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

The J Stands for Jay

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would say you would have a good case for discrimination here.

My own employers Decided to treat them the same. I'd say many wouldn't. What stopped me was my second being born in between the leave being announced and the department of social welfare updating their systems to allow it.

The current unpaid parental leave I'm entitled to (and I believe the entitlement is to be extended), is unaffordable. Any proposed leave that is just a government payment will also be unaffordable unless it's topped up (and I don't see that happening).

The J Stands for Jay

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Yes loads. Most in my industry.

That can't make it an easy decision to have a kid. Would this be a well paid industry?

eviltwin

McGaggs wrote: »

That can't make it an easy decision to have a kid. Would this be a well paid industry?

There's no top up in many jobs. A couple might be able to make it work on one reduced wage but who could survive on two? Legally women have to take some maternity leave and most need some recovery time but I think it would go a long way if there was an option to transfer it and a couple could make their own decision on how best to use it.

The J Stands for Jay

eviltwin wrote: »

There's no top up in many jobs. A couple might be able to make it work on one reduced wage but who could survive on two? Legally women have to take some maternity leave and most need some recovery time but I think it would go a long way if there was an option to transfer it and a couple could make their own decision on how best to use it.

That would also help with the issues that arise in the division of childcare. The mother has the maternity leave and ends up deciding how the child is looked after, where the child's clothes are kept, etc. Then the father is asked to get a clean vest for the baby one day, can't find it and you've suddenly got a case of sexism where the gather has no interest in childcare.

iptba

H3llR4iser wrote: »

It's hardly news if one has a bit of an objective eye to the world's reality, at least for what we call "western society".



Perhaps the aspect most closely linked to this finding is the well known and documented difference that exists between the likeliness of women and men to "marry up" in the social ladder - the classic "Cindrella" story retold over and over, adapted for current times, with the rich and successful dude going for the humble girl (today, it'd be a less romantic "male CEO marries female barista"...but hey).

As a man, certain things are expected of you: success, money, stability, fortitude, selflessness, even leadership in certain instances. Connected and often underestimated fact, across most languages the vast majority of insults that can specifically only be directed at men revolve around doubting one's virility, social or physical standing.

And to be honest...it wouldn't even be a problem, if we didn't now live in a social climate where the idea most paraded around is that by virtue of having a d1ck, everything in life is served to you on a silver platter; With a bit of cash on the side for bothering.

It's probably why phrases like "man up" and "be a (real) man" exist/sting more compared to the "woman up" and "be a (real) woman".

Pawwed Rig

McGaggs wrote: »

That can't make it an easy decision to have a kid. Would this be a well paid industry?

Can be but very few women at the highest level for this very reason. Any woman with sense once she approaches child bearing age checks what the maternity benefits are and angles a move to a place that pays them. For paternity it is not worth enough to switch jobs completely. When you consider that you will be the sole bread winner for a period security is important.

Calhoun

eviltwin wrote: »

There's no top up in many jobs. A couple might be able to make it work on one reduced wage but who could survive on two? Legally women have to take some maternity leave and most need some recovery time but I think it would go a long way if there was an option to transfer it and a couple could make their own decision on how best to use it.

Thats it exactly, there should be a mandatory recovery period for women as it is definitely needed and then after that they can both decide on how to use it. I would also say that increasing the amount you get to be closer to the average industrial wage would also go a long way.

I recently took 2 weeks paternity leave because luckily my employer tops up, but if they didn't i recon we would have trouble meeting the mortgage that month.

Reviews and Books Galore

As a man, certain things are expected of you: success, money, stability, fortitude, selflessness, even leadership in certain instances (qoute)

I think men put themselves second best a lot. Provide for the family, defend women, and be morally upstanding.

Its a shame about the current feminism. It seems to.be saying that women can be whatever they want, even if its toxic, but men should still perform gender roles.

I was reading the thread on staring and it got me thinking how men argue with women. They keep their head down, their voice soft, and they avoid eye contact so as not to be seen as overly aggressive.

I guess in the past a man overtly arguing with a women was seen as unmanly, and now he's seen as mysognistic.

Calhoun

It can be a two way street, they may say they want, x ,y and z but who gets everything they want?

Its always a compromise when your in a relationship and men need to know what their lines are.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander and vice versa. I know we aren't talking about individual relationships above but thats what feminism comes back to at the end of the day.

...Ghost...

I received a response from McAfee today. I wasn't expecting one, but check it out below. It would have been better had they not replied, because it shows that they cannot provide clarification for fear of digging a deeper hole.


Dear Mr. Ghost,

Thank you for your interest in this program. We’d like to refer you to the information previously provided to you regarding your questions below.

Regards,

SNIP

Their previous message was:

Dear Mr Ghost

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you as I was on PTO.

With respect to your query, I can confirm if an individual is legally recognized as female, they are eligible to apply for the scholarship.

Regards,

SNIP


I replied to that with:

Dear SNIP,

My question was not about the gender legal status. I asked if a person born as a male, but identifies as a female, would they then qualify in the "female only" criteria. I am making a bold assumption that you are not requiring applicants to supply a birth certificate, or a legal document to prove ones identity, but I may be wrong and perhaps you do request documentary proof of gender?

I am hopeful you will answer my reasonable question about those who identify as women, but may not have been born into a womans body. These questions are important if you are excluding applicants based on gender.

Regards,

Ghost

My Reply


Dear SNIP,

I sought clarification and you have directed me back to the answer which does not comprehensively answer the question. By refusing to clarify, one can only draw the conclusion that an individual, born as a male, identifying as a female would not be granted access to the scholarship. I wanted to know the exact gender criteria, which you have failed to clarify. In any case, the exclusion of any gender is a discriminatory act and not in line with your claims. Therefore, the McAfee anti-discrimination policy is nothing more than hot air and virtue signalling. I would very much like to know who signed off on the scholarship.

It is abundantly clear that McAfee is indeed discriminating against males. McAfee is making a scholarship available to one gender and excludes the other. McAfee is making a financial incentive available to one gender and excludes the other. Using the excuse that more males study and work in STEM is not a justification for discriminating against males and I am quite appalled that McAfee actively discriminates against males.

You have tried to assure me that McAfee is committed to non-discrimination and have pointed out that the criteria for the scholarship is set out in the official literature, which says that the applicants must be female. So you claim that McAfee are anti-discrimination, but will discriminate based on gender because you think it's a good idea. You reiterated that the initiative was "not at odds with our anti-discrimination statement or our values, but rather promotes them." You are effectively promoting discrimination and in my view, being disingenuous and evasive in your replies.

McAfee claims to be anti-discrimination, but has discriminated based on gender in a very clear way. It is not possible to be committed to non-discrimination while discriminating against one gender. McAfee is abhorrent for behaving in this way and attempting to brush it off by stating an under representation in females for STEM. There are no restrictions to females in STEM. No females are refused entry to third level education based on their gender. I am not aware of any STEM employers actively discriminating against females. If there were barriers, I would be in favour of ripping them down. However, the only barrier is that females tend to choose STEM in low numbers and it is unfair to offer financial assistance to one gender due to a number disparity. More females are attending third level education. Should we now offer increased levels of financial assistance to males based on this difference of numbers? As long as there is equal opportunity, there should be no incentives given to one gender at the exclusion of the other.

Can McAfee honestly say that it is following its own anti-discrimination policy while standing over such an exclusionary scholarship? McAfee should make available a male only scholarship, equal to the female only scholarship. This would allow an equal number of both genders to avail of the scholarships. Judging by the replies I have received over the course of a month, I would not be confident that opening the existing scholarship to males would result in males having a genuine chance of securing the scholarship. I would never seek to be employed, or associated with a company which actively discriminates against anyone, but I do believe that making a male only scholarship available would go some way to redeeming the company in the face of this pro-female/anti-male policy.

Regards,

Ghost


Who would be best placed to make their discrimination known? I am not sure most media companies would be interested, because they are likely on the band-wagon of male bashing.

Pawwed Rig

Here is probably as good as you are going to get. Media are disinterested in this type of discrimination.

Sleepy

TBH, why would any IT student be interested in working / interning for McAfee anyway? Their anti-virus has been **** for decades and, honestly, the greatest surprise for me is that they're still a going concern. Most techies I know regard their software as malware...

freshpopcorn

There's a one on crimecall talking about the sale and supply of sex in Ireland and it's all being directed at men buy it.
So, I take it women never buy sex?

givyjoe

freshpopcorn wrote: »

There's a one on crimecall talking about the sale and supply of sex in Ireland and it's all being directed at men buy it.
So, I take it women never buy sex?

Mostly men IF you look at the sites providing ads, but alot of professionals catering to couples.

H3llR4iser

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, why would any IT student be interested in working / interning for McAfee anyway? Their anti-virus has been **** for decades and, honestly, the greatest surprise for me is that they're still a going concern. Most techies I know regard their software as malware...

Plenty - their biggest source of income isn't the consumer market but the business one; If things haven't changed since I worked there (yeah, the "friend" thing never works, does it? ), their main cashcow is a product called "ePolicy Orchestrator", which allows sysadmins to manage security policies across LANs and WANs. Also, they have contracts with a lot of OEM to include their products, just like Symantec does/did.

In all fairness, plenty of good people worked with me in the Cork office back then, it's a few odd ones at the top which are the problem.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

There's a one on crimecall talking about the sale and supply of sex in Ireland and it's all being directed at men buy it.
So, I take it women never buy sex?

Well, like it or not, men are always going to be the main buyers of sex.

A lot of people don't want to hear about this nor want to admit, but sex is easier to access for women; It doesn't matter an ounce how you look, what you wear, how old or how successful you are - if you're a woman and want sex NOW, there are plenty of guys out there ready to throw themselves at you for free; The whole "men are jerks who only look at perfect Victoria's Secrets Angel type girls" is just a myth, perpetrated by media mostly aimed at women, in order to play on their sense of guilt and coax them into buying sh1t they don't need like diet pills, "hot yoga" courses or plastic surgery.

Heck, there's enough critical mass in variety of tastes to sustain very profitable specialized adult entertainment industries - there ARE such things as BBW, granny and even amputee porn!!!

For men, the opposite is true - unless you are at the very top of your game, the choice and opportunity is limited if not non-existent. Sure, Chris Hemsworth can walk into any club and have every woman in there chasing after him, but the average bloke will go home alone most of the times.
Not to mention the non-average guy: ft, short, with a disability? No chance for you.

And before anyone goes on a crusade against the obvious, yes - this situation is just natural; It's not that "women are evil and superficial", quite the opposite: they stand to risk and lose more from having sex with the wrong person, so nature just put a "safety filter" in the form of selection.

Whereas men, well, we're basically programmed to "spread the love"

freshpopcorn

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Well, like it or not, men are always going to be the main buyers of sex.

A lot of people don't want to hear about this nor want to admit, but sex is easier to access for women; It doesn't matter an ounce how you look, what you wear, how old or how successful you are - if you're a woman and want sex NOW, there are plenty of guys out there ready to throw themselves at you for free; The whole "men are jerks who only look at perfect Victoria's Secrets Angel type girls" is just a myth, perpetrated by media mostly aimed at women, in order to play on their sense of guilt and coax them into buying sh1t they don't need like diet pills, "hot yoga" courses or plastic surgery.

Heck, there's enough critical mass in variety of tastes to sustain very profitable specialized adult entertainment industries - there ARE such things as BBW, granny and even amputee porn!!!

For men, the opposite is true - unless you are at the very top of your game, the choice and opportunity is limited if not non-existent. Sure, Chris Hemsworth can walk into any club and have every woman in there chasing after him, but the average bloke will go home alone most of the times.
Not to mention the non-average guy: ft, short, with a disability? No chance for you.

And before anyone goes on a crusade against the obvious, yes - this situation is just natural; It's not that "women are evil and superficial", quite the opposite: they stand to risk and lose more from having sex with the wrong person, so nature just put a "safety filter" in the form of selection.

Whereas men, well, we're basically programmed to "spread the love"

I get what your saying.
The person I heard speaking just came across as all men are bad,etc.
Even the Gardai that spoke after her said "when people buy sex."

H3llR4iser

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The person I heard speaking just came across as all men are bad,etc.

This literally dates back to the dawn of mankind - demonization of men buying sex with all possible excuses, like "ruining families" and other sh1t.
I get it, there are some absolute gobsh1tes out there but really - the only valid, very valid arguments against sex work are those concerned about the health and safety of the workers themselves - especially when it comes to disease, human trafficking and assault; Issues which could be at least strongly mitigated by legalization and regulation. Active persecution of the "trade" will only push it further underground, with higher dangers for all involved.

It won't "go away", even in the best case, "utopian society" scenario, there will always be a small but not insignificant portion of blokes who just can't access sex "normally" and will look into alternatives, no matter the risk/cost.

Sleepy

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Plenty - their biggest source of income isn't the consumer market but the business one; If things haven't changed since I worked there (yeah, the "friend" thing never works, does it? ), their main cashcow is a product called "ePolicy Orchestrator", which allows sysadmins to manage security policies across LANs and WANs. Also, they have contracts with a lot of OEM to include their products, just like Symantec does/did.

In all fairness, plenty of good people worked with me in the Cork office back then, it's a few odd ones at the top which are the problem.

Are there many software vendors (outside of gaming) that make most of their income from the consumer market these days? I'd never heard of ePolicy Orchestrator. Though, I've always worked more in data or business systems consulting rather than network security so not entirely surprising. Interesting to hear where they're focused as a company nowadays though!

My comment was based on my observation that the only businesses I've seen using McAfee Antivirus products were public sector organisations where the IT staff would tend to be at the poorer qualified end of the scale (often legacy staff who joined after their leaving cert and placed into IT because they were hobbyists but even these days few top grads want to work for PS pay levels) .

In that environment buying a "big name" is often more important than buying a good product (the "No-one ever got fired for buying IBM" strategy). The private sectors organisations I've worked with tended to go with Symantec / Avast or even the in-built Microsoft Security Essentials for desktop users and I don't think I've ever known a good techie who rated McAfee Anti-Virus.

H3llR4iser

Sleepy wrote: »

Are there many software vendors (outside of gaming) that make most of their income from the consumer market these days? I'd never heard of ePolicy Orchestrator. Though, I've always worked more in data or business systems consulting rather than network security so not entirely surprising. Interesting to hear where they're focused as a company nowadays though!

My comment was based on my observation that the only businesses I've seen using McAfee Antivirus products were public sector organisations where the IT staff would tend to be at the poorer qualified end of the scale (often legacy staff who joined after their leaving cert and placed into IT because they were hobbyists but even these days few top grads want to work for PS pay levels) .

In that environment buying a "big name" is often more important than buying a good product (the "No-one ever got fired for buying IBM" strategy). The private sectors organisations I've worked with tended to go with Symantec / Avast or even the in-built Microsoft Security Essentials for desktop users and I don't think I've ever known a good techie who rated McAfee Anti-Virus.

You'd be surprised - plenty of giant tech enterprises are in their customers list, including names like NGK, Makino or Hitachi; Even a large military contractor in the US (one that makes fighter jets - you can figure it out) uses, or was using EPO back then. I think it's more popular in the US/Japan/Korea than it is here; Also, there were a plethora other B2B systems and services they developed/supported at the time.



I've hardly ever seen a company using Avast or Microsoft SE (not that they ain't good - I've been using the second on my home workstation and laptops since Win 10 came out), but the other solutions I've seen (like, Sophos...) aren't really superior to ePO, and I'm not saying just because I worked on it. So yep, that's why they have market still.



Back on topic - The Cork office ain't a bad place to work, as I said most of the people are great, I've had a good time there; Yet, some of the middle to top management are obsessed with virtue signaling and appearing in the media for "the right reasons", which can result in hilariously stupid initiatives like the one we're talking about

fullstop

Sleepy wrote: »

TBH, why would any IT student be interested in working / interning for McAfee anyway? Their anti-virus has been **** for decades and, honestly, the greatest surprise for me is that they're still a going concern. Most techies I know regard their software as malware...

Not to mention John McAfee is suspected of having done some very, very bad things.

steddyeddy

My other half works as an invigilator in IELTS British council in order to put her through her PhD. It's blatantly sexist there. She says the supervisor asks the male supervisors to leave early and the females to stay on later. The females are given extra days to do and therefore extra money. I love my other half but she's always talking about sexism against women but seems happy to benefit from this. A male student is making a complaint against the supervisor about this and none of the girls are backing him. I sit on the Athena Swan panel at my university so I do take sexism seriously. What do you think about this situation and have you ever seen a double standard like this?

steddyeddy

...Ghost... wrote: »

I received a response from McAfee today. I wasn't expecting one, but check it out below. It would have been better had they not replied, because it shows that they cannot provide clarification for fear of digging a deeper hole.


Dear Mr. Ghost,

Thank you for your interest in this program. We’d like to refer you to the information previously provided to you regarding your questions below.

Regards,

SNIP

Their previous message was:



My Reply


Dear SNIP,

I sought clarification and you have directed me back to the answer which does not comprehensively answer the question. By refusing to clarify, one can only draw the conclusion that an individual, born as a male, identifying as a female would not be granted access to the scholarship. I wanted to know the exact gender criteria, which you have failed to clarify. In any case, the exclusion of any gender is a discriminatory act and not in line with your claims. Therefore, the McAfee anti-discrimination policy is nothing more than hot air and virtue signalling. I would very much like to know who signed off on the scholarship.

It is abundantly clear that McAfee is indeed discriminating against males. McAfee is making a scholarship available to one gender and excludes the other. McAfee is making a financial incentive available to one gender and excludes the other. Using the excuse that more males study and work in STEM is not a justification for discriminating against males and I am quite appalled that McAfee actively discriminates against males.

You have tried to assure me that McAfee is committed to non-discrimination and have pointed out that the criteria for the scholarship is set out in the official literature, which says that the applicants must be female. So you claim that McAfee are anti-discrimination, but will discriminate based on gender because you think it's a good idea. You reiterated that the initiative was "not at odds with our anti-discrimination statement or our values, but rather promotes them." You are effectively promoting discrimination and in my view, being disingenuous and evasive in your replies.

McAfee claims to be anti-discrimination, but has discriminated based on gender in a very clear way. It is not possible to be committed to non-discrimination while discriminating against one gender. McAfee is abhorrent for behaving in this way and attempting to brush it off by stating an under representation in females for STEM. There are no restrictions to females in STEM. No females are refused entry to third level education based on their gender. I am not aware of any STEM employers actively discriminating against females. If there were barriers, I would be in favour of ripping them down. However, the only barrier is that females tend to choose STEM in low numbers and it is unfair to offer financial assistance to one gender due to a number disparity. More females are attending third level education. Should we now offer increased levels of financial assistance to males based on this difference of numbers? As long as there is equal opportunity, there should be no incentives given to one gender at the exclusion of the other.

Can McAfee honestly say that it is following its own anti-discrimination policy while standing over such an exclusionary scholarship? McAfee should make available a male only scholarship, equal to the female only scholarship. This would allow an equal number of both genders to avail of the scholarships. Judging by the replies I have received over the course of a month, I would not be confident that opening the existing scholarship to males would result in males having a genuine chance of securing the scholarship. I would never seek to be employed, or associated with a company which actively discriminates against anyone, but I do believe that making a male only scholarship available would go some way to redeeming the company in the face of this pro-female/anti-male policy.

Regards,

Ghost


Who would be best placed to make their discrimination known? I am not sure most media companies would be interested, because they are likely on the band-wagon of male bashing.

I've informed the Athena Swan organisation. I'll post replies here.

H3llR4iser

steddyeddy wrote: »

My other half works as an invigilator in IELTS British council in order to put her through her PhD. It's blatantly sexist there. She says the supervisor asks the male supervisors to leave early and the females to stay on later. The females are given extra days to do and therefore extra money. I love my other half but she's always talking about sexism against women but seems happy to benefit from this. A male student is making a complaint against the supervisor about this and none of the girls are backing him. I sit on the Athena Swan panel at my university so I do take sexism seriously. What do you think about this situation and have you ever seen a double standard like this?

I'm not sure I get this right - is she complaining that the "supervisor" basically giving more days/extratime/money to the ladies as "sexist"? (the fact that such a train of thought is definitely not outside of the realm of possibilities really speaks volumes, TBH).

silverharp

I think we have a winner here

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/1126258884711071745

Pawwed Rig

That has to be a pisstake

The Specialist

silverharp wrote: »

I think we have a winner here

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/1126258884711071745

That’s just disgusting, no other word for it. Is it supposed to be trying to be funny or something??

One eyed Jack

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That has to be a pisstake

The Specialist wrote: »

That’s just disgusting, no other word for it. Is it supposed to be trying to be funny or something??

It is a pisstake lads, and yes, it’s supposed to be funny. I found it funny at least, because it’s far more relatable than the Gillette nonsense which I regard as a deliberate attempt to push a social agenda.

I would hate the idea that anyone would become as over-sensitive and humourless as the people trying to push a particular social agenda, and I think the tweet is taking the advert out of context to push that agenda.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is a pisstake lads, and yes, it’s supposed to be funny. I found it funny at least, because it’s far more relatable than the Gillette nonsense which I regard as a deliberate attempt to push a social agenda.

I would hate the idea that anyone would become as over-sensitive and humourless as the people trying to push a particular social agenda, and I think the tweet is taking the advert out of context to push that agenda.

going by the comments its winding up a lot of Germans. Irony or p1sstake should have wink to camera, I' didn't see it

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

going by the comments its winding up a lot of Germans. Irony or p1sstake should have wink to camera, I' didn't see it

I’m genuinely not surprised some people are getting wound up about it, I’m saying I hope people don’t, because I don’t think it’s intended in the same way as the Gillette campaign at all. The Gillette campaign was intended to be deliberate provocation, this advert doesn’t strike me as intended to be deliberate provocation. I didn’t need a wink to the camera to know it was a pisstake that many men, women and children will be able to see the funny side as opposed to any deliberate malicious intent.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m genuinely not surprised some people are getting wound up about it, I’m saying I hope people don’t, because I don’t think it’s intended in the same way as the Gillette campaign at all. The Gillette campaign was intended to be deliberate provocation, this advert doesn’t strike me as intended to be deliberate provocation. I didn’t need a wink to the camera to know it was a pisstake that many men, women and children will be able to see the funny side as opposed to any deliberate malicious intent.

its a supermarket, they would see women as their main customers, it might be using the cover of ott humour , ill run it by my (german) wife later to see if she thinks it funny or is there dig at men hiding in plain sight as it were.
There is push pack by German commentators though so doesn't seem to be a lost in translation thing

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

its a supermarket, they would see women as their main customers, it might be using the cover of ott humour , ill run it by my (german) wife later to see if she thinks it funny or is there dig at men hiding in plain sight as it were.
There is push pack by German commentators though so doesn't seem to be a lost in translation thing

Would they?

Nah there’s a big push nowadays with supermarkets to represent a more family friendly dynamic, they’re all at it - Lidl, Aldi, Tesco, etc. I don’t imagine it’s all that different on the continent, and that advert appears to me at least to be more of the same aiming at family friendly dynamics.

I’m saying that I’m not surprised there’s a pushback against the advert, regardless of what country it’s in or whether anything is lost in translation. I’m also saying that I hope people don’t become so sensitive that they perceive sexism in everything and become humourless over-sensitive types more interested in point-scoring than pointing out legitimate examples of blatant and obvious maliciously intended sexism.

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Would they?

Nah there’s a big push nowadays with supermarkets to represent a more family friendly dynamic, they’re all at it - Lidl, Aldi, Tesco, etc. I don’t imagine it’s all that different on the continent, and that advert appears to me at least to be more of the same aiming at family friendly dynamics.

I’m saying that I’m not surprised there’s a pushback against the advert, regardless of what country it’s in or whether anything is lost in translation. I’m also saying that I hope people don’t become so sensitive that they perceive sexism in everything and become humourless over-sensitive types more interested in point-scoring than pointing out legitimate examples of blatant and obvious maliciously intended sexism.

Speaking of which...I'm surprised the recently published piece about discrimination didn't ruffle more feathers... (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/04/now-its-microsofts-turn-for-an-anti-diversity-internal-revolt/ )...they are financially rewarding senior managers for NOT hiring white or asian men.

As for that advert, it is a typical advert we are seeing more and more of these days...completely devoid of creativity and humour...piss poor attempt at hopping on the prevailing narrative of the day....oh ya, do remember, women control approx 80% of the domestic spend...which is why we will never see a female equivalent ad.

It is also high risk...this woke culture is not exactly bringing in the cash for "edgy" sjw companies...quiet the opposite in fact.

gizmo555

The Specialist wrote: »

That’s just disgusting, no other word for it. Is it supposed to be trying to be funny or something??

As good an example as any that German humour is no laughing matter.

The Specialist

gizmo555 wrote: »

As good an example as any that German humour is no laughing matter.

I’m sure I missed something humorous in it (presumably because I’m Irish and not German ) but I still reserve the right to be totes offended by it haha (I’m not but I do find the double standard crass) - its only a few years ago here we had a hunky Dorys advert pulled for daring to feature a woman in shorts in the advert so that senseless tit for tat cuts both ways. They can **** off with their “humour” against men when the same featuring females would be nuked out of it with complaints.

py2006

Surely the son **** scene gave it away! :eek:

The Specialist

py2006 wrote: »

Surely the son **** scene gave it away! :eek:

It’s Germany....they’d show **** to promote a cereal

py2006

The Specialist wrote: »

It’s Germany....they’d show **** to promote a cereal

Well thats me skipping breakfast in the morning...

Kimsang

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is a pisstake lads, and yes, it’s supposed to be funny. I found it funny at least, because it’s far more relatable than the Gillette nonsense which I regard as a deliberate attempt to push a social agenda.

I would hate the idea that anyone would become as over-sensitive and humourless as the people trying to push a particular social agenda, and I think the tweet is taking the advert out of context to push that agenda.

I can see them going for funny here.

Surely what matters more is the society in which it was produced and the norms they reflect.

I.e. The producers wouldn't be very funny in nazi germany, but today it is.
Life of Brian would get considerable push back in a more religious country.

So even though I laughed a little, I can still see why this ad is getting so much push back. Its because we're already in a climate of man hating.

H3llR4iser

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is a pisstake lads, and yes, it’s supposed to be funny. I found it funny at least, because it’s far more relatable than the Gillette nonsense which I regard as a deliberate attempt to push a social agenda.

I would hate the idea that anyone would become as over-sensitive and humourless as the people trying to push a particular social agenda, and I think the tweet is taking the advert out of context to push that agenda.

I don't think it's too much of a reaction, honestly - there's nothing "funny" about the ad, and if the translation I found is correct, it's clear that whomever wrote and directed it didn't intend it to be funny at all - or, more likely, has a completely skewed concept of what is "funny".

Allegedly, as I don't speak German and found this on the internet, the children are saying this through the advert:

"Thank you. Thank you for always being there for me. You take care of me. You have a feeling for the right moment. I can always tell you everything. And you always listen to me. You're my role model and you encourage me whenever and however you can. Thank you for being so beautiful. And for being so sensitive."

Now, the above not been in the ad, and had it just ended with "Thanks for not being Dad!", they yeah, I could see the attempt at humour. By following the above with "thanks for not being dad", the tone changes completely, as the implication is that "dad" is none of the stuff mentioned.

Finally, something that I'm surprised is not mentioned anywhere - take a look at that ad again, there's one peculiarity that is even worse than the speech (if the translation is correct, that is).

Two, possibly three (I can't tell if the baby whose father is making a mess with the blender is a boy or a girl) scenes involve sons, and they are the "funny" ones - walking in on the teenager "strangling the duck", falling asleep instead of reading a bedtime story.

Most of the ones involving daughters, on the other hand, largely feature either physical harm or pain inflicted by the "hapless idiot of a dad" (the girl whose teeth get knocked out is particularly crude) or feelings of disgust caused by the father in his own daughter.

I am entirely with you in avoiding to see issues that aren't there; I won't have a problem with stuff that is genuinely humorous even if it plays the old trope "dad can't do sh1t" or variations thereof, or the age old role of the men being "messier" and more prone to do silly things. To a point, it's even true.

This one however, it's something else - maybe, and we enter the realm of speculation here, the intention WAS indeed to do something funny, but the final product ended up being influenced by an overly opinionated writer/director.

silverharp

they wouldnt switch the genders on this one, think of something like an Adidas advert where the mother is stifling the kids and not letting them have any fun or do anything where they might scrape their knee and it finished with the son telling the dad thanks for not being mum , there would be a sh1t storm

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is a pisstake lads, and yes, it’s supposed to be funny. I found it funny at least, because it’s far more relatable than the Gillette nonsense which I regard as a deliberate attempt to push a social agenda.

I would hate the idea that anyone would become as over-sensitive and humourless as the people trying to push a particular social agenda, and I think the tweet is taking the advert out of context to push that agenda.

Not in today's anti men climate it's not funny. It's terrible. Who sanctions this stuff.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

they wouldnt switch the genders on this one, think of something like an Adidas advert where the mother is stifling the kids and not letting them have any fun or do anything where they might scrape their knee and it finished with the son telling the dad thanks for not being mum , there would be a sh1t storm

They wouldn’t switch the genders because then it wouldn’t be relatable, it wouldn’t make any sense. H3llR4iser makes the point that it’s a trope - it’s a play on the trope of the hapless father which is a stereotype in comedy - the Simpsons, Malcolm in the Middle, the Inbetweeners, loads of them. Initially I thought it was going to be one of those shmaltzy styled adverts with the hapless father overcoming adversity, but it totally subverted the trope, because it was an advert for Mothers Day!

You can’t reverse the genders, but what is done often in advertising is using stereotypes to comic effect and subverting expectations, like this advert -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFHL-zwkJfg

The only “uproar” about it from the usual over-sensitive and humourless sources who take themselves far too seriously -

Vauxhall 'pajama mamas' ad thread on mumsnet


I’m just saying I hope this thread doesn’t descend to that level of pettiness where we start taking ourselves far too seriously and become just as humourless and unable to laugh at ourselves or take what is intended IMO to be a joke. Germans might even call it Schadenfreude (a word for everything those Germans ).

fly_agaric

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can’t reverse the genders, but what is done often in advertising is using stereotypes to comic effect and subverting expectations, like this advert -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFHL-zwkJfg

The only “uproar” about it from the usual over-sensitive and humourless sources who take themselves far too seriously -

Vauxhall 'pajama mamas' ad thread on mumsnet


I’m just saying I hope this thread doesn’t descend to that level of pettiness where we start taking ourselves far too seriously and become just as humourless and unable to laugh at ourselves or take what is intended IMO to be a joke. Germans might even call it Schadenfreude (a word for everything those Germans ).

Always find these adverts and discussion of just what upsets/does not upset people interesting. Just watched the one you linked. Bit of a different tone there as regards the subjects of the joke.
These "pajama mammies" are sort of a young & cool bunch. Doing what they want, breaking silly conventions...you go girl (while school-marm & boring woman + rumpled, slightly creepy old lad give them the evil eye).
You could have a sneaking regard for the "pyjama mammy", for "dozy daddy" I think amused contempt might be as far as it goes.Laughing with vs laughing at.

Neither of the adverts go against grain of our "women are wonderful" cultural moment imo (the silly daddy one trumpets it with the tag line at the end). Doing that in a big way would really be playing with fire & potentially damaging to corporate profits.
Would love to see what social media reaction would be to some of the blatant sex-sells (and sexist) ads put out by big companies in my youth. Resurrecting & wheeling them out again in this day and age should be enough to kick off a good few angry twitter/internet witch-hunts and outrage-fests.

steddyeddy

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I'm not sure I get this right - is she complaining that the "supervisor" basically giving more days/extratime/money to the ladies as "sexist"? (the fact that such a train of thought is definitely not outside of the realm of possibilities really speaks volumes, TBH).

Sorry H. I didn't explain it right.

My girlfriend and my female friend work as invigilators for the British council. They're an organisation that issues tests for the English language certificates you need to do some jobs in the UK.

So both of them work for as invigilators part time. The money can be decent and the job isn't really demanding. Anyway there's a few different day supervisors there. One of them throws out all applications for males who apply for jobs. The women who do work there get extended hours on the exam days and the men get sent home earlier.

My other half and our female friend always claim to me they feel sorry for the guys sent home ours earlier yet don't seem to object to this. It's also awkward because the sexist supervisor also reportedly binned an application of a male friend of ours. It's sad because our friend doesn't know what he did wrong and was stuck for money.

I don't want this to stray into the personal problems forum with this one :pac: but I lost a bit of respect for my OH and our friend over this. Especially considering our friend was the victim of sexism in her PhD which nearly caused her to leave.

So that's it. A supervisor bins all male job applications and the ones who do get through via other supervisors have their hours cut by the sexist supervisor. I think I feel strongly about it because our friend was struggling for money and didn't get the job. Anyway it's minor enough I just feel a bit conflicted about it.

When I was a teenager working in Superquinn all the women got sent home earlier than the boys but now we're all adults so it's a bit weird. I know this is a controversial question but my girlfriend and her friend would be feminists with a small f yet accept preferential treatment because of their gender and don't report sexism like this. Is this something others observed?

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

I think we have a winner here

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/1126258884711071745

Random tweet (not an ad) I came across on Twitter for what it is worth.

https://twitter.com/kiaz19/status/1112120997719797760?s=11

Silentcorner

That reminds of this ad I came across, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT-QiMZkAn8 ... its not that hard really is it!

I'm willing to bet, Gillette are wishing they used this ad agency to reach men rather than a radical feminist who is currently on target to lose the company circa 10% of their customer base costing P & G billions of Euros in what will in time be described as the biggest corporate advertising f##k up of all time....but hey...they got to start a conversation right, whats a few quid!

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

I know this is a controversial question but my girlfriend and her friend would be feminists with a small f yet accept preferential treatment because of their gender and don't report sexism like this. Is this something others observed?

The fact that they accept preferential treatment on the basis of their sex is far more true to the values of feminism than some people nowadays who regard themselves as feminists because they advocate for men’s rights :pac:

Is their behaviour sexist? Nope, I don’t blame them at all for availing of an opportunity when it’s presented to them. Is the behaviour of their supervisor sexist? Absolutely. It’s also the embodiment of feminism though to be fair to her.

I know we’re different people, but I wouldn’t lose any respect for someone on that basis at all. I’ve often been called sexist by people who claimed to be egalitarian, who appeared to be far more interested in point scoring against the opposite sex. It’s silly IMO to claim someone is sexist or a policy is sexist because it doesn’t apply to or doesn’t include the opposite sex. What happens is that policies like referring to women as “pregnant persons” and offering “prostate” checks to women starts to become a thing :rolleyes:

Can Females Get Prostate Cancer?

silverharp

apparently in germany some men have being filling trollies in the supermarket chain and walking out leaving a sign saying something like they were too stupid to find the checkouts. :pac:


one more positive one

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

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The fact that they accept preferential treatment on the basis of their sex is far more true to the values of feminism than some people nowadays who regard themselves as feminists because they advocate for men’s rights :pac:

Is their behaviour sexist? Nope, I don’t blame them at all for availing of an opportunity when it’s presented to them. Is the behaviour of their supervisor sexist? Absolutely. It’s also the embodiment of feminism though to be fair to her.

I know we’re different people, but I wouldn’t lose any respect for someone on that basis at all. I’ve often been called sexist by people who claimed to be egalitarian, who appeared to be far more interested in point scoring against the opposite sex. It’s silly IMO to claim someone is sexist or a policy is sexist because it doesn’t apply to or doesn’t include the opposite sex. What happens is that policies like referring to women as “pregnant persons” and offering “prostate” checks to women starts to become a thing :rolleyes:

Can Females Get Prostate Cancer?

They can certainly take it Jack but then they lost their complaining about sexism privileges.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

One of them throws out all applications for males who apply for jobs. The women who do work there get extended hours on the exam days and the men get sent home earlier.

My other half and our female friend always claim to me they feel sorry for the guys sent home ours earlier yet don't seem to object to this. It's also awkward because the sexist supervisor also reportedly binned an application of a male friend of ours. It's sad because our friend doesn't know what he did wrong and was stuck for money.

I don't want this to stray into the personal problems forum with this one :pac: but I lost a bit of respect for my OH and our friend over this. Especially considering our friend was the victim of sexism in her PhD which nearly caused her to leave.

So that's it. A supervisor bins all male job applications and the ones who do get through via other supervisors have their hours cut by the sexist supervisor. I think I feel strongly about it because our friend was struggling for money and didn't get the job. Anyway it's minor enough I just feel a bit conflicted about it.

That should be a sackable offence, imagine hating men so much that you dump their applications.

Definitely not a minor issue.

Someone needs to report that supervisor, ask where the applications have gone.