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

Maguined

Sleepy wrote: »

Is there a HR process you could go through with regards to having her sexism sanctioned?

Personally, I'd be livid in your situation and genuinely would be considering legal action over the discrimination. Given that no other candidate came near you in terms of qualifications or experience (the most important factors in employment discrimination from what I can see) I'd certainly at least follow up with HR/senior management and advise them you're considering your legal options.

It might not necessarily get you the job but it may at least get the sexist bitch fired.

Sounds like it is a big company and in big companies HR will always back the managers/directors decisions.

The only thing people can do in these situations is to actually take the company to court over such discrimination which is extremely expensive, time consuming and is not reliable to go your way.

Like most examples of sexism in the work place there is in theory something official you can do about it but in practice a lot of the times it's not worth the risk.

GalwayGuy2

This: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-jail-for-woman-who-admits-sexually-assaulting-teenage-relative-610591.html

Just going to highlight the fact that it is statutory rape and not sexual assault.

And I'm going to give a few of the comments that sickened me.

Judge Desmond Hogan remarked that it was an "unusual but serious case" in which the woman had taken advantage of a young person.

Ms Biggs said that although her client had breached the child's trust, “in a warped and dysfunctional way, she did love that child” and the child loved her.

Pawwed Rig

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Just going to highlight the fact that it is statutory rape and not sexual assault.

“It was consensual, the complainant said she was not frightened, and there were genuine feelings between them…in so far as a 14-year-old can have feelings,” said Ms Biggs.

I thought sex with a minor could not be considered consensual by definition?

iptba

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

This: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-jail-for-woman-who-admits-sexually-assaulting-teenage-relative-610591.html

Just going to highlight the fact that it is statutory rape and not sexual assault.

And I'm going to give a few of the comments that sickened me.

Judge Desmond Hogan remarked that it was an "unusual but serious case" in which the woman had taken advantage of a young person.

Ms Biggs said that although her client had breached the child's trust, “in a warped and dysfunctional way, she did love that child” and the child loved her.

No mention of being placed on sex offenders' register so:
(i) not named (for legal reasons - presumably because the victim might be identified);
(ii) no jail time;
(iii) it appears, not placed on the sex offenders' list.

Little more than a (metaphorical) slap on the wrist.

Pawwed Rig

No mention of the word paedophile either

clairefontaine

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

No mention of the word paedophile either

Pedophilia is a diagnosis, not the same thing always as a sex offender. Im assuming that journalists cannot label someone this without risk of libel, unless their history has proven a historical pattern of attraction to children.

Pawwed Rig

My dictionary must be incorrect then as it defines it as "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children."



I think this qualifies

clairefontaine

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

My dictionary must be incorrect then as it defines it as "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children."



I think this qualifies

Yes it is that alright.

But in a journalistic reporting of a sex offense, they have to be careful.

She may not be diagnosed as a pedophile, even though YOU think this qualifies.

Not all child sex offenders are pedophiles in that they commit the offence with a child but they do not have a "disposition" in which they are attracted to to children specifically.

The Corinthian

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Just going to highlight the fact that it is statutory rape and not sexual assault.

Legally you need a penis to commit rape in Ireland. Yes, I'm not joking; only men can commit rape in Ireland, the most that a woman can be charged with is the lesser crime of sexual assault.

Still my favourite line from the judge was this:

"He said he was unsure whether the defendant has full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of what she did and has some way to go until she realises the full consequences."

...but sure, let's release her anyway...

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Legally you need a penis to commit rape in Ireland. Yes, I'm not joking; only men can commit rape in Ireland, the most that a woman can be charged with is the lesser crime of sexual assault.

Still my favourite line from the judge was this:

"He said he was unsure whether the defendant has full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of what she did and has some way to go until she realises the full consequences."

...but sure, let's release her anyway...

That sounds like the Queen Victoria logic of not making lesbianism illegal because it doesn't exist.

Is sex assault really considered a lesser crime? Is that because rape brings risk of pregnancy?

Carlos Orange

No

The Corinthian wrote: »

Legally you need a penis to commit rape in Ireland. Yes, I'm not joking; only men can commit rape in Ireland, the most that a woman can be charged with is the lesser crime of sexual assault.

Still my favourite line from the judge was this:

"He said he was unsure whether the defendant has full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of what she did and has some way to go until she realises the full consequences."

...but sure, let's release her anyway...

I'm pretty sure she realises the lack of consequences already. Not named and no jail time.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

That sounds like the Queen Victoria logic of not making lesbianism illegal because it doesn't exist.

The law is probably Victorian, although the origin of many of such laws are actually Elizabethan (for example while male homosexuality was punishable by death in her day, lesbianism was not as she refused to accept it existed).

The UK has reformed many of these laws in the last fifty years. We've not really bothered in Ireland until there's a scandal or pressure to do so.

Is sex assault really considered a lesser crime? Is that because rape brings risk of pregnancy?

Yes. Rape can result in a life sentience, sexual assault of a minor has a far more lenient maximum of 14 years. I don't know what the logic there is. Maybe Bill Clinton drafted the law?

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

The law is probably Victorian, although the origin of many of such laws are actually Elizabethan (for example while male homosexuality was punishable by death in her day, lesbianism was not as she refused to accept it existed).

The UK has reformed many of these laws in the last fifty years. We've not really bothered in Ireland until there's a scandal or pressure to do so.

Yes. Rape can result in a life sentience, sexual assault of a minor has a far more lenient maximum of 14 years. I don't know what the logic there is. Maybe Bill Clinton drafted the law?

Bill Clinton actually pushed through some of our more ridiculous sex offender laws. So yeah, nothing would surprise me there.

If you look at the judges ruling in this particular case, it looks like he ignored the law and was legislating from the bench so id have to ask what would changing the law actually do if judges ignore them anyway.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Bill Clinton actually pushed through some of our more ridiculous sex offender laws. So yeah, nothing would surprise me there.

More in the sense of it's not sex unless intercourse is involved, which essentially was his logic over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

TBH, the difference in treatment that exists in such cases is no surprise; we recently saw (this time in the UK) how two almost identical cases of teachers having affairs with their students were treated almost completely differently, not only in law, but subsequently in the media.

But the law itself is highly flawed; at least up until 2009, the crime of incest was punishable up to life in prison - if you are a man. Women could, or perhaps still can, only get a maximum of 7 years, for the same crime.

In this case, and IMHO, it appears the buck stops with Judge Hogan. Anyone who could make such a judgement is frankly a buffoon, who has no place in a court of law; a white knight with a wig.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

More in the sense of it's not sex unless intercourse is involved, which essentially was his logic over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

TBH, the difference in treatment that exists in such cases is no surprise; we recently saw (this time in the UK) how two almost identical cases of teachers having affairs with their students were treated almost completely differently, not only in law, but subsequently in the media.

But the law itself is highly flawed; at least up until 2009, the crime of incest was punishable up to life in prison - if you are a man. Women could, or perhaps still can, only get a maximum of 7 years, for the same crime.

In this case, and IMHO, it appears the buck stops with Judge Hogan. Anyone who could make such a judgement is frankly a buffoon, who has no place in a court of law; a white knight with a wig.

It sounds kind of Catholic like its not an affair unless there's intercourse.

My impression is over all sentencing for child sex offences in Ireland has been pretty light.

Tis case is really just wow. One of the things that depressed me about Ireland was that nothing seemed to matter, there were no consequences to anything, and this is just more of that. She's basically free to continue preying on a minor because the judge feels she loves her. They all say they "love" their victims. They actually believe it half the time too.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

It sounds kind of Catholic like its not an affair unless there's intercourse.

The legislation is most likely inherited from before independence, so hardly Catholic.

Pawwed Rig

I know this was discussed before but I was just researching some statistics on cancer in Ireland on www.cancer.ie

The incidence of cancers in 2009 was:
Non melanoma skin cancer–8,145 cases
Prostate cancer–2,859 cases
Breast cancer–2,766 cases
Bowel cancer–2,271 cases
Lung cancer–1,784 cases

Now prostate cancer is exclusively male and breast cancer is almost exclusively female (26 cases of male breast cancer).
42% of men and 50% of women diagnosed with cancer currently survive for five years and longer.
So comparing prostate cancer and breast cancer. Men are more likely to get it and are more likely to die yet when you think of cancer awareness and fundraising drives, breast cancer is the one that immediately comes to mind.

IvyTheTerrible

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I know this was discussed before but I was just researching some statistics on cancerin Ireland on www.cancer.ie

The incidence of cancers in 2009 was:

• Non melanoma skin cancer–8,145 cases
• Prostate cancer–2,859 cases
• Breast cancer–2,766 cases
• Bowel cancer–2,271 cases
• Lung cancer–1,784 cases

Nowprostate cancer is exclusively male and breast cancer is almost exclusivelyfemale (26 cases of male breast cancer).

42% ofmen and 50% of women diagnosed with cancer currently survive for five years andlonger.

Socomparing prostate cancer and breast cancer. Men are more likely to get it andare more likely to die yet when you think of cancer awareness and fundraisingdrives, breast cancer is the one that immediately comes to mind.

I'm not sure that's neccessarily sexism though, cervical cancer is something only women can get; and there isn't the same awareness or fundraising for that.
I don't know about Ireland, but I hear a lot about screening for colon and prostate cancer here in France.

Pawwed Rig

It is an indication of who is more valued in society or more importantly who is more disposable.

Cancers in women
Gynae cancers–992 Cervical –304, Ovary –297, Uterine–391

I have heard alot more about cervical smear tests in my lifetime than prostate exams. Isn't there a free smear test provided by the HSE?

FouxDaFaFa

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So comparing prostate cancer and breast cancer. Men are more likely to get it andare more likely to die yet when you think of cancer awareness and fundraising drives, breast cancer is the one that immediately comes to mind.

Yes and unfortunately iirc, Ireland has a higher prostate cancer mortality rate than other developed countries, like the US.

It doesn't have to be a death sentence but it often is, whether that's ignorance of what they should be looking out for or a reluctance to go to the doctor until it's too late.

As for why breast cancer has had more successful fundraising drives, it's probably because big companies have alway been behind it as the kind of "cool" cancer to support. (I mean no offence by this).

It's much easier to aim products at a (largely) female demographic and make the drives kind of fun (oh look, pink!) rather than say "and guys, check your balls and go to your doctor for an awkward test if you're worried". It's not as palatable.

I think schemes like Movember (coming up fast) are great steps in the right direction. A whole month dedicated to raising awareness about men's cancers. And awareness of how great facial hair can be.

Carlos Orange

No

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

when you think of cancer awareness and fundraising drives, breast cancer is the one that immediately comes to mind.

I think charity donations heavily skew female so maybe it makes more sense to look for money from women. How money is spent isn't the same as how it is raised. Then again charities seem to skew female too so maybe they just spend the money on stuff they care about.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Isn't there a free smear test provided by the HSE?

From HSE website
Women aged 25 to 44 will be offered a free smear test every three years
Women aged 45 to 60 will be offered a free smear test every five years

Whereas for prostate cancer, which is 9 times more common than cervical cancer, the advice is go and see your GP if you're worried about it.

tsiehta

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I know this was discussed before but I was just researching some statistics on cancer in Ireland on www.cancer.ie

The incidence of cancers in 2009 was:
Non melanoma skin cancer–8,145 cases
Prostate cancer–2,859 cases
Breast cancer–2,766 cases
Bowel cancer–2,271 cases
Lung cancer–1,784 cases

Now prostate cancer is exclusively male and breast cancer is almost exclusively female (26 cases of male breast cancer).
42% of men and 50% of women diagnosed with cancer currently survive for five years and longer.
So comparing prostate cancer and breast cancer. Men are more likely to get it and are more likely to die yet when you think of cancer awareness and fundraising drives, breast cancer is the one that immediately comes to mind.

All cancers aren't the same thing. The vast majority of prostate cancer diagnoses occur in men over the age of 55 (~90%), the median age of diagnosis is 67, 99% of those diagnosed survive 5 years or more, and less than 10% of deaths from prostate cancer occur in men under 65. ~40% of breast cancer diagnoses occur in women under the age of 55, the median age of diagnosis is 61, 89% survive 5 years or more, and 42% of deaths from breast cancer occur in women under 65.

These are US stats taken from http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/, but it's not likely much different in Ireland. Applying them to your above numbers for prostate and breast cancer, you get ~286 cases of prostate cancer in men under 55, and ~1106 cases of breast cancer in women under 55, with the likelihood of death from breast cancer for these women before they reach 65 much higher than those men with prostate cancer.

Each type of cancer is completely different in terms of when it tends to occur, how treatable it is, and likelihood of survival. You can't just look at numbers for incidences of cancers without any context and determine that one is worse than another.

Pawwed Rig

If we just look at deaths then 29,775 people were diagnosed with cancer in 2009, 15,364 men and 14,441 women.

8,911 of the men will die within 5 years of diagnosis
7,220 of the women will die

Yet all of the awareness and HSE freebies are around breast cancer and cervical cancer.
Were the statistics the other way around it would be a national scandal.

Found this Time magazine article which is interesting reading http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/13/almost-every-type-of-cancer-kills-more-men-than-women-study-shows/

My main point is where are the health campaigns for the guys?

PucaMama

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If we just look at deaths then 29,775 people were diagnosed with cancer in 2009, 15,364 men and 14,441 women.

8,911 of the men will die within 5 years of diagnosis
7,220 of the women will die

Yet all of the awareness and HSE freebies are around breast cancer and cervical cancer.
Were the statistics the other way around it would be a national scandal.

Found this Time magazine article which is interesting reading http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/13/almost-every-type-of-cancer-kills-more-men-than-women-study-shows/

My main point is where are the health campaigns for the guys?

I realy dont think cancer screenings can be described as "freebies" :rolleyes:
so do you think men should be regularly screened? if so how often? and how do you suggest we convince men to go for screenings?

GalwayGuy2

so do you think men should be regularly screened? if so how often? and how do you suggest we convince men to go for screenings?

Who's 'we'?

Meh, it's pretty obvious men are seen as more expendable than women.

PucaMama

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Who's 'we'?

Meh, it's pretty obvious men are seen as more expendable than women.

we as in everyone. for it to work everyone has to make an effort.

what disgust me reading this is not the victimhood creeping in, but the fact that its seen as a sexism issue breast cancer, cervical cancer and prostate cancer are all fairly different so they obviously cant be dealt with in the same way.

GalwayGuy2

what disgust me reading this is not the victimhood creeping in, but the fact that its seen as a sexism issue breast cancer, cervical cancer and prostate cancer are all fairly different so they obviously cant be dealt with in the same way.

But it's part of a wider misandric culture that seeks to take away men's rights.

I'm joking with the above comment, and I'm undecided on the original point.

BUT, imagine the comments that are disgusting you on this thread being blasted from television, internet and radio 24/7.

Just sayin'

PucaMama

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

But it's part of a wider misandric culture that seeks to take away men's rights.

I'm joking with the above comment, and I'm undecided on the original point.

BUT, imagine the comments that are disgusting you on this thread being blasted from television, internet and radio 24/7.

Just sayin'

im not sure i get what YOU find annoying? the adds for smear tests? or the checks for breast cancer? why do these annoy you? i can assure you women dont get cancer to spite men.

when i hear things like what i bolded above i think its something that belongs in the conspiracy forum. women dont hate men, at least i dont and neither do the women i no. we dont want to take away anyones rights. i happen to like men but not this stuff. comparing cancer treatments and getting competitive about it etc really does no one any good.

PucaMama

sickening

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/boyfriend-training/id672571592?mt=8