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

Wibbs

maybe

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Mod

Rereg troll deleted, together with his tiresome, repetitive nonsense.

And again. It's like playing whack a mole with a loony. But we'll miss him when he's gone...

Calhoun

Interesting conversation going on I parts of the media at the moment, trying to paint the cervical scandal as a gender issue.

As if to suggest men of Ireland have a top class medical system available to them.

The Black Oil

Cough

https://twitter.com/Antcon7062/status/991072632773795840

silverharp

with prostate, I had a quick look on the irish cancer website and the argument was you might end up with a lot of complicated diagnoses where the treatment for a slow growing cancer might be worse than the cancer?

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

with prostate, I had a quick look on the irish cancer website and the argument was you might end up with a lot of complicated diagnoses where the treatment for a slow growing cancer might be worse than the cancer?

Though if more research had been done, there might be better tests.
An awful lot more research is being funded into breast cancer than prostate cancer from the figures I have seen internationally.

PlaneSpeeking

I was astounded to learn that for every Euro breast cancer research gets - dementia research gets 6c.

I read an article once (sorry I can't recall the publication but it was a UK magazine) and the top responses to a survey of women on how they THOUGHT breast cancer would affect them were "I'll feel less feminine" and "I hope I don't lose my hair".

Jesus wept.

_Dara_

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I was astounded to learn that for every Euro breast cancer research gets - dementia research gets 6c.

I read an article once (sorry I can't recall the publication but it was a UK magazine) and the top responses to a survey of women on how they THOUGHT breast cancer would affect them were "I'll feel less feminine" and "I hope I don't lose my hair".

Jesus wept.

Well, I have terminal breast cancer and those things were still a concern for me. I'm 34 years old and my appearance is still important to me. Just because I'm dying of the disease doesn't mean I can't worry about seemingly less important things. For a woman, losing your hair can be very upsetting. I never want to go through that again. I love my hair.

But ANYWAYS, yes, the breast cancer awareness stuff really is an industry at this stage. It's pretty grotesque. And very little money collected goes towards the only form of it that kills, despite 25% of women who get breast cancer dying from it.

Meanwhile "stigma" cancers get short shrift. Lung cancer patients face judgement. I know a fair few lung cancer patients through support groups and perfect strangers will question them on whether they smoked. What's the point in rubbing it in to a smoker that they might have brought the illness on themselves? They are already facing the worst-case scenario.

And why has pancreatic cancer not seen any improvement in survival stats of 50 years? Funding for cancer research needs to be spread more equitably. We're all aware of breast cancer at this stage.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

Meanwhile "stigma" cancers get short shrift. Lung cancer patients face judgement. I know a fair few lung cancer patients through support groups and perfect strangers will question them on whether they smoked. What's the point in rubbing it in to a smoker that they might have brought the illness on themselves? They are already facing the worst-case scenario.

I have an uncle who never smoked a day in his life, stayed away from smokers, and has lung cancer... and I've heard people accuse him of lying about not smoking simply because they believe that lung cancer only happens to those who smoked.

I hate the people like that because they 'almost' seem to gain pleasure in pointing out the cause of cancer.

In the case of smokers, I know people who stopped smoking when the health risks became known, were smoke free for decades, and still got lung cancer. Anyone pushing the smoking angle on any lung cancer patient should really jump in front of a moving train.

_Dara_

Deleted User wrote: »

I have an uncle who never smoked a day in his life, stayed away from smokers, and has lung cancer... and I've heard people accuse him of lying about not smoking simply because they believe that lung cancer only happens to those who smoked.

I hate the people like that because they 'almost' seem to gain pleasure in pointing out the cause of cancer.

In the case of smokers, I know people who stopped smoking when the health risks became known, were smoke free for decades, and still got lung cancer. Anyone pushing the smoking angle on any lung cancer patient should really jump in front of a moving train.

Agreed. Smug fucks who think cancer can’t happen to them. And yeah, something like 20% of lung cancer patients never smoked.

PlaneSpeeking

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, I have terminal breast cancer and those things were still a concern for me. I'm 34 years old and my appearance is still important to me. Just because I'm dying of the disease doesn't mean I can't worry about seemingly less important things. For a woman, losing your hair can be very upsetting. I never want to go through that again. I love my hair.

But ANYWAYS, yes, the breast cancer awareness stuff really is an industry at this stage. It's pretty grotesque. And very little money collected goes towards the only form of it that kills, despite 25% of women who get breast cancer dying from it.

Meanwhile "stigma" cancers get short shrift. Lung cancer patients face judgement. I know a fair few lung cancer patients through support groups and perfect strangers will question them on whether they smoked. What's the point in rubbing it in to a smoker that they might have brought the illness on themselves? They are already facing the worst-case scenario.

And why has pancreatic cancer not seen any improvement in survival stats of 50 years? Funding for cancer research needs to be spread more equitably. We're all aware of breast cancer at this stage.

Dara, you have my eternal sympathy. I had a relative who had terminal breast cancer (my aunt) and had she lived to see the industry built up around this she'd be appalled.

I think it is lovely of you who is living with such an awful disease to be able to see beyond that to the suffering of others - we had a "dress in pink" day once and I asked why we didn't have such a workplace-wide campaign for other dieaseses. "You're a woman, why are you asking that ?".

My best wishes to you in your fight. Be as well as you can be.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

I have an uncle who never smoked a day in his life, stayed away from smokers, and has lung cancer... and I've heard people accuse him of lying about not smoking simply because they believe that lung cancer only happens to those who smoked.

I hate the people like that because they 'almost' seem to gain pleasure in pointing out the cause of cancer.

In the case of smokers, I know people who stopped smoking when the health risks became known, were smoke free for decades, and still got lung cancer. Anyone pushing the smoking angle on any lung cancer patient should really jump in front of a moving train.

this really gets me, 1 in 3 of us will get some kind of cancer regardless of lifestyle choices. Even the government warnings "smoking increases your risk of cancer" your cells play a dice roll every single day, smoking may weigh the dice in a certain direction, as will diet, the sun etc.. but you could be a slob chain smoking 40 a day , morbidly obese and out in the sun every day and get nothing and a health freak living in a bubble and get cancer. When its one of the cancers with a 'cause' people love toting out the blame "ohh it was because he smoked years ago" "maybe she shouldn't have tanned that year in Australia etc....

_Dara_

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Dara, you have my eternal sympathy. I had a relative who had terminal breast cancer (my aunt) and had she lived to see the industry built up around this she'd be appalled.

I think it is lovely of you who is living with such an awful disease to be able to see beyond that to the suffering of others - we had a "dress in pink" day once and I asked why we didn't have such a workplace-wide campaign for other dieaseses. "You're a woman, why are you asking that ?".

My best wishes to you in your fight. Be as well as you can be.

Well, those of us with the terminal form of the disease are bemused by the pink stuff. How does wearing pink help?

I care about all cancers really and, to be honest, I have much more in common with a terminal prostate cancer sufferer than an early-stage breast cancer patient. Once you’re at the terminal stage, does it matter where it originated, we’re all in the same boat.

A facet of breast cancer awareness campaigns that shows how marketing-led they are: the high profile campaigns rarely mention that the signs for men are the same as for women. All those checklist of bodily changes you see? Well, every one of them is something men can and should look out for too. So why not mention this in campaigns? Because it gets in the way of the feminine pink branding. Can’t sell all that pink merchandise if it’s shot through with blue or whatever. The message gets too muddled and less crap gets sold (of which very little money goes to charities). Can’t be having that now. :rolleyes:

iptba

(3 minutes 20 seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ4h-lVyaP8

Citations are given on the YouTube page

Dunno if it's quite "sexism" but I came across something stating how high Ireland ranks in terms of gender equality (before the vote last week) and did a little looking into it, it makes for an interesting methodology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report


So the two funny things that jumped out at me:
1) Where women out-achieve men it doesn't count as a positive. Women can only ever reach par.

2) Brilliantly, there are assumptions that women should have better outcomes than men in certain cases. For life expectancy parity is women living 6% longer than men. But of course even if it's more than that then it's still only par, if it's "only" 4% longer then it shows an inequality against women.


A wonderful example of Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

silverharp

If you didn't think there was an all out conspiratorial attack on masculinity , this would have you thinking :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5801487/Oxfordshire-school-bans-shorts-summer-favour-gender-neutral-uniform-policy.html

Skirts are cool, boys are told: School bans shorts in summer in favour of 'gender neutral' uniform policy
•Chiltern Edge Secondary School in Oxfordshire bans boys from wearing shorts
•It insists those who don't want to wear trousers must opt for skirts instead
•New uniform policy stipulates a 'trousers or skirts only' policy which was backed by head teacher Moira Green

A school has said boys who find trousers too hot in the summer months should instead wear a skirt as part of a ‘gender-neutral’ uniform policy.

Chiltern Edge Secondary School in Oxfordshire has banned boys from wearing shorts and insists those who don’t want to wear trousers must don a skirt.

Leaders at the school in Sonning Common introduced a ‘more formal’ uniform policy at the beginning of the academic year that stipulated that the only leg wear permitted was trousers or skirts.

Calhoun

Some digging on this one, not sure how accurate this website is.

https://inews.co.uk/news/school-boys-shorts-skirts/

A headteacher says she has been left “frustrated” by reports she is enforcing a ‘gender neutral‘ school uniform policy, and that she told boys they could wear skirts.

The headteacher told i she has enforced a blanket ban on shorts – after updating the uniform policy in a bid to make it, and the school, a more formal academic environment – but said she did not say anything furthe

It would seem from reading the article that the head teacher is trying a more formal approach to the school uniform and those against this are using the gender side of things.

givyjoe

silverharp wrote: »

If you didn't think there was an all out conspiratorial attack on masculinity , this would have you thinking :-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5801487/Oxfordshire-school-bans-shorts-summer-favour-gender-neutral-uniform-policy.html

Surely shorts for either boys or girls would have been gender neutral?! Wtf.

Sleepy

Sounds like a storm in a teacup with the Mail taking a teacher's quip of ("if ye don't like the trousers, ye're free to wear a skirt!") and making an issue of it.

H3llR4iser

Sleepy wrote: »

Sounds like a storm in a teacup with the Mail taking a teacher's quip of ("if ye don't like the trousers, ye're free to wear a skirt!") and making an issue of it.

Indeed - how times change; When I was in school (down in Italy with constant 30+ degrees April to June, not the mildly warm 20-something we get here and in the UK), past the age of 10-11 the boys wouldn't want to be seen dead in shorts (schools there have no uniform policy, largely). It was literally preferable to die of a heatstroke than suffer a fashion mishap!

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Indeed - how times change; When I was in school (down in Italy with constant 30+ degrees April to June, not the mildly warm 20-something we get here and in the UK), past the age of 10-11 the boys wouldn't want to be seen dead in shorts (schools there have no uniform policy, largely). It was literally preferable to die of a heatstroke than suffer a fashion mishap!

All the schools I attended had strict uniform codes, and frankly, I don't recall ever wearing shorts except as a young child. As a teen, the idea of showing off my skinny pasty white legs to anyone was horrific. Even to this day, in my 40s, I'll ignore the 30-40 degree heat in China, walking around in jeans and Doc Martin boots. I was the same in Australia too. I honestly feel far more uncomfortable in shorts or showing off my feet except when I'm on a beach or when swimming trunks are involved. Although, nobody would ever accuse me as being concerned with fashion, except perhaps when it comes to suits or very formal attire. I do love a well tailored fitted suit, and good shoes. :D

tritium

Interested to see RTE have added Hope Solo to their World Cup panel. I wonder if anyone took note of the questions around her and domestic violence (which may disappear yet because “the victims won’t testify”). In the aftermath of the Belfast rape trial where disrespectful WhatsApp messages were enough to end careers it seems like a remarkable double standard

mzungu

tritium wrote: »

Interested to see RTE have added Hope Solo to their World Cup panel. I wonder if anyone took note of the questions around her and domestic violence (which may disappear yet because “the victims won’t testify”). In the aftermath of the Belfast rape trial where disrespectful WhatsApp messages were enough to end careers it seems like a remarkable double standard

Not really. For example, I hear this morning that your man Floyd Mayweather (he who beats his wife) was the highest earning athlete last year. Celebs get a free pass for lots of things (Tyson, Polanski, Rick James etc) as long as they keep the money rolling in. They shouldn't, but they do, unfortunately.

There are no double standards here, just a lack of standards.

givyjoe

tritium wrote: »

Interested to see RTE have added Hope Solo to their World Cup panel. I wonder if anyone took note of the questions around her and domestic violence (which may disappear yet because “the victims won’t testify”). In the aftermath of the Belfast rape trial where disrespectful WhatsApp messages were enough to end careers it seems like a remarkable double standard

Hope Solo? That's a pisstake.... If they want a female panelist, surely they can find an Irish one that isn't 'guilty' of domestic abuse. Most people won't have a balooba's who she is. Bizarre choice.

tritium

mzungu wrote: »

Not really. For example, I hear this morning that your man Floyd Mayweather (he who beats his wife) was the highest earning athlete last year. Celebs get a free pass for lots of things (Tyson, Polanski, Rick James etc) as long as they keep the money rolling in. They shouldn't, but they do, unfortunately.

There are no double standards here, just a lack of standards.

And if it was the US I’d understand. It’s just galling to see the national broadcaster spend the license fee on this sort of thing as if there’s no issue at all.

Sleepy

If they wanted a female panelist would it have been too much to expect they'd look to our own national women's team? Stephanie Roche would have seemed an obvious fit?

mzungu

Sleepy wrote: »

If they wanted a female panelist would it have been too much to expect they'd look to our own national women's team? Stephanie Roche would have seemed an obvious fit?

They did that for Euro 2016 (Stephanie Roche & Niamh Fahey), so I have no idea why they didn't do the same this time.

seamus

silverharp wrote: »

If you didn't think there was an all out conspiratorial attack on masculinity , this would have you thinking :-)

Ignoring the fact that it's fake news for a sec, how would it be an attack on masculinity?

Some of the most masculine stereotypes throughout history are depicted wearing skirts or robes.

mzungu wrote: »

They did that for Euro 2016 (Stephanie Roche & Niamh Fahey), so I have no idea why they didn't do the same this time.

I would imagine the conversation was no more thought-through than, "find me someone who won a world cup, and we need a woman on the panel too". And someone suggested they could kill two birds with one stone.

Iseedeadpixels

mzungu wrote: »

They did that for Euro 2016 (Stephanie Roche & Niamh Fahey), so I have no idea why they didn't do the same this time.

Her reps may have reached out, she is also quite a looker maybe RTE went for that approach.

iptba

A Tumblr post. I thought it was noteworthy as it has 128169 notes, which means it was either liked or re-blogged 128169 times. I think people only can do 2 things per item so that's 64000+ people who liked it or re-blogged it
https://louisamayanniecat.tumblr.com/post/174670880124/seulmates-virgoassbitch-why-do-men-always-have#notes

seulmates:

virgoassbitch:

Why do men always have to act like they gotta teach you ****… like?? I don’t know who ****in asked you but it sure wasn’t me so keep your motivation speeches to yourself

every interaction with a man is a combination TED Talk, valedictorian speech, personal training session, and getting grounded by your dad

I don't spend too much time on Tumblr so perhaps there are lots of posts like this around i.e. with a large number of notes.

Maxpfizer

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/safety-women-cycling-roads

Roads designed by men are killing women – and stop millions from cycling

Wonderful. This is why I kind of love The Guardian's brand of Feminism. They think it's like a good point but actually they are making complete fools of themselves.

"Roads designed by men are killing women."

Let that sink in. Amazing.

seamus

To be fair, that's a headline designed to grab attention.

The article itself isn't nearly as crazy as the headline sounds and makes reasonable points, and contains actual facts.

Though I'm torn as to whether the answer to her quandry is, "design roads for people who are less assertive" or "teach women to be more assertive".

mzungu

I think her overall point is that the infrastructure is downright crap and the new segregated lanes in Manchester are a step in the right direction . I have never cycled from Stockport to Manchester but I will take her word for it. As for the headline, sure nobody would have bothered clicking on it if it read "I welcome the new cycle lanes in Manchester because it will make my commute easier and will get more women cycling." The title did it's job.

She makes an interesting point about HGVs. Cycling near them can be a dodgy. Blindspots are a problem, and you only need to be unlucky once. Segregated lanes really are the only way forward. I wouldn't agree with her linking that to men being city planners, as surely in other countries with safer cycling infrastructure men would be city planners there also. The problem is most likely down to a lack of imagination and thinking ahead when it comes to the design, which would be more of a cultural problem.

Pawwed Rig

mzungu wrote: »

As for the headline, sure nobody would have bothered clicking on it if it read "I welcome the new cycle lanes in Manchester because it will make my commute easier and will get more women cycling." The title did it's job.

Should the Guardian not be a bit more high brow than click bait headlines?

PlaneSpeeking

I was told earlier that it's not sexist or exploitative for women to ogle pictures of him off Poldark with the shirt allergy.

I said that either both genders were up for grabs by anyone who wanted to objectify a "star" or they were not, can't have it both ways.

The reply "when women view photographs like that they are reclaiming their repressed sexuality from male dominance".

You can't reason with that can you ????

Pawwed Rig

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I was told earlier that it's not sexist or exploitative for women to ogle pictures of him off Poldark with the shirt allergy.

Funnily enough

https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/living/2018/0611/969779-opinion-why-the-poldark-pics-arent-sexist-double-standards/

mzungu

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Should the Guardian not be a bit more high brow than click bait headlines?

It should, but it's not. This is how the media operates now (in the broadsheet opinion columns section), whether we like it or not. I think it was a silly title and overshadowed the points she was trying to make (I don't think she fleshed them out enough as it is). Introducing gender politic into city planning was a strange move, but she wouldn't be the first to bring it up. Men and women do have different travel routines and Vienna recognised this back in the 90s and shaped things accordingly. I disagree that it's patriarchy, but more an inability in some nations to think ahead properly when it comes to dodgy infrastructure. They put this stuff in there to generate clicks, and it turns what should have been a fairly mundane article about city planning into another culture wars battlefield (it was still a fairly mundane article imo). I have absolutely no problems with the content of the article, but I would prefer less misleading titles as it is tabloidlike. The opinions section has some awful tripe but it is good to hear all viewpoints. Outside of the opinion columns, The Guardian is still a good paper, it just helps to keep in mind that it will always veer to the left.

TL;DR Yep, clickbait headlines are very low brow but theres little that can be done about it. As the American philosopher Nelly once said "Hey, must be the money!"

givyjoe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Funnily enough

https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/living/2018/0611/969779-opinion-why-the-poldark-pics-arent-sexist-double-standards/

What utter horse****.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I was told earlier that it's not sexist or exploitative for women to ogle pictures of him off Poldark with the shirt allergy.

I said that either both genders were up for grabs by anyone who wanted to objectify a "star" or they were not, can't have it both ways.

The reply "when women view photographs like that they are reclaiming their repressed sexuality from male dominance".

You can't reason with that can you ????

They'll always refer to the situation of women before you, or they were born to justify their freedoms which aren't going to be also available to men. This will be how equality is brought about. We'll be equal in certain obvious ways, but in other ways, women will have greater freedom or rights, but they'll be justified due to sexism/discrimination in the past, or at a last resort, the minority of men who continue to behave this way, but men as a gender should be stopping them...

It really is a pretty smooth system. Even though it sounds ridiculous, it'll be used to pass all manner of legal or social changes.

backspin.

mzungu wrote: »

I think her overall point is that the infrastructure is downright crap and the new segregated lanes in Manchester are a step in the right direction . I have never cycled from Stockport to Manchester but I will take her word for it. As for the headline, sure nobody would have bothered clicking on it if it read "I welcome the new cycle lanes in Manchester because it will make my commute easier and will get more women cycling." The title did it's job.

She makes an interesting point about HGVs. Cycling near them can be a dodgy. Blindspots are a problem, and you only need to be unlucky once. Segregated lanes really are the only way forward. I wouldn't agree with her linking that to men being city planners, as surely in other countries with safer cycling infrastructure men would be city planners there also. The problem is most likely down to a lack of imagination and thinking ahead when it comes to the design, which would be more of a cultural problem.

Is that like the segregated lanes the male engineers in Holland have been designing for decades.

JRant

Maxpfizer wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/safety-women-cycling-roads

Roads designed by men are killing women – and stop millions from cycling

Wonderful. This is why I kind of love The Guardian's brand of Feminism. They think it's like a good point but actually they are making complete fools of themselves.

"Roads designed by men are killing women."

Let that sink in. Amazing.

Ah, the Guardian Opinion section went full retard a while ago.

Check out this doosy from last week

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/oct/12/why-are-london-cyclists-so-white-male-and-middle-class

You couldn't make up this level of craziness.

Padraig Mor

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Funnily enough

https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/living/2018/0611/969779-opinion-why-the-poldark-pics-arent-sexist-double-standards/

I'm actually a little bit cross after reading that!

Pawwed Rig

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I'm actually a little bit cross after reading that!

Yeah I know. Irritating isn't it.
The author wouldn't even put their name to it

Wibbs

maybe

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I'm actually a little bit cross after reading that!

TBH I'm not PM. It's just yet another example of a large section of the media going full retard on the matter. These days I expect nothing less than the usual Feminism 101 party line of sainted victimhood, half truths and full on lies. EG...

how deeply damaging that is in a society that already values women less than men.

This is a demonstrable utter nonsense in western societies. It is easily argued that women as a demographic are the more valued, more protected and more supported than men. The same media darlings lose their shit if women are the ones being assaulted, raped, abused, homeless, undereducated, self harming. When men are, at best there's some handwringing, often followed by blaming the patriarchy(so it's their fault by proxy), at worst utter bloody silence.

The Bond franchise is a good example of this – such a strong emphasis has been put on women’s bodies as opposed to their characters. One is literally called Pussy Galore.

Yes, more than fifty years ago, you addled bint. Latterly Bond is chock full of Strong Women™ calling him a dinosaur, while giving female audiences some bean flicking fodder when Danny Craig looms outa the water in his Speedos valiantly sucking his gut in.

rape culture

... Need I say more.... Straight from the Idiots guide to Feminism

In fact, I’d argue that calling out the BBC, or anyone else, for having "double-standards" and criticising women for enjoying Turner’s torso actually fits perfectly into these structures of misogyny. I’m not saying that everyone who was offended by the picture was male, but it’s got to be said that the majority of people I’ve seen making disgruntled noises on Twitter are men.

Does this hackneyed hackette not see the irony in complaining about the precise thing women rightfully complained about in the bad old days?

Historically, men dictate women’s relationship with sex.

Hahahahhahahahah.... oh wait... she's serious. I hate to break it to her, but "historically" women have been the gatekeepers to sex and still are. I have heard far more women refer to other women, or look down upon other women as overly sexually available.

But as callous as it might seem, I have little to no sympathy for Harington. Women have been treated like sexual objects for centuries – when females are objectified, men are asserting their dominance in an already patriarchal society, continuing this systematic oppression.

Men have been treated like financial objects for centuries. Boo hoo, it is what it is. Has this hackette ever heard of Jane Austen?

In the meantime, women should be allowed to look at Turner’s torso with wild abandon. Think of it as an incredibly insubstantial form of reparation – but I’ll take what we can get.

Revenge. That's what she's into. The child's response.

Pawwed Rig wrote:

The author wouldn't even put their name to it

Aye she did PR, one Prudence Wade. From what I can google, some English hackette, so a bought in piece for RTE. I'm surprised their nepotistic framework couldn't find a more local village idiot to toil over their MacBook.

backspin.

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye she did PR, one Prudence Wade. From what I can google, some English hackette, so a bought in piece for RTE. I'm surprised their nepotistic framework couldn't find a more local village idiot to toil over their MacBook.

My TV license is overdue, i really do not think i can stomach paying for that sort of nonsense anymore.

JRant

Wibbs wrote: »

Hahahahhahahahah.... oh wait... she's serious. I hate to break it to her, but "historically" women have been the gatekeepers to sex and still are. I have heard far more women refer to other women, or look down upon other women as overly sexually available.

Oh this is glorious in it's sheer ignorance. The fact that you have twice as many females in your lineage as make should be a bit of a clue.

ligerdub

Padraig Mor wrote:

I'm actually a little bit cross after reading that!

That was the last straw for me with RTE, and the moment I officially became a grumpy old man. I wrote them a strongly worded email.

PlaneSpeeking

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Funnily enough

https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/living/2018/0611/969779-opinion-why-the-poldark-pics-arent-sexist-double-standards/

Kinda expected that. It very much IS double standards!!

Look at the film "Rough Night" - can you imagine if a film was made where five lads hired a stripper for a stag night and then accidentally killed her and "bonded" on hiding the body ? There'd be hashtags, marches and Una Mulally would get a book deal from it.

Yet this is the actual blurb:

"Jess is an engaged politician who reunites with three of her college friends for a wild bachelorette weekend in Miami. The night of hard partying soon takes a hilariously dark turn when a male stripper accidentally dies at their beach house. Amid the craziness of trying to cover it up, the women ultimately find themselves becoming closer when it matters most"

I've highlighted a rather key word there.

Very much double standards.

PlaneSpeeking

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes, more than fifty years ago, you addled bint. Latterly Bond is chock full of Strong Women™ calling him a dinosaur, while giving female audiences some bean flicking fodder when Danny Craig looms outa the water in his Speedos valiantly sucking his gut in.

Wibbs - the whole post is 100% spot on but quite frankly there should be some sort of medal struck and a do with Dobby the House Elf at the Aras for that line alone!

Hat tipped sir!!

Franz Von Peppercorn

Prudance is actually an Irish independent writer. Though she is English.

ligerdub

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Kinda expected that. It very much IS double standards!!

Look at the film "Rough Night" - can you imagine if a film was made where five lads hired a stripper for a stag night and then accidentally killed her and "bonded" on hiding the body ? There'd be hashtags, marches and Una Mulally would get a book deal from it.

Yet this is the actual blurb:

"Jess is an engaged politician who reunites with three of her college friends for a wild bachelorette weekend in Miami. The night of hard partying soon takes a hilariously dark turn when a male stripper accidentally dies at their beach house. Amid the craziness of trying to cover it up, the women ultimately find themselves becoming closer when it matters most"

I've highlighted a rather key word there.

Very much double standards.

Actually......to be fair......that premise is basically a rip-off of "Very Bad Things", a rather excellent film which exactly matches that description, one I'd certainly recommend.

That's another aspect of these kind of things "Oceans 8", "Ghostbusters" remake, is that there has been a massive move towards all-female remakes, films made out of spite, rather than doing original premises and all that jazz.