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

LostinBlanch

maybe

fly_agaric wrote: »

I do wonder sometimes what will happen to the gender balance in the student population once the "STEM" issue is sorted out to the liking of feminists (50/50 intake in stuff like maths, computer science and physics).

I think, even with the unconscionably high numbers of males in Engineering courses its around 60 % female students overall in Irish universities (not that you ever see that little stat publicised much!).

Look Fly, you just have to realise that Feminism isn't about women it's about power. *

So equality doesn't mean equal in this context. It's merely a vehicle for gaining power, using the language of equality in a 1984 way.

*BTW I'd recommend spending 10 minutes watching Kate Andrews from the Institute of Economic Affairs forensically take apart UK Labour MP Stella Creasy when talking about the gender pay gap. It's a cold, calculated and brutally effective takedown Creasy's m'uh feels argument.

iptba

One study suggesting some gender differences may be due to nature:

Infant Behavior and Development
Volume 23, Issue 1, January 2000, Pages 113-118
Infant Behavior and Development
Article
Sex differences in human neonatal social perception

Abstract

Sexual dimorphism in sociability has been documented in humans. The present study aimed to ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin.

iptba

Under new performance compacts, higher education institutions face the risk of a cut of up to 10pc of annual State funding if they do not meet certain performance objectives, and gender equality has been included as one of those.

[..]

Another key measure in the plan requires colleges to set targets for the recruitment and promotion of women to senior positions and failure to meet such targets would be a factor in the level of State funding they receive.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pioneering-move-first-womenonly-professorships-in-place-by-september-37522616.html

Zulu

No

LostinBlanch wrote: »

OK i'm coming into this a bit late and see that Zulu has demolished your arguments fairly comprehensively (IMO)

awwww shucks

H3llR4iser

Maxpfizer wrote: »

I think it would be fine if it was just down to a shortage of people in general. So if there was a need for X number of people in STEM and the maximum number of men who even want to be in STEM had been reached.

Plus their actions are kind of self defeating in a lot of ways. On one hand they want more women in STEM but also on the other hand they also want more women taking Gender Studies etc.

So, for example, Gender Studies courses are in competition with STEM courses for students but at the same time they are campaigning for women to take STEM courses. That almost makes no sense.

Oh, that's not the only contradiction - as I often said here and on other venues, the #1 downfall of modern "feminism" is that it largely paints women as weak, insecure wallflowers of feeble mind and heightened sensitivities, incapable of facing criticism, humor nor the consequences of their own choices, and who need to be "protected" by some superior political "entity"...basically babies in adult bodies.



Personal experience with female friends, coworkers and family members tells me otherwise...luckily for us all.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

We never will hear "we need more women in garages", "we need more women in metal working" or "we need more women on construction sites".


What I think we will hear instead is demand for a discussion on the "value" of the work.

STEM is an easy one because, as you say, it's not physically demanding. So they just say "too many men, get more women in here".

Lets say we are talking about a large supermarket chain. They will have more women on checkouts and more men in the warehouse. That's gonna be a tough one to equalize because the warehouse work could be demanding in a way that causes many women to say "i'd rather be on checkouts".

What's the "value" of the individual work though? That's what they will go after next, in my opinion.

That's a big one which I believe was discussed earlier: The simple fact that there are people who DON'T WANT to work in a warehouse due to the requirements of the job (handling heavy objects, being in a less-than-comfortable environment, moderate risk of accidents and/or injury) should be more than enough to explain the higher pay compared to somebody sitting at a cash register.



Going the way of "value" of the job is simply not possible, yet I think you're on the money here in terms of "what's going on".

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Why should a man in the warehouse be paid more than a woman on the checkouts? They provide the same "value" to the company so pay them the same.

So you won't hear "we need more women in metal working" but you will hear, eventually, "metal working has the same value as <inset majority female occupation here> so they should earn the same".

I think that the whole Feminist movement is kind of anti-capitalist and opposed to meritocracy at it's foundation and the "need more women in STEM" thing is a manifestation of that.

They can "fix" that one with quotas etc but closing the "pay gap" itself would require more control on what people are actually allowed to earn.

Closing the "pay gap" is actually extremely simple - more women can take hard, dirty and dangerous job...or those with long hours, or the ones that involve unsociable settings, lots of travel and zero social life.



There's a girl in the office I work, she's younger than me by a fair bit and I am pretty sure she earns a LOT more than I do (she can afford things I simply can't). Whenever I've arrived at the office earlier than usual, her car's the only one already there except for the security guard's; Last Friday I had some extra stuff to take care of, left at around 8ish pm, and her car was the only one in the car park...I simply couldn't do that, I value my own time, and I am perfectly fine with not being paid as much as she is due to that.

Maxpfizer

fly_agaric wrote: »

I do wonder sometimes what will happen to the gender balance in the student population once the "STEM" issue is sorted out to the liking of feminists (50/50 intake in stuff like maths, computer science and physics).

I think, even with the unconscionably high numbers of males in Engineering courses its around 60 % female students overall in Irish universities (not that you ever see that little stat publicised much!).

Nothing will happen. My best guess is that they will pivot to the idea that men and boys don't want to attend universities because of toxic masculinity. Like men see university as a female space and because of misogyny they don't want to attend.

Then you would say well shouldn't the education system try to be more accommodating towards men. You'd either be laughed at or told no it's men who have to change.

iptba

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-11-largest-psychological-sex-differences-autistic.html

Largest ever study of psychological sex differences and autistic traits
November 12, 2018, University of Cambridge

The team also calculated the difference (or 'd-score') between each individual's score on the systemizing and empathy tests. A high d-score means a person's systemizing is higher than their empathy, and a low d-score means their empathy is higher than their systemizing.

They found that in the typical population, men, on average, had a shift towards a high d-score, whereas women, on average, had a shift towards a low d-score. Autistic individuals, on average, had a shift towards an even higher d-score than typical males. Strikingly, d-scores accounted for 19 times more of the variance in autistic traits than other variables, including sex.

Finally, men, on average, had higher autistic trait scores than women. Those working in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), on average, had higher systemizing and autistic traits scores than those in non-STEM occupations. And conversely, those working in non-STEM occupations, on average, had had higher empathy scores than those working in STEM.

I thought these results might have been mentioned here, but can't find them on a quick search.

They suggest that there are differences in the way men and women think on average.
And the type of thinking patterns seen more in people in the STEM professions are more common in men.

This suggests that differences in the numbers of men and women in the STEM areas/professions may not be due to discrimination (or alternatively, I suppose, such discrimination could still be part of the reason, but not necessarily all of it).

Kidchameleon

I posted this before on this thread:


https://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf


tldr; experiment performed on newborn babies shows girls prefer people, boys prefer things.


tldr;tldr; men and women are different deal with it.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

In other news:

Britain’s education system is failing to tackle the “astonishing” underperformance of boys as feminists have made the topic “taboo”, the former head of the university admissions service has warned.

Mary Curnock Cook, who was chief executive of Ucas until last year, said the fact that boys are falling behind in education is a national scandal – yet it is such an “unfashionable” topic to discuss that it has become “normalised”.

Girls outperform boys in all aspects of education, from primary school to GCSEs and A-level results. Last year, 57 per cent of women went to university compared to 43 per cent of men, a gap that has widened significantly over the last decade.

Normally, I get cynical about this sort of thing but the former chief executive of UCAS is probably one of the most qualified people in the world to speak on this. I knew there was a gap but I didn't realise that this were so bad that she felt compelled to speak out.

silverharp

i wouldnt be so worried about the absolute % by gender attending university, there are a lot of dud degrees out there, various arts, journalism and media etc. There should be a push for good quality apprenticeships.

gizmo555

Overall, there's very little percentage difference in Ireland between men and women going into third level education. What does happen is that the percentage of women in universities is higher than men and vice versa for ITs, etc.

That said, as I mentioned on this thread before, on the 2017 TCD undergraduate prospectus a list of "key facts" about the university was cited, essentially as selling points for prospective students. One of these "key facts" was that 58% of the university's students are women.

As I wrote at the time, it would have been inconceivable that TCD would have boasted about a 16 percentage point difference between its numbers of female and male students if the ratio was the other way around. For what it's worth as a possible indication of an adjustment in attitude by the university, I notice that this ratio is no longer cited in the 2019 prospectus as a "key fact".

iptba

Patricia Casey: 'Why professorships plan is so embarrassing for women'

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/patricia-casey-why-professorships-plan-is-so-embarrassing-for-women-37537463.html

So what is the evidence that there is an unconscious bias against women? It's flimsy at best. Can anybody really argue convincingly that egalitarian, "progressive" republics like Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France, with women in full professorships of 29pc, 21pc, 23pc and 24pc respectively, are guilty of sexism by not reaching the 50pc threshold?

The plan for female-only chairs is an ideological one. It will result in less able people being employed in certain disciplines with a diminishment in the status of our universities.

Bad feelings within departments will smoulder when equally qualified men will feel they have been deprived of an opportunity to display their ability before an international interview panel. And women holding these posts will be secretly mocked as not being real professors but only in post through favouritism.

This proposal is deeply embarrassing and patronising towards women. Positive role models will not emerge from substandard academics.

iptba

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In other news:

Britain’s education system is failing to tackle the “astonishing” underperformance of boys as feminists have made the topic “taboo”, the former head of the university admissions service has warned.

Mary Curnock Cook, who was chief executive of Ucas until last year, said the fact that boys are falling behind in education is a national scandal – yet it is such an “unfashionable” topic to discuss that it has become “normalised”.

Girls outperform boys in all aspects of education, from primary school to GCSEs and A-level results. Last year, 57 per cent of women went to university compared to 43 per cent of men, a gap that has widened significantly over the last decade.

Normally, I get cynical about this sort of thing but the former chief executive of UCAS is probably one of the most qualified people in the world to speak on this. I knew there was a gap but I didn't realise that this were so bad that she felt compelled to speak out.

When attempts are made to address men’s issues, they are ridiculed and are met with the “wrath” of feminist and gender equality groups, she said.


Last month the only university in the UK with a men’s officer scrapped the role after the candidate withdrew due to “harassment”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/24/university-uk-mens-officer-scraps-role-candidate-withdraws-alleged/



James Knight was the only candidate to his name forward to be men's officer at the University of the West of England, and said he wanted to highlight male mental health issues.


However, the National Union of Students officers began a campaign against the role, and he pulled out after claiming he harassed. The university said the post was suspended pending review.

For those who don't know, colleges often have officers for women.

iptba

Student Rebecca Sheeres added: “Can someone explain to me why a men’s officer is necessary please?

"Especially when UWE students actually voted against such position. Men are not a minority at university and surely appointing a wellbeing officer would cover men’s mental health.”

NUS women's officer Sarah Lasoye said: "The role of a men’s officer is entirely obsolete and the attempt to implement one stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of liberation and almost always an unearned sense of entitlement."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/24/university-uk-mens-officer-scraps-role-candidate-withdraws-alleged/

iptba

Student Rebecca Sheeres added: “Can someone explain to me why a men’s officer is necessary please?

"Especially when UWE students actually voted against such position. Men are not a minority at university and surely appointing a wellbeing officer would cover men’s mental health.”

Actually, it looks like students were in favour of it by a slim majority, but it didn't read some higher threshold:
https://www.thestudentsunion.co.uk/representation/student-ideas/106/

gizmo555

And, in point of fact, men are a minority in the student body of the University of West England. Just under 44% of students there are male. (Which, of course, could have influenced the vote outcome.)

https://www1.uwe.ac.uk/about/factsandfigures/studentdemographics.aspx

backspin.

Has anyone else noticed the change in news presenters and panel shows where men seem to be in a minority now. News programs, current affairs TV shows and radio shows seem to be dominated by women. I notice the same on BBC.

Eric Cartman

silverharp wrote: »

i wouldnt be so worried about the absolute % by gender attending university, there are a lot of dud degrees out there, various arts, journalism and media etc. There should be a push for good quality apprenticeships.

Very true. Maynooth university have a masters in gender studies, most of the grads are unemployed, doing voluntary or unskilled work. On paper they are more educated , but in Reality a lad doing an apprenticeship as an electrician will earn more over his lifetime and contribute more to society, yet its an education crisis now, and a gender pay inequality crisis against him in 10 years.

Calhoun

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Very true. Maynooth university have a masters in gender studies, most of the grads are unemployed, doing voluntary or unskilled work. On paper they are more educated , but in Reality a lad doing an apprenticeship as an electrician will earn more over his lifetime and contribute more to society, yet its an education crisis now, and a gender pay inequality crisis against him in 10 years.

It's like a vicious circle, they basically create a view that there are big societal jobs that need to be solved and get then selves work in the gender study area. However nature of the beast is that unless we move to some sort of totalitarian gender study type state only a few at the top will ever get a job.

The rest will do low paid work and complain about the man putting them down .

ligerdub

backspin. wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed the change in news presenters and panel shows where men seem to be in a minority now. News programs, current affairs TV shows and radio shows seem to be dominated by women. I notice the same on BBC.

The BBC have committed to all sorts of quotas. At the top end is gender, then race, sexuality, religion etc. There's even stuff on disabilities and other similar potential categories.

If you're a gay, black (or black enough to be considered black), disabled, Muslim with a facial disfigurement then you're a unicorn in the eyes of the BBC. That's not being flippant either, they've committed to these targets, if you're aiding their quotas then you are a much easier selection.

It's part of the reason why these sort of changes have been much more noticeable in recent years, and because these quota's are widespread they are finding a presence in places where it is debatable if it makes sense to have some people on panels, and it at least seems like they are there are a token effort or diversity hire. Take an example of a marked increase in women panelists on football programs, and as you mention, the likes of comedy programs. I'm not saying women have no place on these shows, but it's fairly clear that many of them just aren't up to it.

The same is happening with RTE now, although as far as I know they haven't gone down the road of explicitly stating a quota.

Eric Cartman

ligerdub wrote: »

The BBC have committed to all sorts of quotas. At the top end is gender, then race, sexuality, religion etc. There's even stuff on disabilities and other similar potential categories.

If you're a gay, black (or black enough to be considered black), disabled, Muslim with a facial disfigurement then you're a unicorn in the eyes of the BBC. That's not being flippant either, they've committed to these targets, if you're aiding their quotas then you are a much easier selection.

It's part of the reason why these sort of changes have been much more noticeable in recent years, and because these quota's are widespread they are finding a presence in places where it is debatable if it makes sense to have some people on panels, and it at least seems like they are there are a token effort or diversity hire. Take an example of a marked increase in women panelists on football programs, and as you mention, the likes of comedy programs. I'm not saying women have no place on these shows, but it's fairly clear that many of them just aren't up to it.

The same is happening with RTE now, although as far as I know they haven't gone down the road of explicitly stating a quota.

The women panelists on football programs often get me, most panelists on those shows are former players or managers with decades of experience, verbalising how a decision was come to / a formation was used / how players must be feeling etc... from their experiences of the same, football punditry requires a lot of experience in the game, not something youd ever get from watching it or just being a fan , then youve some 25 year old blonde saying 'yes that was a good game' , maybe giving an analysis drawn from 1 years amatuer 5 a side in uni and thats great, its all equal gendery now.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The women panelists on football programs often get me, most panelists on those shows are former players or managers with decades of experience, verbalising how a decision was come to / a formation was used / how players must be feeling etc... from their experiences of the same, football punditry requires a lot of experience in the game, not something youd ever get from watching it or just being a fan , then youve some 25 year old blonde saying 'yes that was a good game' , maybe giving an analysis drawn from 1 years amatuer 5 a side in uni and thats great, its all equal gendery now.

Nah, there's journalists who know more than a lot of the ex-players. Unfortunately the ladies they generally choose seem to fall into the eye candy or the ex-player-so-must-know-loads categories.

backspin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nah, there's journalists who know more than a lot of the ex-players. Unfortunately the ladies they generally choose seem to fall into the eye candy or the ex-player-so-must-know-loads categories.

Journalists my arse.

Eric Cartman

Calhoun wrote: »

It's like a vicious circle, they basically create a view that there are big societal jobs that need to be solved and get then selves work in the gender study area. However nature of the beast is that unless we move to some sort of totalitarian gender study type state only a few at the top will ever get a job.

The rest will do low paid work and complain about the man putting them down .

It seems to me that everyone interested in complaining about the lack of women in certain high paid sectors are more interested in getting qualifications and positions that help them complain better / more publicly than actually enter the positions themselves.

backspin.

I see rte news doing a feature on waking the feminist on today's news. No mention of international men's day. Looks like trolling.

py2006

The usual double standard and belittling of the day thats in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T-H-ZMWUpo

Eric Cartman

py2006 wrote: »

The usual double standard and belittling of the day thats in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T-H-ZMWUpo

Could you imagine how much (quite appropriate) hate there would be if say we had a piece on international womens day where jimmy carr or similar talked about how much they liked spme fampus womans tits or celebrated how sexy tyey were

PlaneSpeeking

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The women panelists on football programs often get me, most panelists on those shows are former players or managers with decades of experience, verbalising how a decision was come to / a formation was used / how players must be feeling etc... from their experiences of the same, football punditry requires a lot of experience in the game, not something youd ever get from watching it or just being a fan , then youve some 25 year old blonde saying 'yes that was a good game' , maybe giving an analysis drawn from 1 years amatuer 5 a side in uni and thats great, its all equal gendery now.

I largely agree to a point but there are times when ITV specifically hire ex-pros from the women's game and they know their stuff.

Sky's pitch side analysis this week was from a woman ex England player and she was spot on.

Former players etc, yeah - random blonde, no.

PlaneSpeeking

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Could you imagine how much (quite appropriate) hate there would be if say we had a piece on international womens day where jimmy carr or similar talked about how much they liked spme fampus womans tits or celebrated how sexy tyey were

#HimToo

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6408883/Mila-Kunis-Kristen-Bell-beg-man-candy-Channing-Tatum-strip-Jimmy-Kimmels-RED-special.html

If that was the other way round they'd never work again, ever.

Disposable1

.

Just throwing an ol' dot here lads because I’m enjoying reading the thread and want the notifications so I can find it more easily.

Please ignore and continue

Disposable1

The Corinthian wrote: »

Increasingly, I'd have to say much of this 'real sexism' against women is not all that real or even a product of traditional patriarchal privileges that women hold that feminism seems reluctant to oppose.

Legally, of course, men face far more sexism than women - name me any laws that discriminate against women solely on the basis of gender, and we'll see how many I can quote that discriminate against men (Hint; a lot more).

I’m sorry but I had to put my iPad down to applaud that. That was ****ing exquisite. The best post I’ve read all year. Simple, clear and thoroughly dealing with a troll. Well done

iptba

Minister Madigan Announces New Markievicz Bursaries, Five Annual Awards of €20,000 for Women Artists

November 21, 2018

https://visualartists.ie/news/minister-madigan-announces-new-markievicz-bursaries-five-annual-awards-of-e20000-for-women-artists/

gizmo555

I had to read this "Guardian" article twice to convince myself I wasn't hallucinating.

It's a purportedly humourous piece about facial skin treatment made from the circumcised foreskins of newborn South Korean infants. There's a two year waiting list for the treatment, which costs £500. Apparently, Cate Blanchett and Sandra Bullock are among the celeb users of this "penis facial".

Would the "Guardian" be having a laugh about the economic incentivisation of the mutilation of infant girls' genitalia?

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/shortcuts/2018/nov/26/foreskin-facial-kate-beckinsale-serum-anti-ageing

Zorya

^^^^^ well, that is... fairly disturbing, to say the least. Not too far off the elite drinking the blood of infants like all those conspiracy weirdoes claim. How horrible and bizarre.

iptba

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.

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/

An Irish woman who was in a volatile relationship involving aggression on both sides has been jailed for at least five years for stabbing her new fiance to death in Sydney.

<https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/tina-cahill-sentenced-to-eight-years-for-killing-controlling-fianc-37618597.html>

In general, I think if you take someone's life deliberately the default should be some jail time unless there is immediate self-defence. Lots of people will have people in their lives who haven't been nice to them in some way or another, which could create trauma. Some women have killed men had not been sentenced to jail time in Irish courts.

silverharp

if i remember i think ill be voiding gillette products


https://twitter.com/Gillette/status/1084850521196900352

Silentcorner

silverharp wrote: »

if i remember i think ill be voiding gillette products


https://twitter.com/Gillette/status/1084850521196900352

Jesus Christ!!

I came across this article today, it is very worrying, these are professionals that people in time of need turn to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/science/apa-traditional-masculinity-harmful.html

As crazy as it might sound...masculinity is well and truly under attack...there will be no winners!

iptba

Silentcorner wrote: »

Jesus Christ!!

I came across this article today, it is very worrying, these are professionals that people in time of need turn to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/science/apa-traditional-masculinity-harmful.html

As crazy as it might sound...masculinity is well and truly under attack...there will be no winners!

I don't think looking at men's issues through the prism of patriarchy and feminism is the way to go. Supporting people shouldn't be based on ideology.
Though it's not surprising that psychological bodies might be heavily influenced by such views, given the unbalanced way men's issues tend to be looked at in academia and more generally.

Defunkd

Silentcorner wrote: »

Jesus Christ!!

I came across this article today, it is very worrying, these are professionals that people in time of need turn to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/science/apa-traditional-masculinity-harmful.html

As crazy as it might sound...masculinity is well and truly under attack...there will be no winners!

Anything from the NYTimes comes from a very left-wing position (the most right-wing writer on their staff is still left-wing) so you need to be careful when taking their perspective on things: they cherry-pick studies to highlight miniscule and ignore major findings when it suits.

That said, i downloaded the study and gave a quick flick through the 10 points. Some sensible headings but no. 3 is about the impact of power, privilege and sexism in patriarchial societies. I read the first 3 paragraphs and it reads like feminist theory. Apparently, the male and female gender-imbalance in certain professions is a result of sexism...by men.

TomSweeney

I suppose this is as good as a place to post this




https://twitter.com/deicherstar/status/1084883129192599555?s=20

So this Bryan guy is upset that too many "old white guys" are speaking at an event marking
the Apollo 50th anniversary ???

You could not write this sh1t.
The scary thing is this guy is an actual scientist - an astronomy professor, very worrying
I thought all this "woke" bullsh1t was restricted to the mickey mouse subjects.

citytillidie

silverharp wrote: »

if i remember i think ill be voiding gillette products


https://twitter.com/Gillette/status/1084850521196900352

Gillette are P&G who have been anti men for a while

Sleepy

And ironically enough, it's because they believe they don't sell razor blades to men: it's our women-folk doing the grocery shopping that they're targeting with such ads... :rolleyes:

tigger123

citytillidie wrote: »

Gillette are P&G who have been anti men for a while

How have Procter and Gamble been anti men?

citytillidie

tigger123 wrote: »

How have Procter and Gamble been anti men?

Some of their ads have for a while featured dead bead dads and men who can't do things right

py2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTyczkAkM2Y

tigger123

citytillidie wrote: »

Some of their ads have for a while featured dead bead dads and men who can't do things right

Do you have an example? Genuine question.

citytillidie

tigger123 wrote: »

Do you have an example? Genuine question.

Maybe anti-men is harsh but sexist just look at the number of nose blind adds for febreeze and compare how many were made where it men that need it compared to woman.

Look at the strong mum campaign over the summer 2016, nothing like that for dads.

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

if i remember i think ill be voiding gillette products


https://twitter.com/Gillette/status/1084850521196900352

For what it is worth, how the Irish Times has covered it:

Gillette ad causes uproar with men’s rights activists

Backlash includes call for boycott, complaining the We Believe commercial is ‘insulting’ and ‘emasculates men’

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/gillette-ad-causes-uproar-with-men-s-rights-activists-1.3758621

iptba

py2006 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTyczkAkM2Y

I do agree that I expect if the genders were reversed and an ad was made that highlighted negative behaviour of some females, particularly if it suggested it was prevalent among females, many people, including some who are praising this ad would not be happy.

The Specialist

Like many others I will never buy a product of theirs again. Sick to the teeth of this “toxic masculinity” bull**** being bandied about constantly and being made to feel that my gender is something to be ashamed of or apologetic for. Males are not a hive mind you ****ing cretins. Fvck Gilette.