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

Calhoun

H3llR4iser wrote: »

There's a desperate need to attract more women in the construction industry apparently - if nothing else, because they would bolster the sheer numbers of builders needed in Ireland.

https://www.independent.ie/business/in-the-workplace/more-females-required-to-meet-construction-demand-cif-37339862.html

Heard about this on the radio this morning - surprise, surprise, 99% of construction site workers are men. Although it's not as blatant as in other fields, they are kind of trying to put the "equal opportunities" spin on this; It's not like the cold hard reality is that the almost totality of women just don't want to pursue career paths that are physically demanding, dirty, dangerous and often require unsociable hours or settings...

They have been flogging this horse for a long time, i think periodically the CIF will put out a statement as such.

I am sure any woman that does come on with this one, wont be a brickie, carpenter or general laborer. More like healthy and safety or a construction engineer. I wouldn't be surprised if they had some sort of grant in third level education for women to go into the field.

iptba

H3llR4iser wrote: »

There's a desperate need to attract more women in the construction industry apparently - if nothing else, because they would bolster the sheer numbers of builders needed in Ireland.

https://www.independent.ie/business/in-the-workplace/more-females-required-to-meet-construction-demand-cif-37339862.html

Heard about this on the radio this morning - surprise, surprise, 99% of construction site workers are men. Although it's not as blatant as in other fields, they are kind of trying to put the "equal opportunities" spin on this; It's not like the cold hard reality is that the almost totality of women just don't want to pursue career paths that are physically demanding, dirty, dangerous and often require unsociable hours or settings...

Metrics that tend not to get mentioned or measured much. Instead we simply get claims any gender pay is strongly related to discrimination.

silverharp

''sticks and stones may break my bones, but you will always find a way to offend a feminist''


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/01/italian-professors-speech-removed-cern-website-accused-sexism/

An Italian scientist has been suspended by one of the world's leading leading nuclear research centres after he gave a presentation saying "physics was invented and built by men".

CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, said on Monday it was shocked by the "highly offensive" comments made by Professor Alessandro Strumia from Pisa University at a conference.

The centre also wiped slides from his talk from its website “in line with a code of conduct that does not tolerate personal attacks and insults” and said it was reassessing its relationship with the researcher after an outcry from physicists and scientists around the world.

Calhoun

http://www.thejournal.ie/suicide-rates-ireland-4267893-Oct2018/

Not sure where to post this but interesting, not that im surprised.

I guess people just need feminism.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/suicide-rates-ireland-4267893-Oct2018/

Not sure where to post this but interesting, not that im surprised.

I guess people just need feminism.

Not sure what your trying to say here.

Arguably its the patriarchy that reinforces male and female roles. That stereotypical male role is a stoic leader that doesn't talk about their problems. Modern third wave feminism wants to dismantle this system (the gaudy "smash the patriarchy" slogan). So yeah, people do need feminism if you follow that line of thinking. Feminism is such a bad word these days that I prefer to call it egalitarianism.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure what your trying to say here.

Arguably its the patriarchy that reinforces male and female roles. That stereotypical male role is a stoic leader that doesn't talk about their problems. Modern third wave feminism wants to dismantle this system (the gaudy "smash the patriarchy" slogan). So yeah, people do need feminism if you follow that line of thinking. Feminism is such a bad word these days that I prefer to call it egalitarianism.

Men talk about their problems all the time. Its just that a certain type of feminist doesnt want to listen, dismisses them talking about their problems or claims that their problems are a loss of privilege and they are oppressing women by even talking. Then these men stop talking about their problems and feminists blame the patriarchy.

Brings to mind the school bully who grabs the kids hand and slaps them on the face with it, shouting "stop hitting yourself" i.e. your self satisfied type of nasty person.

Defunkd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Feminism is such a bad word these days that I prefer to call it egalitarianism.

Feminism is not a synonym of egalitarianism. Feminism seeks advantages or rights for females (the clue is in the name).

The Black Oil

I would guess Calhoun's referring to Blindboy's tripe about men needing feminism.

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure what your trying to say here.

Arguably its the patriarchy that reinforces male and female roles. That stereotypical male role is a stoic leader that doesn't talk about their problems. Modern third wave feminism wants to dismantle this system (the gaudy "smash the patriarchy" slogan). So yeah, people do need feminism if you follow that line of thinking. Feminism is such a bad word these days that I prefer to call it egalitarianism.

It was a play on the dope from Limerick with the plastic bag on his head who seems to think that a doctrine that tells men they are abusers, rapists and essentially all they are worth for is to die on the streets.

No men don't need that, well some men are the type that like to carry on like they are into it but deep down are wolves in sheep clothing.

Keyzer

H3llR4iser wrote: »

There's a desperate need to attract more women in the construction industry apparently - if nothing else, because they would bolster the sheer numbers of builders needed in Ireland.

https://www.independent.ie/business/in-the-workplace/more-females-required-to-meet-construction-demand-cif-37339862.html

Heard about this on the radio this morning - surprise, surprise, 99% of construction site workers are men. Although it's not as blatant as in other fields, they are kind of trying to put the "equal opportunities" spin on this; It's not like the cold hard reality is that the almost totality of women just don't want to pursue career paths that are physically demanding, dirty, dangerous and often require unsociable hours or settings...

I seen that myself - I though the "We need more women in Nuclear" was crazy enough. If I was a woman and had aspirations to have a family one day I would not work in the Nuclear industry.

This is really scraping the bottom of the barrell.

I have never in my life met a woman who has or wants to work in construction.

Architecture, yes. Engineering, yes.

Women working on a building site? Never have I (and predict will I) meet a woman who aspires to work in construction. Hell, most men don't want to work in it. Its a tough job, my father did it for 50 years and he's physically fúcked.

Ludicrous horseshít.

Zulu

No

Deleted User wrote: »

Feminism is such a bad word these days that I prefer to call it egalitarianism.

Except it's not egalitarian. A truly egalitarian view wouldn't bother with gender at all; it would be blind to gender in it's treatment of the person.

Which is why I believe egalitarianism to be the way forward, not identity politics.

the current system is to increase the division between the genders. That's no way to implement equality.

Zulu

No

Deleted User wrote: »

the current system is to increase the division between the genders. That's no way to implement equality.

Exactly, which is why I have such difficulty accepting a "considered feminist's" premise that they truly seek equality.



By "considered" i mean someone who has sat down and thought about it, and concluded that they identify with todays stock of feminism. As opposed to the (what I guess is the vast majority) large number of ordinary day-to-day people who mean feminism of an era gone past a feminism seeking equality not reparation.

Defunkd

Zulu wrote: »

Exactly, which is why I have such difficulty accepting a "considered feminist's" premise that they truly seek equality.

I asked a woman to tell me what Rights I - as a man - have that she doesn't have or is denied. Her answe involved lots of talking, but no substance.

sharper

Defunkd wrote: »

I asked a woman to tell me what Rights I - as a man - have that she doesn't have or is denied. Her answe involved lots of talking, but no substance.

That's a bit of a "Gotcha!" question though. You could also say men don't lack any rights that women have. Explaining the way expectations and judgement are used to harm men takes a little bit of time and operates mostly outside of well defined legal rights.

The slight difference is that if someone has already bought into the idea that gender role models hurt women it shouldn't be as much of a leap to apply that to men too.

In my experience many people cannot identify the difference between the male role model is regarded by society and the difficulty individual men have in performing that role. The female role model is also well treated, the problem is in individual women meeting the various standards.

Pawwed Rig

sharper wrote: »

You could also say men don't lack any rights that women have.

The ability to collect child benefit payments is one

sharper

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The ability to collect child benefit payments is one

Child benefit is paid to the father when the child resides more than 50% of the time with him http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Child-Benefit.aspx

Otherwise it should be the perfect issue for everyone to agree on. Feminists would argue it's a legal presumption that women are only good for child rearing, men's rights activists would argue it's a legal presumption men cannot rear children.

ahnowbrowncow

No

sharper wrote: »

Child benefit is paid to the father when the child resides more than 50% of the time with him http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Child-Benefit.aspx

Otherwise it should be the perfect issue for everyone to agree on. Feminists would argue it's a legal presumption that women are only good for child rearing, men's rights activists would argue it's a legal presumption men cannot rear children.

They refuse to pay child benefit to the father if both the mother and father are living with the child, even when the mother requests them to. Try explain how that's not sexist.

Pawwed Rig

I thought Sharper was agreeing with my point??

sharper

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

They refuse to pay child benefit to the father if both the mother and father are living with the child, even when the mother requests them to. Try explain how that's not sexist.

It is sexist, I'm just pointing out it's been modified to the point where it's not likely to be anyone's top priority to change though. Neither feminists nor men's rights advocates are likely to go after it anytime soon.

I would guess that things like changing stations typically being in women's toilets would rate higher on the list of concerns.

These types of issues should be able to easily gain consensus for change but many activists are too busy fighting proxy battles over who has it worse overall to do so.

Pawwed Rig

sharper wrote: »

I would guess that things like changing stations typically being in women's toilets would rate higher on the list of concerns.

I actually have not found this to be the case. Everytime I changed one of mine there was either a changer in the mens or a separate room (disabled toilet sometimes). It never actually arose (in Ireland) where there was nowhere available. In Spain they looked at me in shock when I asked where I could change the baby

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

Exactly, which is why I have such difficulty accepting a "considered feminist's" premise that they truly seek equality.



By "considered" i mean someone who has sat down and thought about it, and concluded that they identify with todays stock of feminism. As opposed to the (what I guess is the vast majority) large number of ordinary day-to-day people who mean feminism of an era gone past a feminism seeking equality not reparation.

Except reparation is only one side of the coin. The other is superior rights. The fact is that feminists, or women's rights movements (yes, I see there being a difference) don't stop campaigning for increased rights once equality has been reached. They continue to seek further benefits both legally and socially/culturally which place women further along than men.

Consider workplace equality and anti-discrimination practices. For the most part, due to legal change genuine equality in the 'professional' workplace had been reached. Women were legally entitled to equal treatment with men, and had the avenues in place to punish those who failed to abide by the laws (and social perception). But in recent years with the implementation of quotas and other initiatives they're removing the establishment of gender equality by placing the need for more women in the workplace. In instances where quotas have been implemented and women have gained equal numbers, invariably there is a push for more women to be placed in those positions.

There is no movement to recognize the unequal numbers of women on panels compared to men due to the implementation of quotas. Just as we have the perception that women can claim discrimination for failure to obtain positions which generally aren't available to men (unless they're part of a minority like being gay or a ethnic background).

These movements seek to elevate women far higher both in legal and cultural terms. Basically, to give women the status which men apparently had in the past before the womens rights movements took off (not that men, in general, were actually receiving any such benefits but that's simply good propaganda).

So, it's not about equality. It hasn't been about equality since the 70s/80s.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

Except reparation is only one side of the coin. The other is superior rights. The fact is that feminists, or women's rights movements (yes, I see there being a difference) don't stop campaigning for increased rights once equality has been reached. They continue to seek further benefits both legally and socially/culturally which place women further along than men.

Consider workplace equality and anti-discrimination practices. For the most part, due to legal change genuine equality in the 'professional' workplace had been reached. Women were legally entitled to equal treatment with men, and had the avenues in place to punish those who failed to abide by the laws (and social perception). But in recent years with the implementation of quotas and other initiatives they're removing the establishment of gender equality by placing the need for more women in the workplace. In instances where quotas have been implemented and women have gained equal numbers, invariably there is a push for more women to be placed in those positions.

There is no movement to recognize the unequal numbers of women on panels compared to men due to the implementation of quotas. Just as we have the perception that women can claim discrimination for failure to obtain positions which generally aren't available to men (unless they're part of a minority like being gay or a ethnic background).

These movements seek to elevate women far higher both in legal and cultural terms. Basically, to give women the status which men apparently had in the past before the womens rights movements took off (not that men, in general, were actually receiving any such benefits but that's simply good propaganda).

So, it's not about equality. It hasn't been about equality since the 70s/80s.

Too true.

Feminists have long since abandoned all pretence at getting equality.

They want to win, they want to rule and they want blatant double standards.

As a woman (but NOT a feminist using the current definition) apparently I'm some kind of gender traitor for believing:

• There should be evidence of sex crimes rather than mindless belief;
• That men are as good - if not at times better - parents than women (cf that dumb Alexa ad where the device reminds the dad how to parent!)
• and that if you are a woman you can achieve ANYTHING - dumbing down standards just devalues the achievements of those who have gone before.

Gender equality now is just a nice way of saying "we are discriminating against men".

KrustyUCC

Can you spot what is wrong with this controversial hotel ad?

https://www.oversixty.com.au/travel/travel-trouble/can-you-spot-what-is-wrong-with-this-controversial-hotel-ad

Christ people go out of their way to be offended

The hotel chain shouldn't have apologised

Calhoun

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Can you spot what is wrong with this controversial hotel ad?

https://www.oversixty.com.au/travel/travel-trouble/can-you-spot-what-is-wrong-with-this-controversial-hotel-ad

Christ people go out of their way to be offended

The hotel chain shouldn't have apologised

What is wrong with it? dont want to click on their trash article.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

What is wrong with it? dont want to click on their trash article.

Try and guess where the controversy is coming from

Defunkd

^^^
Twitter outrage is just newspaper filler material. Who gives a fcuk what these spanners think is offensive or not.

Maxpfizer

Deleted User wrote: »

Try and guess where the controversy is coming from

Haha. That's great!

The man is reading the financial paper and eating breads and the woman is reading her fashion book and eating fruit.

People getting wound up "well I am a woman and I read the financial papers AND eat loads of carbs". So what?

You would think that one of the purposes of advertising is to appeal to the sort of regular person who would buy the product or use the services.

I'm always curious about the percentages of couples who do quite happily conform to the stereotypes.

A lot of couples I know, probably the vast majority, are in a situation where the man is the main "breadwinner" and I wonder if the women would have even been willing to "settle for less" in the partner's earnings department. I've had a female friend describe a potential partners earning potential as a "deal breaker" before so I dunno.

For sure in every relationship I have ever been in there has been a very specific dynamic regarding food and attitudes towards diet. I don't care and eat what I want and she is very conscious of her food choices and diet and weight etc.

I suppose the question is which came first? Are the ads influenced by the stereotype and so are trying to appeal to the regular "couple in the street" or are the stereotypes created by the ads?

I feel the same way about people complaining about how men are portrayed in ads for cleaning products or whatever. I wonder to what extent the idea that the woman knows all about the keeping of the house and the man is clueless is actually true.

I mean you could surely find 10s of thousands of couples who will say "well WE are not like that" but that's kind of meaningless if you can find millions more who would say "that's just like us".

The main objections are things like "I read the Financial Review every day and thing doesn't represent me". Or "some women are more interested in stocks and shares than fashion".

Well, OK then, but is it really reasonable to expect a fecking advertisement of all things to cater to your very specific and possibly even uncommon lifestyle?

It would seem very logical to me that if you were bringing a brand new product to the market and wanted to invest in advertising you wouldn't be thinking "how can my advert encourage people to conform to stereotypes" but would more likely be thinking "what can I do to appeal to the average person".

Someone like me sees a nice standard issue couple like myself and my OH enjoying a relaxing and enjoyable hotel stay.

Some other people see the evil Patriarchy forcing women to eat fruit and read about fashion while the male, poisoned by toxic masculinity, feels the need to read about financial issues and eat fattening manly breads to prove his manhood.

I want to know why there aren't any black, asian or old people represented in this ad #notmyad

ELM327

Lots of special snowflake people out there if they are offended by that.
What a load of BS.

Lets all run to our safe spaces now.

Sleepy

Let's face it, the type of woman who'd be offended by that bed would be in it alone. And there'd be another basket of croissants instead of the fruit platter.

Maxpfizer

Deleted User wrote: »

I want to know why there aren't any black, asian or old people represented in this ad #notmyad

Why are there only 2 people in the bed? Does this hotel have something against polyamorous couples?

Just typical cis-normative, hetro-normative trash from Sofitel hotels and resorts if you ask me.

"Breakfast in Brisbane" is this advert saying that EVERYONE who goes to Brisbane eats breakfast because, let me tell you, because of Fat Shaming and Patriarchy I don't eat until lunch time in an effort to keep myself in shape.

Also calling it a "luxury" implies that only people with a bit of money can afford to stay here. What if I prefer to just have a cheap and tacky hotel experience?

This couple here need to check their damn privilege right now.

It's probably built on aboriginal land too.

Donate to my Patreon or throw me some dollars on Ko-fi and you too could find out more in my upcoming book titled "Surviving Luxury Vacations in a Post Trump World - Examining Hotel Stays from an Intersectional Feminist Perspective"

johnnyskeleton

Ive a theory that if anything is genuinely sexist, from a noted misogynist and is deliberately intended to be sexist, it wont be called out. Itll be ignored. Its only when companies with extremely sensitive PR departments do somethingly mildly sexist by mistake that these uproars occur.

The pattern is publication, outrage, admonisment, apology, vindication. It seems to me that if you genuinely hate women youll be left alone, and youll only get in trouble if you accidentally but earnestly say something that can be percieved by someone as sexist.

The test, such as it is, as to whether to express faux outrage on the internet, is to see if you can get fulsome apologies for almost no effort.

Calhoun

I believe its actually them using, mistakes and mishaps as companies as a way of getting media attention and spreading their own narrative.

The companies then normally capitulate and end up screwing themselves up. The term get woke go broke is something doing the rounds online these days and generally it is true. If you use social justice narrative to sell any product or only appeal to the SJW folks you are really cutting your audience.

Not only that but for the most part the lengths these people will go punish you for your mistakes is unreal. CD project red a decent game developer in Poland made a joke about did you assume my gender, probably not wise in the current climate but not only did they apologies but after they did one of their staff was doxxed. Are these the type of people you really want to be working with?

Where will it end up? well i see allot more regulation of online in the future. This small but vocal mob are essentially going to be the cause for fairly draconian legislation of online platforms.

Sleepy

Calhoun wrote: »

The companies then normally capitulate and end up screwing themselves up. The term get woke go broke is something doing the rounds online these days and generally it is true. If you use social justice narrative to sell any product or only appeal to the SJW folks you are really cutting your audience.

Unless you're selling degrees in Gender Studies or media product of course. It seems to be doing pretty well for quite a few universities and authors/columnists.

Calhoun

Sleepy wrote: »

Unless you're selling degrees in Gender Studies or media product of course. It seems to be doing pretty well for quite a few universities and authors/columnists.

For how long is that sustainable, you already have University professors submitting false papers for peer review and having them pass.

As for the media, they now have themselges so you trustworthy that people are going to YouTubers ect for their news and things are becoming so bad mainstream media is attacking them.

iptba

Healthy Town: Women need to understand their heart health
About one third of all women in Ireland will die of cardiovascular disease
about 22 hours ago
Sponsored by Pfizer

https://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/healthy-town/healthy-town-women-need-to-understand-their-heart-health-1.3658471

Gender-specific health campaigns could be justified.
So if this gets balanced up with a similar sponsored piece aimed at men, then there would be no sexism.
But currently there is only this that I am aware of.

One eyed Jack

iptba wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/healthy-town/healthy-town-women-need-to-understand-their-heart-health-1.3658471

Gender-specific health campaigns could be justified.
So if this gets balanced up with a similar sponsored piece aimed at men, then there would be no sexism.
But currently there is only this that I am aware of.

I gotta be honest, I read that as a fairly balanced piece, pointing out the differences between men’s and women’s health in terms of cardiovascular health, something which a lot of women I know at least weren’t aware of, but they’re acutely aware of cardiovascular and heart diseases in men, as are most men.

Of course when the Healthy Towns program is sponsored by the makers of viagra, they’ll probably mention at some point how contrary to popular belief their little blue pill may show a lot more promise in preventing cardiovascular health conditions and type 2 diabetes, than just being prescribed as a treatment for male impotence -


Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors as novel cardioprotective agents – have we reached threshold for large-scale clinical trials?


(I’m sure the ladies will be happy to hear it too )

ahnowbrowncow

No

Anyone notice the difference in how murderers are treated on the basis of their gender? It seems we're conditioned to believe that men are the offenders and women are the victims, even when it is the female being charged with murder.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/tina-cahill-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-of-fianc%C3%A9-in-australia-1.3672656

This woman in Australia had her murder downgraded to manslaughter as she was apparently suffering from PTSD due to her abusive partner.

The article even has quotes from her parents saying they came over to support her and saying that she's doing ok. Seriously? Are we supposed to be feeling bad for her?

I'm quite cynical about the abuse in these murder cases as it is the go to defence for female murderers. It's nearly always successful too so why wouldn't they try, it's her word against a dead mans. I was actually surprised Molly Martens was convicted of murdering Jason Corbett, one of the few cases I've noticed that the abusive husband defence didn't succeed.

There was also a man killed by his wife in Macroom recently, he had moved into the house where he was killed in order to care for his brother. I thought that bit was relevant as it appears that he was a decent person.

It then struck me when I read the below sentence in the RTE article

"Judge Dorgan... directed that she gets all assistance that she needs while in prison."

Very rarely have I seen that consideration shown to a man that has just killed his wife.

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2018/1010/1002135-macroom-court-woman/

Calhoun

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Anyone notice the difference in how murderers are treated on the basis of their gender? It seems we're conditioned to believe that men are the offenders and women are the victims, even when it is the female being charged with murder.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/tina-cahill-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-of-fianc%C3%A9-in-australia-1.3672656

This woman in Australia had her murder downgraded to manslaughter as she was apparently suffering from PTSD due to her abusive partner.

The article even has quotes from her parents saying they came over to support her and that she's doing ok. Seriously? Are we supposed to be feeling bad for her?

I'm quite cynical about the abuse in these murder cases as it is the go to defence for female murderers. It's nearly always successful too so why wouldn't they try, it's her word against a dead mans. I was actually surprised Molly Martens was convicted of murdering Jason Corbett, one of the few cases I've noticed that the abusive husband defence didn't succeed.

There was also a man killed by his wife in Macroom recently, apparently he had moved into the house where he was killed in order to care for his brother. I thought that bit was relevant as it appears that he was a decent person.

It then struck me when I read the below sentence in the RTE article

"Judge Dorgan... directed that she gets all assistance that she needs while in prison."

Very rarely have I seen that consideration shown to a man that has just killed his wife.

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2018/1010/1002135-macroom-court-woman/

To be fair though i am starting to think their is a sexism built into our current judicial system and not an anti-male one but judges who can't seem to move away from the old Irish model of the stay at home mammy.

ahnowbrowncow

No

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Anyone notice the difference in how murderers are treated on the basis of their gender? It seems we're conditioned to believe that men are the offenders and women are the victims, even when it is the female being charged with murder.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/tina-cahill-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-of-fianc%C3%A9-in-australia-1.3672656

This woman in Australia had her murder downgraded to manslaughter as she was apparently suffering from PTSD due to her abusive partner.

The article even has quotes from her parents saying they came over to support her and saying that she's doing ok. Seriously? Are we supposed to be feeling bad for her?

I'm quite cynical about the abuse in these murder cases as it is the go to defence for female murderers. It's nearly always successful too so why wouldn't they try, it's her word against a dead mans. I was actually surprised Molly Martens was convicted of murdering Jason Corbett, one of the few cases I've noticed that the abusive husband defence didn't succeed.

Another article has appeared in the news today relating to this story.
The above woman had previously been convicted of recklessly wounding her partner 18 months before she killed him.

"According to court documents, the couple were arguing loudly in their bedroom and the sound of something smashing was heard. Ms Jennings ran to the room and found Mr Walsh crying and his forehead bleeding profusely."

It doesn't sound like he was the one abusing his partner and yet she was still able to get the murder downgraded to manslaughter on that basis

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1031/1007954-cathrina-cahill/

py2006

They all (probably encouraged) to claim they were abused etc.

iptba

A former housemate has testified that she saw Cahill walk up the stairs with her hand behind her back, then suddenly stab Mr Walsh in the back of his head after the couple argued on October 3, 2015.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/i-hope-you-got-a-good-look-slut-tina-cahill-tells-court-of-repeated-violence-by-fiance-she-killed-37484730.html

Reminds me of another case, this time in Ireland where a woman went upstairs with a knife and stabbed her partner to death:

She went downstairs, picked up a steak knife and returned upstairs where she stabbed Peter. He was stabbed in the chest, back and in the legs. Caroline said in her statement that she was defending herself.

She didn't even get a suspended sentence.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0302/5856-comerford/

iptba

We discussed another Irish case previously where a woman got a suspended sentence for stabbing her brother to death with a knife wound through the chest.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64566921

She claimed he had bullied her previously.

However, as one poster pointed out, normally the only defence for killing someone is self defence which didn't seem to be the factor in that case.

Calhoun

Lol female child suicide now as high as men and seems to be getting funding, and allot of concerns and something must be done. All said in the same sentence as it's as high as the male suicide but hey **** those guys.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

Lol female child suicide now as high as men and seems to be getting funding, and allot of concerns and something must be done. All said in the same sentence as it's as high as the male suicide but hey **** those guys.

I tried to find what you are talking about: https://www.irishpost.com/news/ireland-highest-child-suicide-rate-among-girls-eu-new-report-finds-161643

This was published today: https://www.nwci.ie/images/uploads/Out_of_Silence_Report_-_NWCI_-_2018.pdf

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

I tried to find what you are talking about: https://www.irishpost.com/news/ireland-highest-child-suicide-rate-among-girls-eu-new-report-finds-161643

This was published today: https://www.nwci.ie/images/uploads/Out_of_Silence_Report_-_NWCI_-_2018.pdf

It was a newstalk conversation earlier today, which is where i heard it.

Maxpfizer

Deleted User wrote: »

I tried to find what you are talking about: https://www.irishpost.com/news/ireland-highest-child-suicide-rate-among-girls-eu-new-report-finds-161643

This was published today: https://www.nwci.ie/images/uploads/Out_of_Silence_Report_-_NWCI_-_2018.pdf

Here's the thing that I don't get.

NWCI said both genders suffer equally from mental illness but female sufferers have specific needs, experiences and contributing factors.

Surely it follows from that that male sufferers must also have specific needs, experiences etc.

Like, without getting into debates about binary vs non-binary, surely if women's mental illness needs are different from men's then BOTH men and women have "specific needs". WTF?

...it was clear from the women we spoke to that their mental health is impacted by the gender inequality they encounter...

Riiiight.

It's such a weird way to approach an issue. Divide the people experiencing the problem into different groups based on how they experience the issue.

Then say "OK, we want to help this group here specifically, good luck to the rest of you".

So apparently the rate of suicide among 10 to 14 year olds and 15 to 19 year olds is almost 3 times as high for boys.

It's crazy when you think of it that the headline "Ireland has highest child suicide rate among girls in the EU" is not followed by even an acknowledgement that the child suicide rate among boys is 3 times higher than even that.

What's the use in campaigning for gender equality when realistically you're willing to treat everyone differently based only on their gender.

You can have a look here: https://www.nsrf.ie/statistics/suicide/

Triceratops Ballet

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Here's the thing that I don't get.

NWCI said both genders suffer equally from mental illness but female sufferers have specific needs, experiences and contributing factors.

Surely it follows from that that male sufferers must also have specific needs, experiences etc.

Like, without getting into debates about binary vs non-binary, surely if women's mental illness needs are different from men's then BOTH men and women have "specific needs". WTF?

...it was clear from the women we spoke to that their mental health is impacted by the gender inequality they encounter...

Riiiight.

It's such a weird way to approach an issue. Divide the people experiencing the problem into different groups based on how they experience the issue.

Then say "OK, we want to help this group here specifically, good luck to the rest of you".

So apparently the rate of male suicide among 10 to 14 year olds and 15 to 19 year olds is almost 3 times as high for boys.

It's crazy when you think of it that the headline "Ireland has highest child suicide rate among girls in the EU" is not followed by even an acknowledgement that the child suicide rate among boys is 3 times higher than even that.

You can have a look here: https://www.nsrf.ie/statistics/suicide/

To be fair this is a publication from the national womens council so they're obviously going to have a female centered message and viewpoint.

The truth is that there do have to be different approaches to this based on age and gender, messaging aimed at combating suicidal ideas in teenage girls is going to be different to that aimed at teenage boys or adult men. It would equally be unacceptable to use the same campaign for teen boys and adult men because both groups will respond to different things and will have different triggers for this kind of thinking.

If this was pieta house or console taking this approach I'd totally agree with you, their aim is to help everyone. The national womens council's objective is to spotlight issues affecting women.

gizmo555

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

The national womens council's objective is to spotlight issues affecting women.

And don't you think the suicides of men affect the women they leave behind?

The National Womens Council attitude to this is beneath contempt. (I'm writing this, by the way, as someone who's lost an aunt and a brother to suicide.)