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

kunst nugget

maybe

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's your point?

That it's a horrible situation for him to be stuck in over in Syria. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note: kunst nugget please read TGC charter before posting here again.

kunst nugget

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Mod note: kunst nugget please read TGC charter before posting here again.

You're right. I was being disingenuous - I don't really believe he was from Syria. I dip into this thread a lot to see how men have been affected by sexism personally and aside from one or two instances, none of the discussion has been about what has happened to people personally but mainly about perceptions of sexism in the media. I honestly think it detracts from what the original intention of the thread was about. Maybe men aren't willing to open up about how they have experienced sexism on a personal level or maybe most haven't experienced it on that level, I'm not sure…

py2006

Unfortunately, as men, we are told and lead to believe by certain people that we can not experience sexism or discrimination. Even the small things in life which don't really affect us (media ads etc) but we highlight them here as a matter of principle are rejected by some.

Its a hard life.

kunst nugget

maybe

py2006 wrote: »

Unfortunately, as men, we are told and lead to believe by certain people that we can not experience sexism or discrimination. Even the small things in life which don't really affect us (media ads etc) but we highlight them here as a matter of principle are rejected by some.

Its a hard life.

But surely a thread on media bias and stereotyping would be more appropriate for these matters than this one. Because reading through this, very little has to do with people's personal experience of sexism. While I might be annoyed by the portrayal of fatherhood on, let's say, Peppa Pig, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life.

donfers

No

kunst nugget wrote: »

But surely a thread on media bias and stereotyping would be more appropriate for these matters than this one. Because reading through this, very little has to do with people's personal experience of sexism. While I might be annoyed by the portrayal of fatherhood on, let's say, Peppa Pig, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life.

so your problem is with the thread title then, have you visited all the threads in all the forums in boards to ensure that the content in the threads precisely reflects that which is in the thread title or do you just have a problem with people highlighting sexism towards males??

The Syria things exposes the whole equality charade

"equality when it suits, inequality when it suits" is perhaps a more accurate definition of feminism because for all the idealised waffle about it being about equality between the sexes, I very much doubt any feminist organisation will be doing anything at all to highlight the inherent inequality in the UN deal.

Why? Because it seems more socially acceptable for men to be allowed to die in violent conflict, disaster or just in general really. I mean most media agencies report disasters and accidents as if mens' lives are worthless, plane crash, 212 dead including 58 woman and children.

If a movement is about equality then surely it should look at stuff like this, if a movement is about equality but only looks at things from one side then that is surely a paradox akin to animal farm's "some animals are more equal than others" or in this case "some genders are more equal than others"

Fukuyama

kunst nugget wrote: »

You're right. I was being disingenuous - I don't really believe he was from Syria. I dip into this thread a lot to see how men have been affected by sexism personally and aside from one or two instances, none of the discussion has been about what has happened to people personally but mainly about perceptions of sexism in the media. I honestly think it detracts from what the original intention of the thread was about. Maybe men aren't willing to open up about how they have experienced sexism on a personal level or maybe most haven't experienced it on that level, I'm not sure…

I've posted numerous times in this thread with personal stories. In fact, most of the posts here are of a personal nature. Or, at very least, witnessed.

I read the Financial Times this morning and the story of "Woman and Children saved" ran as a front-page headline in what's supposed to be an unbiased, respectable newspaper.

Clearly, I'm not in Syria. Something tells me their WiFi isn't all that great at the minute. :rolleyes:

Liam McPoyle

No

Lol at Syria been cited as an example for inequality suffered by men, Jesus wept.

Fukuyama

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

Lol at Syria been cited as an example for inequality suffered by men, Jesus wept.

I assume you're referring to Islams sexism against women, which you're obviously correct in mentioning.

I was referring more to unofficial (or official) "Women and Children" first policies in times of emergency which seem to be implemented all around the world whenever there's a natural disaster, war, famine etc...

Either because "de menz are strongz and can handle it" or, more realistically, because men don't pull at heartstrings in an Oxfam advert.

IvyTheTerrible

Dean0088 wrote: »

I assume you're referring to Islams sexism against women, which you're obviously correct in mentioning.

I was referring more to unofficial (or official) "Women and Children" first policies in times of emergency which seem to be implemented all around the world whenever there's a natural disaster, war, famine etc...

Either because "de menz are strongz and can handle it" or, more realistically, because men don't pull at heartstrings in an Oxfam advert.

But you realise that the Syrian authorities are only telling the woman and children to move so that they can then go in and kill the men, saying they are rebels, without being accused of attacking civilians?

Absoluvely

Could we clarify whether or not this thread is about any sexism against any men, or something more specific?

The title of this thread does not say "sexism experienced by someone you know"; it says "sexism you [...] know someone has experienced". So so far it looks like it's about any sexism against any men.

The top line of the OP is SEXISM MEN HAVE EXPERIENCED. Again it looks like it's about any sexism against any men.

But - and I think this is where the confusion is coming from - the mod note says:
This is a thread for men to post their experiences of sexism that they believe they have experienced.

kunst nugget

maybe

donfers wrote: »

so your problem is with the thread title then, have you visited all the threads in all the forums in boards to ensure that the content in the threads precisely reflects that which is in the thread title or do you just have a problem with people highlighting sexism towards males??

The Syria things exposes the whole equality charade

"equality when it suits, inequality when it suits" is perhaps a more accurate definition of feminism because for all the idealised waffle about it being about equality between the sexes, I very much doubt any feminist organisation will be doing anything at all to highlight the inherent inequality in the UN deal.

Why? Because it seems more socially acceptable for men to be allowed to die in violent conflict, disaster or just in general really. I mean most media agencies report disasters and accidents as if mens' lives are worthless, plane crash, 212 dead including 58 woman and children.

If a movement is about equality then surely it should look at stuff like this, if a movement is about equality but only looks at things from one side then that is surely a paradox akin to animal farm's "some animals are more equal than others" or in this case "some genders are more equal than others"

The problem is that a thread purportedly about personally experienced sexism (I really don't think the thread title can be any more specific) just becomes a resting place for the type of unspecific tirade about feminism you've posted above. Valid points it might contain but to my eyes it seems wholly unrelated to sexism experienced personally by men on a day to day level in this country.

Carlos Orange

No

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

Lol at Syria been cited as an example for inequality suffered by men, Jesus wept.

You are loling at men possibly getting massacred in a city when they wouldn't have if they were women?

Cool story bro.

Pawwed Rig

Coleman Slawski wrote: »

Lol at Syria been cited as an example for inequality suffered by men, Jesus wept.

Mod note: Coleman Slawski this post is below the standard we would expect in TGC and does not add to the discussion.

For the other points, if you have a problem with a post please report it and leave the moderating to the mods. Thanks

um7y1h83ge06nx

py2006 wrote: »

In work today, a female colleague related a story she came across about a Welsh man who has 20 kids (9 with current wife) who all live in squalor and rely on benefits.

This colleague pointed out quite vehemently that this purely is all his fault and something should be done to men like him (i.e castration). While we agreed with her that this guy needs to keep it in his pants or use protection we could not get it across to her that his wife should equally take responsibility. She was having none of it, as it was 'his fault'.

......

It's funny how your colleague is potentially being sexist against women too.

I say this as by her saying that it was his fault and not hers it would appear that she believes that women don't have the power to have input in something like this, are powerless and/or too ignorant to participate in family planning in a relationship, or she thinks women still fulfill the archaic roles of pleasing the husband sexually whenever he wants and popping out kids for him.

This innocent maiden thing really grinds my gears sometimes, a sort of "I'm just an innocent pretty girl, how could I know better".

py2006

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

It's funny how your colleague is potentially being sexist against women too.

I agree. I think a lot of feminist types (I am assuming she is one) don't realise the irony of some of their statements.

She reminds me of my granny. When I was growing up and I achieved something good or had a talent for something, I got it from 'her side of the family' (also my mothers side) but if I wasn't good at anything or had a bad habit I got that from 'my fathers side of the family'. :rolleyes:



EDIT: Actually in relation to that story about my colleague.....I was told today that she said afterwards (sarcastically), 'I don't have issues with the opposite sex', suggesting that because we jumped in to say his wife was equally to blame we had issues with women.

newport2

kunst nugget wrote: »

The problem is that a thread purportedly about personally experienced sexism (I really don't think the thread title can be any more specific) just becomes a resting place for the type of unspecific tirade about feminism you've posted above. Valid points it might contain but to my eyes it seems wholly unrelated to sexism experienced personally by men on a day to day level in this country.

In The Ladies Lounge there is an equivalent thread about sexism women have experienced. As soon as anyone drops in to point out that something isn't strictly sexism (hence not in line with the thread title) a moderator stamps on them, telling them not to post in the thread any more.
In The Gentlemen's Club, moderation is a lot more lenient when people drop in picking holes in sexism men say they've experienced - or in the case of Syrian men left for slaughter - sexism that they know someone has experienced.

That's a case of sexism I've personally experienced and that is experienced personally by men on a day to day level on this country, namely one set of rules for women, another set for men.

Pawwed Rig

newport2 wrote: »

In The Ladies Lounge there is an equivalent thread about sexism women have experienced. As soon as anyone drops in to point out that something isn't strictly sexism (hence not in line with the thread title) a moderator stamps on them, telling them not to post in the thread any more.
In The Gentlemen's Club, moderation is a lot more lenient when people drop in picking holes in sexism men say they've experienced - or in the case of Syrian men left for slaughter - sexism that they know someone has experienced.

That's a case of sexism I've personally experienced and that is experienced personally by men on a day to day level on this country, namely one set of rules for women, another set for men.

Mod note: This is a quote from the opening post in this thread

'This is a thread for men to post their experiences of sexism that they believe they have experienced. Discussion in this thread is welcome, from both men and women - so long as it goes with the ethos of the thread.

The following is no longer to take place in this thread:

- Discussion of which sex has it worse
- Arguing about what is, or isn't sexism in your view

This is the Gentlemen's Club forum. This forum will always have a male leaning ethos. Men do not have to defend their experiences in this thread to anyone.'

Now personally I am not in favour of banning people from a thread or throwing around infractions and am happy to debate points with others who drop in here denying even the existance of sexism against men.
I am also in favour of letting the conversation flow where the posters here want it to within reason.

The comparison with TLL is irrelevant as they are a different forum and have different rules. Any issues with the moderation of TLL should be taken up there.

Finally, this is not a feedback thread. If anyone has issues with the moderation of this forum please contact me or one of the other mods. Alternatively you can contact any of the Cmods or start a thread in the feedback forum.

Now please lets get back on topic.

kunst nugget

maybe

newport2 wrote: »

In The Ladies Lounge there is an equivalent thread about sexism women have experienced. As soon as anyone drops in to point out that something isn't strictly sexism (hence not in line with the thread title) a moderator stamps on them, telling them not to post in the thread any more.
In The Gentlemen's Club, moderation is a lot more lenient when people drop in picking holes in sexism men say they've experienced - or in the case of Syrian men left for slaughter - sexism that they know someone has experienced.

That's a case of sexism I've personally experienced and that is experienced personally by men on a day to day level on this country, namely one set of rules for women, another set for men.

I've actually never said that any of it wasn't sexism - there's a lot that affects different genders - I'm saying it isn't sexism personally experienced by anyone on this thread - which is what I thought the original intention of the thread was.

runawaybishop

No

kunst nugget wrote: »

I've actually never said that any of it wasn't sexism - there's a lot that affects different genders - I'm saying it isn't sexism personally experienced by anyone on this thread - which is what I thought the original intention of the thread was.

I personally read that article and experienced sexism.

Happy now?

iptba

To stop an endless debate here, I've set up a new thread:

Examples of sexism against men (there's another thread on personal experiences)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057134967

(If the mods feel such a thread is not necessary as such topics can be discussed here, they can of course delete it)

newport2

Good article by Conor Pope in today's Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/imagine-dads-looking-after-their-kids-on-their-own-hilarious-1.1667259

Good to see some guys doing something about it.

For the record, this relates to sexism I have personally experienced, and continue to experience.

GalwayGuy2

Tbh, I think two sexism threads are a little silly.

Couldn't something not personally experianced just be put down to the whole 'wider culture theory'?

[

Pawwed Rig

Ok gents. In the interests of democracy there has been a poll added. Let the posters of TGC decide if we want 2 threads or 1.


iptba I will close your other thread for the meantime until the poll finishes. Until then this can remain as the catch all thread.

banquo

maybe

In two minds. On one hand, it makes a lot of sense to have it all lumped in one thread where non-personal stuff can be discussed in the same terms as personal anecdotes.

On the other hand, if there's a whole thread of links to sexist material sitting right there as a resource to me every time I get into an internet debate, well, what could be more useful?

newport2

Article in todays IT, stay-at-home father with custody of children gets posed with a question in court that would never be put to a mother.

"Asked by counsel for his ex-wife why he “chose not to work outside the home”, the man said the question was laughable. “You’re saying that because I’m a man and at home looking after my children; if I was a housewife you wouldn’t be saying that to me,” he said."

Good to see he was successful in his case

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/stay-at-home-father-s-child-maintenance-doubled-1.1672739

Grayfoxy

So, just to share my experience,

I work for a large IT company,

During the summer it was quite hot as I am sure you are aware, girls all year round were skirts, most of them work appropriate (knee length), and some not work appropriate in my eyes (borderline miniskirt), as per our employee handbook, it is a business casual dress code, however, several men were sent home for having 3/4 length combat's or jeans on, but nothing was mentioned to the women with short skirts (and by short I mean you could see at least half their thighs), I took some time off work due to personal reasons otherwise I would have spoken up. Doesn't seem very fair in my eyes.

My question is, if I wore in a miniskirt to work, and they send me home to change, would I have grounds to challenge it?

laoch na mona

No

ZX7R wrote: »

Started a new job recently as a caretaker,i was asked would i clean the toilets today because the cleaners did not turn up,so i said yes no problem and started to clean them, Female manager came in as i was cleaning them and said it would be imposable for me to clean them correctly as i was not a woman.
I think she managed to be sexist to both sex's at the same time with her statement.

http://takebackthenighthamilton.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/gender-roles-comic.jpg

newport2

ZX7R wrote:

Started a new job recently as a caretaker,i was asked would i clean the toilets today because the cleaners did not turn up,so i said yes no problem and started to clean them, Female manager came in as i was cleaning them and said it would be imposable for me to clean them correctly as i was not a woman.
I think she managed to be sexist to both sex's at the same time with her statement.

In our work place a woman cleans the toilets, but comes in to do it even if men are using it. She sings to herself while doing it, while there you are - not 6 feet away - taking a dump.

Can you imagine the reaction if you proceeded to come in and clean the women's toilets while a few of the ladies were taking a crap?

py2006

Grayfoxy wrote: »

During the summer it was quite hot as I am sure you are aware, girls all year round were skirts, most of them work appropriate (knee length), and some not work appropriate in my eyes (borderline miniskirt), as per our employee handbook, it is a business casual dress code, however, several men were sent home for having 3/4 length combat's or jeans on, but nothing was mentioned to the women with short skirts (and by short I mean you could see at least half their thighs)

Any chance they are hiring where you work?

runawaybishop

No

py2006 wrote: »

Any chance they are hiring where you work?

Exactly, feck equal treatment. Ogling chicks is more important.

Grayfoxy

py2006 wrote: »

Any chance they are hiring where you work?

Do you speak German, Swedish, Norwegian or Dutch?

To be honest, I would only suggest working here as a last resort.

py2006

Grayfoxy wrote: »

Do you speak German, Swedish, Norwegian or Dutch?

To be honest, I would only suggest working here as a last resort.

Unfortunately not

But I may pop in for a visit during the summer.

iptba

Grayfoxy wrote: »

So, just to share my experience,

I work for a large IT company,

During the summer it was quite hot as I am sure you are aware, girls all year round were skirts, most of them work appropriate (knee length), and some not work appropriate in my eyes (borderline miniskirt), as per our employee handbook, it is a business casual dress code, however, several men were sent home for having 3/4 length combat's or jeans on, but nothing was mentioned to the women with short skirts (and by short I mean you could see at least half their thighs), I took some time off work due to personal reasons otherwise I would have spoken up. Doesn't seem very fair in my eyes.

My question is, if I wore in a miniskirt to work, and they send me home to change, would I have grounds to challenge it?

I recall reading recently of a similar situation (about men not being allowed wear shorts while women could wear skirts during hot periods) in Australia.

Pawwed Rig

iptba wrote: »

I recall reading recently of a similar situation (about men not being allowed wear shorts while women could wear skirts during hot periods) in Australia.

Is this the one
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/22548468/men-skirts-sweden-railway

poundapunnet

Dean0088 wrote: »

The UN just brokered a deal with Assad: All women, girls and boys below fighting age are allowed to leave Horns - a town besieged by government forces for weeks in Syria.

So, if you happen to have a penis and are above the age of 15 you can expect to be either blown up by an artillery round, starve to death or appear on Sky News in a few weeks, face down in a ditch with your hands tied and a hole in your head.

I'm not blaming any feminist movement for this in particular. I just think it's a "women and children" first policy that's always called upon in emergencies, and is rarely questioned by most. In fact, many people seem relived when the women and kids get out and then forget about the problem all together.... Why is it still okay to prioritize by gender when the overwhelming majority of people are non-combatants?

I'm a person who's fairly active in feminist activities and I heard this a few days ago and was very disturbed, as were a lot of my feminist friends and colleagues. I understand in a way why it's the MO (adult men are more likely to be the enemy combatants, the priority is getting children out and children are more likely to be in the care of adult women) but jesus christ it's terrible. If you're a 17 year old male you don't get out, just because of your age and gender? If you're an adult male accompanying your family they can go and you can't? Men are considered cannon/flame-thrower/drone fodder in a way that women aren't, if that had been the other way around there would have been uproar. God knows how many innocent men(PEOPLE) have died over this.

banquo

maybe

It's one of many ways that we in the Western view men as disposable.

The Irish Feminist Network have in a policy document their aims to protect welfare budgets that primarily affect women, while the majority of the absolute poorest- our homeless - are men. They call it "Equality Budgeting." Couldn't make it up.

py2006

banquo wrote: »

It's one of many ways that we in the Western view men as disposable.

The Irish Feminist Network have in a policy document their aims to protect welfare budgets that primarily affect women, while the majority of the absolute poorest- our homeless - are men. They call it "Equality Budgeting." Couldn't make it up.

Got a link by any chance?

GalwayGuy2

Hmmm, interesting moment in the new Thor Movie.

Natalie Portman's character slaps the main actor because he didn't come back. That's grand, and it didn't bother me, until I switched the gender.

I wonder would there have been so little reaction if Chris Hemsworth slapped a woman (of similar height) for apparently leaving him.

And would there be backlash against the actor if he said something like this:

"I found it very satisfying," she told E! News, "I think it's behalf of all my girlfriends who had guys that didn't call them back or disappeared or just fell off the face of the earth."

Tbh, what's portrayed didn't bother me and Natalie Portman rocks, but the hypocrisy of it did bother me a little.

kunst nugget

maybe

banquo wrote: »

It's one of many ways that we in the Western view men as disposable.

The Irish Feminist Network have in a policy document their aims to protect welfare budgets that primarily affect women, while the majority of the absolute poorest- our homeless - are men. They call it "Equality Budgeting." Couldn't make it up.

They have a policy document that campaigns for fairer budgeting for everyone covered under the equal status act. Simon community have a policy document that campaigns for fairer budgeting to help the homeless and ICTU have a policy document that campaigns for better treatment of teachers. Because they campaign on specific issues doesn't mean they view everyone else as disposable.

Playboy

No

My wife takes our baby to various classes during the day time. Here she mingles with other moms of young children and sometimes a father if he attends.

She relayed to me yesterday that one of the women who attends always has her husband with her. Nothing wrong with that but what seems weird is the guy doesn't interact with anybody and doesn't take part in the class, he sits on his own quietly at the back with a book. After the class the moms sit together for a chat and the husband provides coffee, tea and biscuits for the women and goes back to sit on his own. My wife was laughing about this when she got home as she thought it was a bit odd and it seems to her that the women in question is a bit overbearing and brings the husband along for help but doesn't let him participate. My wife told me that some of the other moms have started to refer to the guy as 'slave' and they all think the situation is very amusing as well as odd.

I asked her to reverse the genders and think about it. A bunch of men sitting around with a woman sitting quietly at the back, serving them when needed and then going back to sit on her own. Not funny is it? It is frighteningly similar to the way women were treated by men not so long ago.

From just casual observation there seems to be a number of relationships within that social group where the fathers/husbands are treated similarly. For instance most of the mothers think its acceptable for the husband to do night duty with the baby even though the mother is on maternity leave and the father has a job to go to? One couple in particular, the husband has to stay up with the baby every-night till 3:30 am before he can sleep, that's what he has agreed with his wife. When my wife told some of the other moms that I don't in fact do night duty during the week as I'm the sole breadwinner, am self employed and have to start my day at 6 am, the reaction was shock. They couldn't believe that I only helped out at night at the weekends. Maybe I'm being dim but am I missing something here? Why does there seem to be some unrealistic expectation on fathers to go to work and stay up half the night with their child when the other half doesn't work? Sexism, not sure but maybe!

um7y1h83ge06nx

Seems sensible what you and your wife are doing.

Wouldn't be good if you went to work every day wrecked, particularly with you being self employed, the family finances could very well take a hit.

Thing is with this one is that it is impossible to reverse the roles between you and your wife as she is the only one entitled to maternity leave. Although if you could take unpaid leave in the future and she was working I'd hope you would take the baby night-shift when she is working the next day.

Maybe the other women believe that in order to have equality both father and mother must share night-duty regardless if the father has to get up in the morning?

Either way, seems you and your wife have found a sensible solution that works for both of ye.

newport2

kunst nugget wrote: »

They have a policy document that campaigns for fairer budgeting for everyone covered under the equal status act. Simon community have a policy document that campaigns for fairer budgeting to help the homeless and ICTU have a policy document that campaigns for better treatment of teachers. Because they campaign on specific issues doesn't mean they view everyone else as disposable.

The key difference with groups you compare above and the feminist network is that the groups above don't claim to be trying to acheive equality for all.

The teacher's unions within the ICTU are groups paid to lobby on behalf of teachers, concerned only with teachers rights and advancing the terms and conditions under which they work. Which is fair enough, they are what they say they are.

If the feminist network admitted they didn't give a toss about areas in which men are disadvantaged, instead of claiming they are all for equality, I expect far less people would have an issue with them.

kunst nugget

maybe

newport2 wrote: »

If the feminist network admitted they didn't give a toss about areas in which men are disadvantaged, instead of claiming they are all for equality, I expect far less people would have an issue with them.

But that's you projecting your feelings about them on to the notion of Equality budgeting - they claim it's to cover everyone covered by the Equal Status Act and because I've no view on them either way, I'm willing to take them at their word. Every vested interested has the right to create a policy document and to petition the government - it doesn't mean the government is going to listen to them.

Carlos Orange

No

kunst nugget wrote: »

But that's you projecting your feelings about them on to the notion of Equality budgeting - they claim it's to cover everyone covered by the Equal Status Act and because I've no view on them either way, I'm willing to take them at their word. Every vested interested has the right to create a policy document and to petition the government - it doesn't mean the government is going to listen to them.

Surely men are covered by the equal status act.

kunst nugget

maybe

psinno wrote: »

Surely men are covered by the equal status act.

Aye, the equal status act was created to ban discrimination on nine grounds: gender, civil status, family status, age, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, membership of the traveller community.

According to the Irish Feminist Network, they are looking for a parity of treatment for all groups. Like I said, I've no opinion of them either way so I'll take them at their word.

http://www.equality.ie/Files/Your-Equal-Status-Rights-Explained-Easy-to-read-version-.pdf

http://www.irishfeministnetwork.org/uploads/8/4/9/1/8491921/equality_budgeting_in_ireland_-_an_information_booklet.pdf

PucaMama

banquo wrote: »

It's one of many ways that we in the Western view men as disposable.

I always thought the reason women and children were removed from situations like war because like children women were thought of as 'weak' boh physically and mentally at that time.

iptba

newport2 wrote: »

The key difference with groups you compare above and the feminist network is that the groups above don't claim to be trying to acheive equality for all.

The teacher's unions within the ICTU are groups paid to lobby on behalf of teachers, concerned only with teachers rights and advancing the terms and conditions under which they work. Which is fair enough, they are what they say they are.

If the feminist network admitted they didn't give a toss about areas in which men are disadvantaged, instead of claiming they are all for equality, I expect far less people would have an issue with them.

Yes, agree.

The website for the Equality Budget campaign gives an example:
Equality Budgeting in Focus: The Scottish Model

In Scotland, an independent advisory group, the Equality and Budget Advisory Group (EBAG), works together with the Scottish Government to:



* provide advice and support for the mainstreaming of equality in policy with the appropriate allocation of resources

* contribute to mapping the pathway between evidence, policy and spend

* improve the presentation of equality information in the Scottish budget documents

* contribute to improved commitment to and awareness of mainstreaming equality in to policy and budget processes

The advisory group is made up of government and civil society actors, such as the Women’s Budget Group, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Government Finance Directorate, and the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser.

Another similar example:

Australia pioneered the adoption of Equality Budgeting by publishing a “women's budget” in 1984.

Apart from the phrase "women and men", the only reference to men on the site (from a Google search of the site) is:

The very measures capable of shedding light on how to more fairly distribute the burden of austerity, and thereby counter inequality, are simply missing in the Irish context. Other jurisdictions, such as the UK, regularly conduct impact assessments and analyses to inform decisions concerning the public finances.

Not so in the Irish case. Budgets are devised in secret by four men (the self-styled “Economic Management Council” comprising the two Finance ministers and leader and deputy leader of the country), are completed with minimal consultation with the public and the legislature, and are devoid of analysis.

Here is part of an Irish submission:

The equality impact statement provides information as to how the specific policy measures under contemplation will affect particular social groups and sectors, particularly groups that are vulnerable or disadvantaged in some way (e.g., women, the older population, the disabled, lone parents, or particular ethnic groups).

from: http://equalitybudgeting.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Equality-budgeting-submission.pdf

banquo

maybe

All groups lobby for their members and interests, that's normal and fine and what they should do. But they don't get to dress it up in the language of equality.

kunst nugget

maybe

banquo wrote: »

All groups lobby for their members and interests, that's normal and fine and what they should do. But they don't get to dress it up in the language of equality.

Strangely enough, considering that they say that they are using the Equal Status Act as a guide for their approach to budgeting, they probably can. The act can also be used by us men if we feel we are being discriminated based on our gender and race.