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

citytillidie

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

The women don't play five sets because there's simply no way it can feasibly fit into the schedule, although it's also true that the women aren't exactly campaigning for best of five either. Also needs to be mentioned that at most of the other mixed events outside of the grand slams the men are paid more than the women, despite the fact that both play best of 3 and the same number of matches.

I support this thread but yours is not a good example to make your point.

Grand Slams in Tennis are the only real mixed events, Male and Female players will be on separate tours and play in different places

kazamo

citytillidie wrote: »

Grand Slams in Tennis are the only real mixed events, Male and Female players will be on separate tours and play in different places

Not strictly true, yes for a lot of the year they remain separate but there are a few events that both sexes are at same venue at same time such as Indian Wells and Miami. All are three set matches for equal prize money so maybe the Grand Slams should change all to, either three sets or five sets and end the current mishmash.

One interesting tournament is the China Open, both male and female events in same place and all best of three sets

Female winner earns $ 1,271,525
Male winner earns $ 652,370

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China_Open_(tennis)

citytillidie

kazamo wrote: »

Not strictly true, yes for a lot of the year they remain separate but there are a few events that both sexes are at same venue at same time such as Indian Wells and Miami. All are three set matches for equal prize money so maybe the Grand Slams should change all to, either three sets or five sets and end the current mishmash.

One interesting tournament is the China Open, both male and female events in same place and all best of three sets

Female winner earns $ 1,271,525
Male winner earns $ 652,370

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China_Open_(tennis)

I was just going on how before Wimbledon the woman play in eastbourne and the men in the queens club thinking it was the same else where, for example the Canada open men would play in Toronto one year and Montreal the next with the woman playing in the other city

DEFTLEFTHAND

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm not saying every single parent household goes into gangs - but surely more than one role model (makes no odds to me whether it's M/M, F/F, whatever) is a good thing ?

But surely (and OT sorry) having children when still a child oneself is rarely to end well ?

There were studies into this with ethnic gangs in LA where a staggering percentage of gang members come from broken homes.

Without a strong male presence in their lives these mere boys in many cases tend go look for it on the streets where they'll gravitate towards the older established gangsters in their neighbourhoods.


It's tragic really. A vicious circle.

DEFTLEFTHAND

silverharp wrote: »

what is it with feminists and their bodily functions ? especially their attempt to turn it into art , a 4 year old would have more sense

And class.

Pawwed Rig

Ann Coulter gave a good interview on single parenthood. It is worth watching if only to witness the audience outrage on her quoting statistics. I will try and dig it up.

PlaneSpeeking

Commented today that if breastfeeding is a natural bodily function that everyone should do - and therefore should be publicly carried out (after the Kildare GAA story) - I argued masturbation should.

It's a natural bodily function and can have health benefits.

I'll let you guess the resident feminists' response!

Iseedeadpixels

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Commented today that if breastfeeding is a natural bodily function that everyone should do - and therefore should be publicly carried out (after the Kildare GAA story) - I argued masturbation should.

It's a natural bodily function and can have health benefits.

I'll let you guess the resident feminists' response!

Completely disagree on that! Breast feeding has a purpose for the baby while masturbation is all about pleasure.


I honestly cant even fathom why you would compare the 2

Zulu

No

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

....- I argued masturbation should.

It's a natural bodily function and can have health benefits.

I'll let you guess the resident feminists' response!

...and everyone elses response.

What an utterly stupid argument to make and stance to take. :rolleyes:

PlaneSpeeking

Zulu wrote: »

...and everyone elses response.

What an utterly stupid argument to make and stance to take. :rolleyes:

We will have to agree to disagree on that. I'll let the reportable comment go.

Zulu

No

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

We will have to agree to disagree on that. I'll let the reportable comment go.

You're a gas man: "reportable"! :pac:



Go on will you. :rolleyes:

hots

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Commented today that if breastfeeding is a natural bodily function that everyone should do - and therefore should be publicly carried out (after the Kildare GAA story) - I argued masturbation should.

It's a natural bodily function and can have health benefits.

I'll let you guess the resident feminists' response!

Ridiculous.

PlaneSpeeking

Zulu wrote: »

You're a gas man: "reportable"! :pac:



Go on will you. :rolleyes:

Woman. And yes.

GingerLily

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Commented today that if breastfeeding is a natural bodily function that everyone should do - and therefore should be publicly carried out (after the Kildare GAA story) - I argued masturbation should.

It's a natural bodily function and can have health benefits.

I'll let you guess the resident feminists' response!

What is wrong with you?

Wibbs

maybe

Ye know the drill folks. Attack the post not the poster.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ann Coulter gave a good interview on single parenthood. It is worth watching if only to witness the audience outrage on her quoting statistics. I will try and dig it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=166M75mSfKE

hots

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=166M75mSfKE

Ah jaysus she's another inflammatory one anyway, I wish she actually cited statistics instead of saying she was citing statistics.



I enjoy some of these sort of personalities but she doesn't have much like-able-ness. At least the other usual suspects come across as relatively intelligent when they're winding people up.

sharper

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'll let you guess the resident feminists' response!

Was it the same as you might expect from any reasonable person?

If you really want to compare like-with-like babies need to eat when they need to eat. If you want breastfeeding to happen entirely in private you're asking mothers to get up from wherever they are right now and move to somewhere they can comfortably breastfeed without anybody having to see a breast. It's reasonable to ask if that's really necessary. We also cannot reasonably expect babies to just wait and control their hunger

There's no time pressure for masturbation and adults are expected to be able to control themselves.

Hector Savage

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/05/a-man-raped-me-another-tried-to-they-were-not-animals-they-were-men

What an absolutely *disgusting* headline ...

The J Stands for Jay

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/05/a-man-raped-me-another-tried-to-they-were-not-animals-they-were-men

What an absolutely *disgusting* headline ...

That article linked to this one https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/19/eurydice-dixon-death-male-rage-australia-women-men-attitudes

It says that 80% of murders and violent crime are carried out by men,and men make up two-thirds of the victims. It seems to me that it would be much more efficient to set up programmes telling men not to harm men, rather than trying to help only 33% of victims.

laoch na mona

No

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/05/a-man-raped-me-another-tried-to-they-were-not-animals-they-were-men

What an absolutely *disgusting* headline ...

whats disgusting about it? Surely the point we need to highlight is that rapists often seem to be normal people that you wouldn't think could do something so terrible.

If the headline was reversed and written by a man who was raped by a woman would it still be disgusting

laoch na mona

No

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Commented today that if breastfeeding is a natural bodily function that everyone should do - and therefore should be publicly carried out (after the Kildare GAA story) - I argued masturbation should.

It's a natural bodily function and can have health benefits.

I'll let you guess the resident feminists' response!

seriously your the one being a fool there comparing feeding a child to having a ****

You don't have to be a feminist to see how stupid that is

mzungu

Hector Savage wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/05/a-man-raped-me-another-tried-to-they-were-not-animals-they-were-men

What an absolutely *disgusting* headline ...

McGaggs wrote: »

That article linked to this one https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/19/eurydice-dixon-death-male-rage-australia-women-men-attitudes

It says that 80% of murders and violent crime are carried out by men,and men make up two-thirds of the victims. It seems to me that it would be much more efficient to set up programmes telling men not to harm men, rather than trying to help only 33% of victims.

I found nothing wrong with the article, or the headline for that matter. To me, the journalist is basically saying that when it comes to rape and sexual assault we should abandon the tired old cliches of "he was a monster" and "what were you wearing" as it serves no purpose. The title of the article merely reflects this (although it is written to maximise the clicks).

The piece in question should be read as a personal account of what happened to her, but there was no attempt to shoehorn in the usual gender wars stuff in there.

py2006

laoch na mona wrote: »

You don't have to be a feminist to see how stupid that is

Feminists are quite prone to stupidity in fairness.

citytillidie

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sex-boyfriend-machete-break-in-house-samantha-ray-mears-montana-a8427066.html

Should that headline not be she raped him not forced him to have sex

Quazzie

citytillidie wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sex-boyfriend-machete-break-in-house-samantha-ray-mears-montana-a8427066.html

Should that headline not be she raped him not forced him to have sex

Rape is defined as inserting something inside someone else against their will. So she didn't rape him because he was inside her. For her to rape him she would've had to insert something into his anus

elvis83

Quazzie wrote: »

Rape is defined as inserting something inside someone else against their will. So she didn't rape him because he was inside her. For her to rape him she would've had to insert something into his anus

No. Rape is having sex with someone against their will. What happened this man is definitely rape.

Quazzie

elvis83 wrote: »

No. Rape is having sex with someone against their will. What happened this man is definitely rape.

Rape is a technical term. You should look it up.

LINK

elvis83

Quazzie wrote: »

Rape is a technical term. You should look it up.

LINK

Well that's news to me, thanks for the link.

PlaneSpeeking

Quazzie wrote: »

Rape is a technical term. You should look it up.

LINK

Just because the law is stupid and centred towards women, there's no reason for her to skate punishment.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Just because the law is stupid and centred towards women, there's no reason for her to skate punishment.

In just about every area of the law, women receive less punishment and far more likely to be acquitted, compared to men (for the same crime). This is nothing new really.

ELM327

Quazzie wrote: »

Rape is a technical term. You should look it up.

LINK

Thats only the definition in uk law.
In case you hadn't noticed this isnt the uk... and the dictionary definition is not aligned with the UK legal view



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

In just about every area of the law, women receive less punishment and far more likely to be acquitted, compared to men (for the same crime). This is nothing new really.

Worrying is it not ?

The UK Justice Minister has a plant o never lock up non-violent female offenders, ever.

You can do a serious amount of damage without being violent - and the plan is t let criminals off merely for a lack of penis ? And perhaps not even, given this mad world. Sure hasn't that maniac that killed the two wee girls "identified" as a woman ???

Quazzie

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Just because the law is stupid and centred towards women, there's no reason for her to skate punishment.

The definition of rape has no bearing on the legalities of the situation. It's just a definition. There is many an argument to be made against inequalities in the legal systems, but rape having a set definition is not one of them

Quazzie

ELM327 wrote: »

Thats only the definition in uk law.
In case you hadn't noticed this isnt the uk... and the dictionary definition is not aligned with the UK legal view



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape

The article quoted originally is a UK article, so Irish definition has zero relevance.

ELM327

Quazzie wrote: »

The definition of rape has no bearing on the legalities of the situation. It's just a definition. There is many an argument to be made against inequalities in the legal systems, but rape having a set definition is not one of them

And a definition which does not apply here.

ELM327

Quazzie wrote: »

The article quoted originally is a UK article, so Irish definition has zero relevance.

This isnt the UK so the UK legal definition (which is different to the dictionary definition) has the same relevance as the weather in the bahamas

Quazzie

ELM327 wrote: »

Thats only the definition in uk law.
In case you hadn't noticed this isnt the uk... and the dictionary definition is not aligned with the UK legal view



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape

ELM327 wrote: »

And a definition which does not apply here.

ELM327 wrote: »

This isnt the UK so the UK legal definition (which is different to the dictionary definition) has the same relevance as the weather in the bahamas

And in case you hadn't noticed, Irish law has the same definition no matter what your online dictionary definition is.

4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

(2) A person guilty of rape under section 4 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(3) Rape under section 4 shall be a felony.

LINK

ELM327

"Online dictionary definition".
It's the same across all recognised standard dictionaries.


Interesting that we have the same (incorrect) definition of rape as the UK do.
Why arent the feminists/liberals out protesting that? Of course, it only affects men so it's not interesting for them.

source

No

Quazzie wrote: »

And in case you hadn't noticed, Irish law has the same definition no matter what your online dictionary definition is.




LINK

That legislation was brought in to cover oral rape and rape with a foreign object, there is also the offence of Section 2 rape

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1981/act/10/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and

(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it,

and references to rape in this Act and any other enactment shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed.[\quote]

ELM327

So under that law and the law above it does not seem possible to prosecute a cis woman for rape of a man?

source

No

ELM327 wrote: »

So under that law and the law above it does not seem possible to prosecute a cis woman for rape of a man?

Not possible under either section 2 rape or section 4 rape.

Edit: missread your comment, altered to take account of what you actually said.

Pawwed Rig

ELM327 wrote: »

a cis woman

I am seeing this written online a lot. WTF is a CIS woman?

source

No

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I am seeing this written online a lot. WTF is a CIS woman?

Not sure what it's an abbreviation for but it is basically leftist speak for straight white. So acis male is a straight white male.

It was developed as a pejorative term and has become a bit more mainstream an acceptable.

The group that is all for equality and inclusiveness sure loves to come up with divisive terms for groups of people.

KrustyUCC

a cis woman is a woman who identifies as female and was assigned a female sex at birth

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/6227596/cis-cisgender-woman-man-meaning-transgender/

hots

source wrote: »

Not sure what it's an abbreviation for but it is basically leftist speak for straight white. So acis male is a straight white male.

It was developed as a pejorative term and has become a bit more mainstream an acceptable.

The group that is all for equality and inclusiveness sure loves to come up with divisive terms for groups of people.

I think it's just gender right? Not race? It's all very wordy, got to pick the right label!

source

No

hots wrote: »

I think it's just gender right? Not race? It's all very wordy, got to pick the right label!

It may have originated as gender but it's definitely used now from what I'm seeing online to define someone as straight and white.

Wibbs

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I am seeing this written online a lot. WTF is a CIS woman?

Nada to do with race or sexuality PR, basically CIS = Normal. The crazy notion that if you're genetically and physically male(or female) you're male(or female). Groundbreaking stuff.

For all the protests about labels by the "right on" they certainly have the capacity to generate more than any other group. Again the irony and self awareness bypass at work.

PlaneSpeeking

source wrote: »

It may have originated as gender but it's definitely used now from what I'm seeing online to define someone as straight and white.

I've had it thrown at me as an insult in a discussion - "what the f*** would you know, you're cis ???"

I'm white but I think slavery was - and is - abohrrent; I'm straight but a huge gay ally and I've been a member of the WWF (not that one!) for 30 years despite my sadly not being a panda bear!!!

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

Nada to do with race or sexuality PR, basically CIS = Normal. The crazy notion that if you're genetically and physically male(or female) you're male(or female). Groundbreaking stuff.

For all the protests about labels by the "right on" they certainly have the capacity to generate more than any other group. Again the irony and self awareness bypass at work.

its a half assed attempt to control language, it would be like Irish people going round and having to mention that they are members of "the settled community" if 99% of the population are or behave a particular way , then labelling it is redundant.