention as part of their work. For the most part, the men will be nice about it and will stop if asked. Occasionally, they'd meet someone too pushy, and they will move away (or someone will intervene/deflect).

But the way things are going, such behavior will be considered "bad" regardless of the circumstances, and regardless of whether the recipient finds it acceptable or not.

All that's true + fair enough but that is the society we are moving towards.
I still find it hard to see it as a "bad" trend. I would tend to sympathise more with the people who want & will (hopefully) have better protection than before from those who get "too pushy" than people who accept it as a natural hazard of certain jobs (or even want to do that sort of job for the very purpose of catching a rich man and won't mind the blurry boundaries).

Deleted User wrote: »

It's weird in a way. Media and movies are becoming more sexually explicit as time goes by, but society itself is becoming almost puritan (in the name of protecting women), but with a particular focus on whatever can be included as sexual assault or harassment.

I'm not sure...My impression of the mainstream/blockbuster stuff coming out of the US the last 2 decades or so is that it has gotten more puritan about sex compared to the 1970s-90s [my thought was that was possibly down to the religious right in the US rather than their "progressives"], while the level of violence (in films rated 12s or PG) is possibly worse than it was back then.
edit: I suppose I was ignoring content on the internet + streaming/subscription services there so maybe you are right.

LostinBlanch

maybe

fly_agaric wrote: »

I still find it hard to see it as a "bad" trend.

I'm not speaking for Klaz but I suspect the reason why it's seen as "bad" is because it removes agency from adults who are not subject to any form of discomfort or harassment. One example that has hit the news recently is that of the walk on girls who escort darts players to the podium. There is no suggestion of any misbehaviour on anyones part, but they are now out of a job because of feminists being outraged on their behalf and they're not too happy about it at all. Watch Charlotte Wood one of the former walk on girls and see what she says in an interview with Channel 5 news in the UK.

Remember folks it's all the patriarchy's fault. :rolleyes:

fly_agaric wrote: »

I would tend to sympathise more with the people who want & will (hopefully) have better protection than before from those who get "too pushy" than people who accept it as a natural hazard of certain jobs (or even want to do that sort of job for the very purpose of catching a rich man and won't mind the blurry boundaries).

Your sympathy is admirable, but see above.

LostinBlanch

maybe

As a follow on from above, the Womens Sport Trust has applauded the fact that there are no more walk on parts for women in darts, and are looking for the same in Formula 1, Boxing and Cycling.

Kelly Brook has joined in supporting the walk on girls.

She spoke about her time as a Formula 1 Flag Girl describing it as

It’s a well-paid job, Kelly commented, after her own experience as a flag girl at the Formula One.

“It’s one of the best jobs I ever had,”

Disclaimer: I don't watch darts and watch very little Formula 1 and Cycling so am not hugely invested in this issue but I have put these up as examples of the hypocrisy of certain strands of feminism pushing their doctrinaire agenda, even at the expense of women.

silverharp

^^

Its turning into that Hooters feminist meme from a few years back

LostinBlanch

maybe

Which one was that?

silverharp

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Which one was that?

variations on this pix with various digs at feminists

https://odysseyonline-img.rbl.ms/simage/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.rbl.ms%2F10486640%2F980x.jpg/2000%2C2000/dHuPXvTSzfjPPPwN/img.jpg

razorblunt

Are the lads with their top offs outside Abercrombie stores still ok?
Naked butlers still alright then?

I wouldn't like my weekend nixers taken away ;-)

Buffman

LostinBlanch wrote: »

As a follow on from above, the Womens Sport Trust has applauded the fact that there are no more walk on parts for women in darts, and are looking for the same in Formula 1, Boxing and Cycling

F1 have announced they're not using grid girls any more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5335111/Formula-One-announce-axe-grid-girls.html

Now the grid girls are AXED from Formula One: Motorsport follows darts' move to get rid of glamour because it 'does not resonate with our brand values'

• Grid girls will no longer be used at Formula One races, beginning this season
• F1 commercial chief Sean Bratches said it is not in keeping with 'brand values'
• The announcement was met with backlash, with fans voicing their frustrations

Wibbs

maybe

I suppose they didn't think to ask the women making a few quid doing it? Many of whom have used it to further careers elsewhere. Oh no. Of course not. Sod them like. Jesus, talk about a joyless load of moaning minnies. I love the "brand values" ballsology of the F1 crowd. The only "brand values" they have is making coin. That's it. If they sniff the dwindling audience will dwindle ever more over this(or any) move, they'll bring them back.

Kidchameleon

Im calling it now, porn will be outlawed in Ireland.

razorblunt

Are the F1 still going to race in Bahrain?

fly_agaric

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I'm not speaking for Klaz but I suspect the reason why it's seen as "bad" is because it removes agency from adults who are not subject to any form of discomfort or harassment. One example that has hit the news recently is that of the walk on girls who escort darts players to the podium. There is no suggestion of any misbehaviour on anyones part, but they are now out of a job because of feminists being outraged on their behalf and they're not too happy about it at all.

...Disclaimer: I don't watch darts and watch very little Formula 1 and Cycling so am not hugely invested in this issue but I have put these up as examples of the hypocrisy of certain strands of feminism pushing their doctrinaire agenda, even at the expense of women.

Listened to that; as always you can really only go by what people say. She likes that job + states that her experience of doing it is "totally different" to what was described as going on at that elite charity fundraiser party.

Similarly I can only go on what the FT journalist wrote and assume that they are not lying. If it happened as written, the workers were not happy with the job on the night, some were subjected to discomfort and harassment by the attendees at that party. The journalist did a service by exposing it.

All of that is regardless of some other puritan feminists seeing a good moment to push harder on their pet projects.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote: »

Similarly I can only go on what the FT journalist wrote and assume that they are not lying.

This.

Maybe it's just me, but I've become rather suspicious of reporters going undercover to discover, well, anything. Such an undercover "operation" is going to be seeking a definite outcome and will be biased right from the start. What made them decide to enter the party? Why that party? How did they sell it to their editor, and get permission/funding to go? Were they "hoping" to stumble on to something related to sexual harassment, and would they be willing to exaggerate to make their reports better? etc.

Perhaps I've become jaded with the media these days but it seems like news or articles aren't written to simply report the facts. Everything is an opinion piece but taken afterward as a fact.

There was a time (around 20 years ago) when I did automatically accept what was reported by journalists especially from certain papers or news outlets... but not any longer. Too much drama and attention seeking by the media.

I'm skeptical about the article because I've been to dozens of parties similar to what was described, and nothing "bad" was intended. No more than any bar event that includes both genders. Flirting behavior kinda goes with the territory, and the hostess mentality for parties is that they're going to be touched somewhat. It just seems to me that the female reporters who went to the event went there looking to create a story of harassment regardless of whether there was any. Exaggeration of behavior to make it sound "bad".

The funny (and sad) thing is that a few years ago, this would have been laughed at, and dismissed as a "normal" event. Nowadays, it's held up as decadent and abusive behavior.

razorblunt

Horrific story here and obviously RIP to all involved.

But I've seen reactions to similar headlined when it named famous man X, and wife.
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2018/0201/937493-american-idol-finalist-husband-killed-in-car-crash/

Technically it's shameful to both, referring to her as just an American Idol Finalist. The husband was a retired NBA player too.

hots

Friend forwarded me their corporate International Women's Day email this morning, 2 of the calls to action are to ensure every recruitment list has a woman shortlisted, and to find a woman to sponsor into leadership.

Not even a guise of equality.

silverharp

hots wrote: »

Friend forwarded me their corporate International Women's Day email this morning, 2 of the calls to action are to ensure every recruitment list has a woman shortlisted, and to find a woman to sponsor into leadership.

Not even a guise of equality.

what's in it for men?

py2006

There's a bar in Australia where men are banned from approaching women

The newly-opened Maple Bar in Canberra, Australia, is getting rather a lot of attention because of a rule that’s part of its entry policy – men aren’t allowed to approach women.

Ironically they are hosting speed dating events

Pawwed Rig

py2006 wrote: »

There's a bar in Australia where men are banned from approaching women

Seems like a good idea to me. Similar to the dating site where the girls have to contact the men.

H3llR4iser

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Seems like a good idea to me. Similar to the dating site where the girls have to contact the men.

Depends on what's the basic idea behind it...like:

If you’re a woman who’s sick of nights out being interrupted by men trying to talk to you, then this bar may well sound pretty appealing.

If that's the concept, then just drop the mask and make it a "women only" place. If otherwise it's to "turn the plates around", I'm all for it.

Pawwed Rig

But if it was women only then half their friends wouldn't be able to get in. Seeing the amount of times girls get approached in pubs and clubs I am glad I am male. I would be driven demented. If a girl wants somewhere to go where her and her friends can have a night out in peace then I'd be all for it.

H3llR4iser

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But if it was women only then half their friends wouldn't be able to get in. Seeing the amount of times girls get approached in pubs and clubs I am glad I am male. I would be driven demented. If a girl wants somewhere to go where her and her friends can have a night out in peace then I'd be all for it.

But that opens an interesting discussion - I have plenty of female friends, and most of them do actually claim they are ALMOST NEVER approached; And they, brutally speaking, all range from "pretty" to "great looking". I've been out with them, and I have to say - I've rarely seen them being approached. So where does the matter stand in REALITY?

Pawwed Rig

H3llR4iser wrote: »

But that opens an interesting discussion - I have plenty of female friends, and most of them do actually claim they are ALMOST NEVER approached; And they, brutally speaking, all range from "pretty" to "great looking". I've been out with them, and I have to say - I've rarely seen them being approached. So where does the matter stand in REALITY?

Hmmm interesting. I wonder is it different depending on where you live? or is it a generational thing?
I will admit that I am talking of 10 years ago or more so maybe social media and meetup apps has replaced the 1am drunk Casanova's antics.

py2006

It takes courage of the Dutch kind for some men to approach women. Sometimes too much Dutch had and it gets sloppy.

I feared women right up to my 30s. Rejection destroyed me so I rarely would speak to a stranger. I used to cringe and feel sorry for guys working up the courage to approach a girl. My god some of them were down right cruel and nasty in response. Then on the other hand you had the ogling tossers who just keep going until one says yes. May be things are diff today?

Worryingly I think with the current climate less and less men will approach women.

The J Stands for Jay

py2006 wrote: »

There's a bar in Australia where men are banned from approaching women

The newly-opened Maple Bar in Canberra, Australia, is getting rather a lot of attention because of a rule that’s part of its entry policy – men aren’t allowed to approach women.

Ironically they are hosting speed dating events

It doesn't sound like a great bar, over the top dress code and they expect manners and temperance. I had a quick Google to check I wasn't mistaken in thinking temperance means avoiding alcohol.

So, to summarise:
- no freedom to dress as you want
- possible no alcohol being sold
- is it worth it to avoid hassle from men? On the male side, would you want to go somewhere where there are bouncers examining your interactions with other people?

givyjoe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Hmmm interesting. I wonder is it different depending on where you live? or is it a generational thing?
I will admit that I am talking of 10 years ago or more so maybe social media and meetup apps has replaced the 1am drunk Casanova's antics.

My dating history is a mixed bag, looks wise, but recently been on some with quite attractive ladies. Each one has said the exact same thing, they very rarely get approached in bars etc. I was equally surprised.

givyjoe

givyjoe wrote: »

My dating history is a mixed bag, looks wise, but recently been on some with quite attractive ladies. Each one has said the exact same thing, they very rarely get approached in bars etc. I was equally surprised.

The problem is that in bars, women are usually in groups, and generally don't want to be approached. Most men I know who do approach groups will receive far more severe put-downs as the woman is playing to her group, and there's usually some sort of group history which can aggravate the situation if you speak to one woman over another.

The general rule of thumb for bars is that the woman will split off from the group and loiter around a certain area like the bar itself, an object of interest, etc which translates into a come hither. Of sorts.

The problem with Ireland is that bars aren't designed for these kinds of encounters. Most of the bars I've been to here are designed for groups and tend to "squash" people together.

It really depends on the bar itself, but I'd agree that most women I know are rarely approached. Even with "singles" bars, men are less inclined to approach groups.. whereas a single woman alone by the bar will have plenty of choices when it comes to guys approaching her.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Seems like a good idea to me. Similar to the dating site where the girls have to contact the men.

Except that in most cases it doesn't work. I've been to a few bars/clubs (in a variety of countries) with similar rules about approaches. Sounds great in theory, but... The majority of women (there are exceptions) don't have the confidence to approach a man in a group or even men who are alone. That kind of behavioral confidence takes practice/experience to develop, and most women I've known are either too shy to do it, or genuinely believe it's the man's responsibility to make the first few moves.

The website idea works because there is no actual approach involved.

McGaggs

McGaggs wrote: »

It doesn't sound like a great bar, over the top dress code and they expect manners and temperance. I had a quick Google to check I wasn't mistaken in thinking temperance means avoiding alcohol.

So, to summarise:
- no freedom to dress as you want
- possible no alcohol being sold
- is it worth it to avoid hassle from men? On the male side, would you want to go somewhere where there are bouncers examining your interactions with other people?

Well....

I like bars that have a dress code. It cuts down on the tracksuits, and adds a certain class to the evening. TBH, most of the bars I went abroad, required shoes, trousers and a shirt style, with a dress code for the women too. I prefer that. I'm well past the hole in the wall, sports bar or student type bar scene.

The lack of alcohol is also a fairly acceptable aspect for me, since I don't like drinking alcohol when I'm dating, and women tend to overestimate their capacity to drink especially where cocktails are involved. Also cuts down on the aggressiveness of people (both m/f) when they fail to succeed and you do.

It's the last part that bothers me... Although TBH I doubt it could be enforced without being accused of discriminatory or abusive behavior by the bouncer or bar.

givyjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem is that in bars, women are usually in groups, and generally don't want to be approached. Most men I know who do approach groups will receive far more severe put-downs as the woman is playing to her group, and there's usually some sort of group history which can aggravate the situation if you speak to one woman over another.

The general rule of thumb for bars is that the woman will split off from the group and loiter around a certain area like the bar itself, an object of interest, etc which translates into a come hither. Of sorts.

The problem with Ireland is that bars aren't designed for these kinds of encounters. Most of the bars I've been to here are designed for groups and tend to "squash" people together.

It really depends on the bar itself, but I'd agree that most women I know are rarely approached. Even with "singles" bars, men are less inclined to approach groups.. whereas a single woman alone by the bar will have plenty of choices when it comes to guys approaching her.



Except that in most cases it doesn't work. I've been to a few bars/clubs (in a variety of countries) with similar rules about approaches. Sounds great in theory, but... The majority of women (there are exceptions) don't have the confidence to approach a man in a group or even men who are alone. That kind of behavioral confidence takes practice/experience to develop, and most women I've known are either too shy to do it, or genuinely believe it's the man's responsibility to make the first few moves.

The website idea works because there is no actual approach involved.

I did dig deeper, particular in light of some the recent hysterics peddled on boards with regard to ALL women suffering from extensive and persistent harassment, aka I was extremely surprised to hear this. Big groups, small groups, nightclubs, bars, both in the 'distant' past and recently, they all still said they were very very rarely approached. These were genuinely attractive ladies.

The J Stands for Jay

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well....

I like bars that have a dress code. It cuts down on the tracksuits, and adds a certain class to the evening. TBH, most of the bars I went abroad, required shoes, trousers and a shirt style, with a dress code for the women too. I prefer that. I'm well past the hole in the wall, sports bar or student type bar scene.

The lack of alcohol is also a fairly acceptable aspect for me, since I don't like drinking alcohol when I'm dating, and women tend to overestimate their capacity to drink especially where cocktails are involved. Also cuts down on the aggressiveness of people (both m/f) when they fail to succeed and you do.

It's the last part that bothers me... Although TBH I doubt it could be enforced without being accused of discriminatory or abusive behavior by the bouncer or bar.

I wouldn't want to go to a pub where tracksuits were considered appropriate to wear. As for dress codes, I just don't like being told to conform to someone else's idea of style. Let the place develop it's own unspoken dress code.

Saruhashi

py2006 wrote: »

There's a bar in Australia where men are banned from approaching women

The newly-opened Maple Bar in Canberra, Australia, is getting rather a lot of attention because of a rule that’s part of its entry policy – men aren’t allowed to approach women.

Ironically they are hosting speed dating events

Seems more like another attempt to get a pat on the back for "helping women" with a dash of "aren't men just the worst" on the side.

How weird would it be to go to a bar where everyone knows that the men aren't ALLOWED to approach women?

Must be a strange ego trip for the ladies and must be a strange experience for the men knowing that you aren't even allowed to talk to women in this bar.

How would the bouncers enforce it? Would they come over and ask "ma'am, do you know this man" before deciding if you are to be left alone or asked to leave?

Pawwed Rig

Formula 1 girls have their say

“Ridiculous that women who say they are ‘fighting for women’s rights’ are saying what others should and shouldn’t do, stopping us from doing a job we love and are proud to do. PC gone mad.”

full story
http://www.msn.com/en-ie/sport/motorsports/grid-girls-hit-back-after-practice-is-scrapped-by-formula-one-owners/ar-BBIyLtA?li=BBr5KbJ&ocid=iehp

Triceratops Ballet

Please, a business made a business decision to lay off staff, possibly to diversify it's target market. It's sad for the staff sure and they are naturally upset about it, as are all staff who've been laid off, but trying to lay it at the feet of feminism is a stretch.

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Please, a business made a business decision to lay off staff, possibly to diversify it's target market. It's sad for the staff sure and they are naturally upset about it, as are all staff who've been laid off, but trying to lay it at the feet of feminism is a stretch.

to do it now means its to prevent a perceived backlash . It doesn't sound like an upside decision, more to prevent a backlash one. So yeah I think its part of the current moral panic.

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

to do it now means its to prevent a perceived backlash . It doesn't sound like an upside decision, more to prevent a backlash one. So yeah I think its part of the current moral panic.

Correlation does not imply causation. What if they wanted to do it anyway, should they have held off for a better time? What if they wanted to do it anyway but thought sure theres "moral panic" now we can slip it in people will blame "puritanical thinking" and feminism and we can deflect any negativity directed at us. Businesses don't make decisions on whims, why would they risk their fan base (who pay the bills) for something they were in no way required to do?

Calhoun

Of course this new wave of feminism is partly to blame, they are a rabble mob online that go from outrage to outrage.

It's funny how we are heading back to a more Puritan view in our society. It's like feminism has hit full circle and is working it's way back to full female covering.

Calhoun

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Correlation does not imply causation. What if they wanted to do it anyway, should they have held off for a better time? What if they wanted to do it anyway but thought sure theres "moral panic" now we can slip it in people will blame "puritanical thinking" and feminism and we can deflect any negativity directed at us. Businesses don't make decisions on whims, why would they risk their fan base (who pay the bills) for something they were in no way required to do?

Businesses aren't stupid after the pdg made it's announcement twitter was full of the social justice folk targeting formula 1 and one other sport ( I can't remember)

They knew they were next on the chopping board for the thought and moral police, so they made a decision to prevent negative press.

givyjoe

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Correlation does not imply causation. What if they wanted to do it anyway, should they have held off for a better time? What if they wanted to do it anyway but thought sure theres "moral panic" now we can slip it in people will blame "puritanical thinking" and feminism and we can deflect any negativity directed at us. Businesses don't make decisions on whims, why would they risk their fan base (who pay the bills) for something they were in no way required to do?

Do you actually believe any of the above, seriously?

Triceratops Ballet

Calhoun wrote: »

Businesses aren't stupid after the pdg made it's announcement twitter was full of the social justice folk targeting formula 1 and one other sport ( I can't remember)

They knew they were next on the chopping board for the thought and morale police, so they made a decision to prevent negative press.

Both are male dominated sports trying to diversify their markets, it's unrealistic to think they won't look at their current set up and say what are any potential barriers to us gaining a wider market share. "Maybe women are put off because they see it as a very laddish sport, What might put women off? I wonder if we tried to make it seem more family friendly?" so they tried it. They were never going to be legally required to get rid of these models, so there was not actual threat. They made a business decision.
But I can see how when you feel under attack from feminism, it's easy to turn feminism into the cause of everything, kind of like how some people turn the patriarchy into the cause of everything.

Triceratops Ballet

givyjoe wrote: »

Do you actually believe any of the above, seriously?

I believe it's entirely possible and I believe it's naive to think it's not a possibility so yes very seriously.

givyjoe

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I believe it's entirely possible and I believe it's naive to think it's not a possibility so yes very seriously.

Utter nonsense, what possible other reason do you really believe that they were considering dropping grid girls for? other then pressure from feminists and the like?

I suppose you'll be telling us the darts girls were dropped for this other mysterious reason too?