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

Reviews and Books Galore

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17760155.amp/

I'm sure a chair to make women sit more ladylike would go down wonderfully.

What's shocking is that the Madrid metro banned man spreading. It seems pretty obvious that a mans hips don't work the same way as a woman's and he would need to sit differently.

IMO, I'd be curious about the long term.health effects if sitting in a way that is negative to your biology.

Calhoun

May have just painted a huge Target on her head. It's not a very practical chair either as it's quite large.

...Ghost...

I think she nick-named it the "nut cracker".

silverharp

^^

endorsed by the deputy head of the college. Education? i hope they choke on their student loans

Prof Debra Humphris
‏

@debrahumphris
Jul 4
More
Replying to @uniofbrighton @NewDesigners @belmond
Congratulations, brilliant idea, looking forward to seeing them in use @uniofbrighton @belmond

0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply Retweet

Calhoun

As I said it's not really news has only got kudos because of its sexism.

This will put a target on her one Google of her name and you have her Instagram ECT.

However it's a small item and will probably be ignored .

Sleepy

That chair looks designed to cause infertility problems tbh.

Reviews and Books Galore

I honestly can't sit in that position for a long time or my hips start to click, but maybe that's just me.

IMO, this is pretty disgusting with the name nut cracker. Its like a chair to make women more masculine called FGM.

Tbh, I'm only annoyed that it was endorsed by an education board as it sets a pretty toxic precedent.

The Specialist

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I honestly can't sit in that position for a long time or my hips start to click, but maybe that's just me.

IMO, this is pretty disgusting with the name nut cracker. Its like a chair to make women more masculine called FGM.

Tbh, I'm only annoyed that it was endorsed by an education board as it sets a pretty toxic precedent.

Education as a whole has become toxic and a breeding ground for cretins like this one. Critical thought is a taboo and only the extreme ends of diversity are championed and celebrated now - if you are a normal man or woman there must be something wrong with you. It will eat itself eventually though and the backlash when (not if) it happens is going to be something to behold.

...Ghost...

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I honestly can't sit in that position for a long time or my hips start to click, but maybe that's just me.

IMO, this is pretty disgusting with the name nut cracker. Its like a chair to make women more masculine called FGM.

Tbh, I'm only annoyed that it was endorsed by an education board as it sets a pretty toxic precedent.

That was a joke

Pawwed Rig

I have yet to hear the words manspreading or mansplaining in real life outside of the internet.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I have yet to hear the words manspreading or mansplaining in real life outside of the internet.

That in itself is cause for encouragement.

Less time online would do a lot of people immense good.

source

No

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I have yet to hear the words manspreading or mansplaining in real life outside of the internet.

I have, unfortunately, heard mansplaining IRL, but not the other.

Calhoun

source wrote: »

I have, unfortunately, heard mansplaining IRL, but not the other.

Normally used by ignorant people who want to control the conversation.

H3llR4iser

If I heard somebody using the term "mansplaining" outside of the cesspits of the internet and especially directed to me, I'd make a point of refusing to talk to said person for any circumstances lesser than a raging fire in the building.

...Ghost...

H3llR4iser wrote: »

If I heard somebody using the term "mansplaining" outside of the cesspits of the internet and especially directed to me, I'd make a point of refusing to talk to said person for any circumstances lesser than a raging fire in the building.

Presumably to tell them it's a false alarm and to go back inside and wait for the noise to go away.

H3llR4iser

...Ghost... wrote: »

Presumably to tell them it's a false alarm and to go back inside and wait for the noise to go away.

Ahahah...it's an idea I hadn't thought about.

Funny story - as it's unfortunately not unusual in these cases, when we established the fire safety protocol at the office...no women volunteered to be fire marshals; So for over one year, every single fire marshal was a man.

During the all hands meeting to introduce the policies a few women protested that it was wrong that all marshals were men, as they need to check nobody is left trapped in the toilets and they might walk in on one of them not being fully dressed. The obvious response would've been "why didn't you volunteer so?", but the guy doing the presentation had an even better one - "either a dude sees you with your pants down or you die burning slowly and painfully. Your choice...". Oddly, the argument died on the spot.

There are now two women in the team, new ladies who joined the company and were marshals already at their previous jobs.

the_pen_turner

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I have yet to hear the words manspreading or mansplaining in real life outside of the internet.

sadly i have heard mansplaining said in conversation on multiple times and from at least 2 if not 3 indeviduels

Padraig Mor

Letter in the Irish Times the other day that I found jaw dropping in its sexism.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/women-only-professorships-1.3960553

"Sir, – In examining the new female-only professorships scheme, Muireann Lynch and Selina McCoy argue that we would be better off tackling gender inequality by changing the Stem (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) stereotypes that shape education and career choices from childhood (“Will female-only professorships make the difference?”, Opinion & Analysis, July 15th).

There are many programmes aimed at fostering interest in Stem among young students, often with targets for increasing the participation of girls. However, there is also a growing concern expressed by female scientists about the ethics of encouraging female students into a career where they will face discrimination and [will] be held back by bias from achieving their potential.

Specific attitudes held by parents, teachers and thus children about the suitability of girls for Stem subjects are simply a specific manifestation of the broader unconscious bias held by society that affects all women. This unconscious bias supports the presumption that men are more able and holds men to a lower standard. This is the reason that women are missing from the professoriate.

Increasing the number of female professors from 116 to 161 (compared to 400 male professors), in subject areas with few female professors, will change the dynamic in those departments and in our understanding of women as research leaders. The dramatic nature of the intervention has focused attention on how much effort is needed for universities to see real change.

Ultimately we will achieve gender equality when unconscious bias no longer limits women’s achievements. Girls and boys will choose careers in line with their interests and aptitudes, and go on to succeed based on their merits.

For now, Minister of State for Higher Education Mary Mitchell O’Connor’s scheme is a bold move with high impact. – Yours, etc,"

[my emphasis added]

Note the quite extreme use of language here - [all] women *will* face discrimination and *will* be held back because of their gender. [All] men in academia *are* held to a lower standard and only got the job because they're men. How do their male colleagues in NUIG feel about this?

Of course NUIG was the ultimate source of this move, with the Sheehy Skeffington case - where she won a discrimination case despite - in essence - admitting that the men who got jobs ahead of her were better.

STEM in academia is an area of which I have plenty of experience, and many contacts therein. The simple fact of the matter is that reality is the opposite of what the letter writers claim. It's normally easier for a woman to land a job - departments will fall over themselves to hire them given the rabid anti-male atmosphere in the universities. But there just aren't that many suitably qualified women out there! And inevitably, the women (and it is all women) who crib and cry about not getting promoted and sexism etc are the same ones who come in at 10am and are out the gap again at 3 to collect the kids - when they can be bothered to actually turn up at all.

I find the last highlighted sentence bizarre - study after study shows that girls are simply not as interested in men in STEM subjects, and instead choose careers in line with their actual interests - the ultimate reason for lower numbers of women in STEM.

Calhoun

I find it bizarre that some people are purposely clingy on to the myth that boys do better than girls when the dropout rates ECT would suggest otherwise.

iptba

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Letter in the Irish Times the other day that I found jaw dropping in its sexism.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/women-only-professorships-1.3960553

"Sir, – In examining the new female-only professorships scheme, Muireann Lynch and Selina McCoy argue that we would be better off tackling gender inequality by changing the Stem (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) stereotypes that shape education and career choices from childhood (“Will female-only professorships make the difference?”, Opinion & Analysis, July 15th).

There are many programmes aimed at fostering interest in Stem among young students, often with targets for increasing the participation of girls. However, there is also a growing concern expressed by female scientists about the ethics of encouraging female students into a career where they will face discrimination and [will] be held back by bias from achieving their potential.

Specific attitudes held by parents, teachers and thus children about the suitability of girls for Stem subjects are simply a specific manifestation of the broader unconscious bias held by society that affects all women. This unconscious bias supports the presumption that men are more able and holds men to a lower standard. This is the reason that women are missing from the professoriate.

Increasing the number of female professors from 116 to 161 (compared to 400 male professors), in subject areas with few female professors, will change the dynamic in those departments and in our understanding of women as research leaders. The dramatic nature of the intervention has focused attention on how much effort is needed for universities to see real change.

Ultimately we will achieve gender equality when unconscious bias no longer limits women’s achievements. Girls and boys will choose careers in line with their interests and aptitudes, and go on to succeed based on their merits.

For now, Minister of State for Higher Education Mary Mitchell O’Connor’s scheme is a bold move with high impact. – Yours, etc,"

[my emphasis added]

Note the quite extreme use of language here - [all] women *will* face discrimination and *will* be held back because of their gender. [All] men in academia *are* held to a lower standard and only got the job because they're men. How do their male colleagues in NUIG feel about this?

Of course NUIG was the ultimate source of this move, with the Sheehy Skeffington case - where she won a discrimination case despite - in essence - admitting that the men who got jobs ahead of her were better.

STEM in academia is an area of which I have plenty of experience, and many contacts therein. The simple fact of the matter is that reality is the opposite of what the letter writers claim. It's normally easier for a woman to land a job - departments will fall over themselves to hire them given the rabid anti-male atmosphere in the universities. But there just aren't that many suitably qualified women out there! And inevitably, the women (and it is all women) who crib and cry about not getting promoted and sexism etc are the same ones who come in at 10am and are out the gap again at 3 to collect the kids - when they can be bothered to actually turn up at all.

I find the last highlighted sentence bizarre - study after study shows that girls are simply not as interested in men in STEM subjects, and instead choose careers in line with their actual interests - the ultimate reason for lower numbers of women in STEM.

A number of people shared it and retweeted it on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fletters%2Fwomen-only-professorships-1.3960553&src=typed_query including the National Women's Council of Ireland


https://twitter.com/NWCI/status/1152143969339531265
https://twitter.com/NWCI/status/1152143970849439744

Calhoun

The feminist mouth piece would be out in support of it because, they are trying to rehabilitate the perception of the role.

You got to remember if they don't rehabilitate the image they will always be seen as the token jobs for people who shouldn't be in the position or haven't earned it.

iptba

On women-only professorships in Ireland:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/will-female-only-professorships-make-the-difference-1.3956350?__vfz=medium%3Dcomment_share_email#vf-6443600019195

The authors talk about gender disparities but don’t take note of refuting evidence which is under their noses: A report from the gender equality task force itself admits that, in the past 10 years, 30% of applicants for professorships were women, and 28% of those promoted were women. Women made up 32% of applicants for associate professor and got 31% of those jobs. The report admits that, in Norway, women occupy just 29% of full professorships.
Ideology is the guiding principle in this piece.

H3llR4iser

Guys, this takes the proverbial cake. I'll have to keep the details vague for reasons I'll explain further down.

So, long story short I was talking with a friend yesterday, who draws action manga and publishes it on one of the many "art sharing" portals around the web. There was recently a "strike/warning" against the account because the protagonist of the comic, a female secret agent/infiltrator type (imagine Alias mixed with James Bond) gets punched at some point in the story. In an action comic where said agent shoots, poisons, stabs and throws off buildings an average of one man every second page.

No amount of logic or reasoning applies - the email that was sent back to the site explaining that A-it's a freaking action story, there needs to be some danger for the protagonist and B-it's a freaking comic were replied to with claims that two panels specifically feature "violence against women" and "incite hatred of women".

Interesting important fact - the author, my friend, IS a woman herself and she's utterly p1ssed off about the whole thing - she straight up called it sexist (as in, it's OK to kill and maime 100 guys in 100 pages). I've actually suggested she should kick up a total sh1tstorm about this - could even play the "victim" card, saying the portal is discriminating against a female author's artistic vision, but she ain't inclined to do so - and that's why I'm not posting specifics, as she doesn't want a social media "war" on this.

What a great time to be alive...

facehugger99

Padraig Mor wrote: »

And inevitably, the women (and it is all women) who crib and cry about not getting promoted and sexism etc are the same ones who come in at 10am and are out the gap again at 3 to collect the kids - when they can be bothered to actually turn up at all.

Is this the most comprehensive example of a poster shooting their own argument against gender-stereotyping in the foot?

Calhoun

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Guys, this takes the proverbial cake. I'll have to keep the details vague for reasons I'll explain further down.

So, long story short I was talking with a friend yesterday, who draws action manga and publishes it on one of the many "art sharing" portals around the web. There was recently a "strike/warning" against the account because the protagonist of the comic, a female secret agent/infiltrator type (imagine Alias mixed with James Bond) gets punched at some point in the story. In an action comic where said agent shoots, poisons, stabs and throws off buildings an average of one man every second page.

No amount of logic or reasoning applies - the email that was sent back to the site explaining that A-it's a freaking action story, there needs to be some danger for the protagonist and B-it's a freaking comic were replied to with claims that two panels specifically feature "violence against women" and "incite hatred of women".

Interesting important fact - the author, my friend, IS a woman herself and she's utterly p1ssed off about the whole thing - she straight up called it sexist (as in, it's OK to kill and maime 100 guys in 100 pages). I've actually suggested she should kick up a total sh1tstorm about this - could even play the "victim" card, saying the portal is discriminating against a female author's artistic vision, but she ain't inclined to do so - and that's why I'm not posting specifics, as she doesn't want a social media "war" on this.

What a great time to be alive...

Good and i mean this in the best way. The more absurd things become to normal folk including women the sooner we can break free from the online virtue signalling thought police.

H3llR4iser

Calhoun wrote: »

Good and i mean this in the best way. The more absurd things become to normal folk including women the sooner we can break free from the online virtue signalling thought police.

The last part is what I told her - most likely, what happened is that some imbecile saw the one scene in question, was "triggered" and reported the account; The portal automatically buckled for fear of being accused of supporting "violence against women". This kind of unquestioning, automatic knee jerk reaction is incredibly dangerous.

This ain't entirely new - if you're familiar with Capcom's "Final Fight" game from 1989, there's a whole 30-years-old controversy about the only female character in the game (a side-scrolling brawler) actual gender;

Capcom included her in the game but then worried about the backlash of allowing the player to "hit a woman" (while she was trying to kill said player...) when the game hit western shores.

At various points they claimed the character to be a transexual, then a "newhalf" (Japanese for post-op transexual) or straight up transvestite (as in, tucking the "tools" away) -so basically the fact the character has or had a d1ck at some point in their life makes it acceptable or not to hit them. Somehow, thefact they're criminals trying to kill the player is made irrelevant by this...

More recently, there have been complaints about female characters being hit in fighting games...well, I guess we could go back to NOT having any female characters in any games, controversy solved.

Calhoun

We are in for a course correction / change, like it or not the people running around virtue signalling and white knighting for minorities are not doing them any favors.

Even worse is they are putting them on a pedestal and the worse kind of people are taking advantage of it and guess who is actually being abused? Women.

Men i feel are always the whipping boys so to speak, we get blamed for the woes in the world but no one is going to try and take sexual advantage or abuse us because when push comes to shove we will react violently. Women on the other hand like to play with in the rules of social norms and become restricted by it.

We are due a course correction, i honestly feel we are getting another Trump presidency. The gate keepers of thought never seem to understand that the more people they push to the outskirts they turn against them, its a funny thing about spite people will take a hit just to spite someone they dont like.

Reviews and Books Galore

Buffy The Vampire Slayer is one of the best depictions of being a teenage girl that has ever been made, and that show would never be developed if the loony bins above got their way.

silverharp

Another one from the culture war , a pretty odious and click bait for sure article but a good one to reference if the argument is not one of hatred for men

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/thor-4-natalie-portman-avengers-endgame-box-office-diversity-inclusion-a9017656.html

Calhoun

silverharp wrote: »

Another one from the culture war , a pretty odious and click bait for sure article but a good one to reference if the argument is not one of hatred for men

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/thor-4-natalie-portman-avengers-endgame-box-office-diversity-inclusion-a9017656.html

Seen that yesterday, Marvel obviously never learnt anything from its failing comic book sales.

The thing is introducing females can be a decent narrative plot point but openly admitting that your getting rid of the pale (white) stale and male (a big portion of the audience you serve) will only result in a huge loss of sales. Additionally when you openly admit you are using films as a vehicle for social justice you really are missing the point and will end up with **** story telling like with Captain Marvel and its wooden actress.

The funniest thing about it is, they are also trying to sell a narrative of super angry white males being snowflakes. The reality is most people i know dont actually care, i had my end game. That to me can be the official end as far as i am concerned and i will watch any other films as they come. Pretty much how i actually watch the original lot.

Will i stir clear of female entries? depending on the marketing campaign yes i will vote with my wallet. Not because i care its a female actress but mor because when a film relies on social justice narratives to sell it and by stolking up the flames of division normally its not very good.

iptba

Sleepy wrote: »

That chair looks designed to cause infertility problems tbh.

It featured on Sky News:

Watch: News Anchor in Pain After Trying Out Anti-Manspreading Chair

“I didn’t want any more children anyway.”

https://summit.news/2019/07/24/watch-news-anchor-in-pain-after-trying-out-anti-manspreading-chair/

iptba

iptba wrote: »

It featured on Sky News:

https://summit.news/2019/07/24/watch-news-anchor-in-pain-after-trying-out-anti-manspreading-chair/

So a chair that no man is going to sit in and she won an award for the design. So 2019.

silverharp

Calhoun wrote: »

Seen that yesterday, Marvel obviously never learnt anything from its failing comic book sales.

The thing is introducing females can be a decent narrative plot point but openly admitting that your getting rid of the pale (white) stale and male (a big portion of the audience you serve) will only result in a huge loss of sales. Additionally when you openly admit you are using films as a vehicle for social justice you really are missing the point and will end up with **** story telling like with Captain Marvel and its wooden actress.

The funniest thing about it is, they are also trying to sell a narrative of super angry white males being snowflakes. The reality is most people i know dont actually care, i had my end game. That to me can be the official end as far as i am concerned and i will watch any other films as they come. Pretty much how i actually watch the original lot.

Will i stir clear of female entries? depending on the marketing campaign yes i will vote with my wallet. Not because i care its a female actress but mor because when a film relies on social justice narratives to sell it and by stolking up the flames of division normally its not very good.

there are always other movies or tv shows but there are probably a hardcore of fans that overly invest in particular shows which raises its own questions.


this was an interesting video,might fit in here, a bit off the cuff but suggests men are being aliened from modern movies any may start looking at older movies genres.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ_KpL1G3TA

Reviews and Books Galore

silverharp wrote: »

Another one from the culture war , a pretty odious and click bait for sure article but a good one to reference if the argument is not one of hatred for men

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/thor-4-natalie-portman-avengers-endgame-box-office-diversity-inclusion-a9017656.html

Funnilly enough, they actually took the power away from the woman of color (I sometimes mix that up and almost say colored woman ). Valkyrie is a more popular and more relevant character to the franchise, so it seemed odd for Thor to give her a more leading role in the last one and then Jane Foster came and took it.



Anyway, I was applying for a short story writing competition and they warned cis white men not to write gratious sexual or non sexual violence in a overly creep way in relation to women (I'm using different vocabulary but you get the gist.) If I was black/gay/muslim/latina/Japanese/etc could I write all the creepy stuff that I wanted? :P



Just a funny thing I noticed.

Calhoun

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Funnilly enough, they actually took the power away from the woman of color (I sometimes mix that up and almost say colored woman ). Valkyrie is a more popular and more relevant character to the franchise, so it seemed odd for Thor to give her a more leading role in the last one and then Jane Foster came and took it.



Anyway, I was applying for a short story writing competition and they warned cis white men not to write gratious sexual or non sexual violence in a overly creep way in relation to women (I'm using different vocabulary but you get the gist.) If I was black/gay/muslim/latina/Japanese/etc could I write all the creepy stuff that I wanted? :P



Just a funny thing I noticed.

What is funny about it is Tess Thompson has much more screen presence and charisma than Portman.

It's not even about race I just think Thompson is better in this role.

iptba

JRA [Japan Racing Association] to Change Weight Allowances for Female Jockeys

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/230814/jra-to-change-weight-allowances-for-female-jockeys

France Galop, the horse racing authority in France, introduced a 2.0kg weight allowance for female jockeys in March of 2017.

H3llR4iser

Calhoun wrote: »

Seen that yesterday, Marvel obviously never learnt anything from its failing comic book sales.

The thing is introducing females can be a decent narrative plot point but openly admitting that your getting rid of the pale (white) stale and male (a big portion of the audience you serve) will only result in a huge loss of sales. Additionally when you openly admit you are using films as a vehicle for social justice you really are missing the point and will end up with **** story telling like with Captain Marvel and its wooden actress.

Took me a while to reply to this as I had to collect my thoughts.

I do not "identify" with characters; Someone like Superman or Captain America do not represent any kind of "power fantasy" for me; As a matter of fact, with these specific two, I've always regarded them as kinda arseholes - especially the Capt'n.

I do however love to see/read/play what I like, and what's not to like about confident, competent, funny, sassy, attractive, smart women? As a matter of fact I very often end up preferring stories/movies/comics/games with female leads, as I can like such lead much more than I can possibly like/relate to the "generic muscle guy" type.

All this to say - I welcome the influx of female leads and would welcome even more; I think a Black Widow movie, for example, to be absurdly overdue.

Calhoun wrote: »

The funniest thing about it is, they are also trying to sell a narrative of super angry white males being snowflakes. The reality is most people i know dont actually care, i had my end game. That to me can be the official end as far as i am concerned and i will watch any other films as they come. Pretty much how i actually watch the original lot.

Will i stir clear of female entries? depending on the marketing campaign yes i will vote with my wallet. Not because i care its a female actress but mor because when a film relies on social justice narratives to sell it and by stolking up the flames of division normally its not very good.

And here we go with the main issue - It's when said female leads get hijacked to serve a purpose further than just being portrayed as solid characters; When what is commonly referred to the "social justice" agenda gets pushed on them, when the goal is not to show a positive character but just to show a woman "sticking it to the man!" you get insufferable, bland, insipid, snarky, smug and hateful characters that instead of getting the audience care, sit them down for a gratuitous lecture from an artificial moral high ground. You get Michael Burnham and Captain Marvel. And you get into a win-win situation where the very fact these characters are women shields them from criticism - Bad writing you say? Mysoginist! Weak angry white man! Burn at the stake!

On top of that, you get male characters transformed into absolute bumbling idiot, foaming at the mouth for one inane reason or the other, unable to cope with a "strong woman" and all such rubbish.

Fact is, I wouldn't care in the least if most stories featured (actual) likeable female leads and male characters kinda faded in the background; As long as the latter weren't used as a comically laughable one-dimension punching bag.

silverharp wrote: »

there are always other movies or tv shows but there are probably a hardcore of fans that overly invest in particular shows which raises its own questions.

this was an interesting video,might fit in here, a bit off the cuff but suggests men are being aliened from modern movies any may start looking at older movies genres.

He's got some points, but I would just correct the aim on that one a little bit: it's not a matter of lacking "strong" male characters, it's a matter of lacking good ones, and what I mean is characters portraying good men.

He very correctly analyses the main issue - male characters lack intelligence, especially if it's a white man portrayed; fortunately at least men of other ethinicities are for now spared the treatment.

Nowadays if you have a run-of-the-mill "white guy" in a work of fiction, he's an hateful, stupid, bigot, racist, entitled, good-for-nothing, life-served-on-a-silver-platter waste of breathable air.
The only stereotype that somehow resists is the "tech wiz" or "nerd", which usually comes with his own ridiculous array of shortcomings and undesirable characteristics, but usually remains as relatively "good guy" - even if he's often portrayed more as inoffensive than good.

Sometimes you see "story arcs" that make you think somebody thought up this great idea, only to be slapped down by production/management/network to fit in the angry little white man thing.

One such examples is the last season of Supergirl (the worst by far, as ratings prove beyond doubt): there was initially a storyline about a cultured, open minded tolerant family man, working as a College lecturer, who slowly but irreparably descends into being a ferocious racist and supremacist after collateral damage from the actions of super-powered aliens destroy his house, bankrupt his family business and ultimately cause the death of his father.

It looked, initially, like the angle the showrunners wanted to play was that of the "showing both sides of the coin"; that yes, some "sh1t happens and you can be be pissed off", while ultimately coming to the conclusion that racism and intolerance are not the solution but compound and amplify the problem.

After a couple of episodes, however, this all disappeared and the character became "Agent Liberty" - a whiny, violent, murderous, childish, selfish "toxic white man" who puts his "vengeance" above everything else, causing his own wife to be murdered and alienating his son in the process. It's so spectacularly clear that somebody read the script and went "ah no, we can't possibly say he's not entirely wrong!".

Just as an added bit of information, the same show has been purged of any positive white male characters - even the "nerd" is gone and Superman is on exile. There are at least two good male figures, which is a relief, but even them are being thrown shade of "deep inside there's a violent man wanting to come out" angle. Now I know the show is crap, but still.

iptba

I don’t follow many of these discussions online but I randomly came across in my Twitter feed lots of people, mostly/all women, complaining about how Danni acted at the end of Game of Thrones and that it made women look bad and various feminist arguments. If only men can be or go bad, that’s a big problem. You need a mix of male and female characters overall which means sometimes women won’t behave impeccably. Otherwise men will look bad as a group and women will always be perfect/almost perfect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wgOFa4A0UM

Well ****...

silverharp

^^
interesting twitter exchange , im not going to die on a hill for male feminist creeper, he certainly paid a price for his allegiances though

Jeremy
@DDayCobra
I've never liked
@andysignore
- when he was on top he was a pathetic anti-Trump male feminist pushing the bull**** narrative. But this video is very eye opening and important. Everyone should watch and share.

Andy Signore
@andysignore



·
Jul 22
Replying to
@DDayCobra
I didn’t like me either... hope you give me another shot

https://twitter.com/DDayCobra/status/1153347646569889807

Calhoun

Was Andy Signore a male feminist ? If so that is beautiful he literally built the sword he died on.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

Was Andy Signore a male feminist ? If so that is beautiful he literally built the sword he died on.

Don't know, don't care.
Would hardly deserve that to happen. It's much more important to highlight the immediate presumption of guilt

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't know, don't care.
Would hardly deserve that to happen. It's much more important to highlight the immediate presumption of guilt

Of course it is but its just a little bit of schadenfreude to see the self righteous come a cropper.

The thing is in the era of Metoo and webelieveher the presumptions of innocence is gone. Your now guilty until you can prove otherwise and even then you have a dagger hanging over your head.

We didn't just arrive at this place, the thirsty self righteous male feminists helped usher in this era.

Do you know if he was, or just jumping to conclusions?
Because that's the same issue that has fed the social media mobs

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know if he was, or just jumping to conclusions?
Because that's the same issue that has fed the social media mobs

I don't which is why i asked the question. I am not jumping to any conclusions im just responding to what you said.

If he is a male feminist he is not the only one taken down by the system that they have built up.

Edit: he actually is a male feminist or was, lots of articles online about it. So yes he helped forge the very sword that he fell on. Do i like it or think its right? no but these idiots couldn't be talked with.

H3llR4iser

Whatever his position was/is, it's frankly irrelevant - what's described (and supported with data) in that clip could quite simply happen to anyone, and it's made even more troublesome by the fact that, by all angles you can look at it, there doesn't seem to be any conceivable REASON for the accuser to go on the rampage she went on. It's not like there was any specific history, nor money involved - they had a clandestine fling.

It really makes it clear how easy it would be today to destroy a man's life by just spitting some bullsh1t on the internet, as everyone is ready to jump in and "believe her" without appeal. And I don't know if anybody noticed, but some of the perception in the general public is also based off the accused looks - people seem to be very sceptical/cautious whenever the guy happens to look like a freaking Greek God, where the accusations of being a "creep", "slimy", sending "shivers down one's spine" are thrown around immediately if he's on the pudgy, nerdy, not-so-handsome side. I have seen nobody jumping on the "slimy creep" bandwagon for, say, Ronaldo...

Calhoun

Exactly it is irrelevant but look at who this is, someone who has been in a position to fight back. If it was just a regular joe soap they would be screwed and the likes of Andy would be in the dog pile on top of them.

Maybe when we have a few more high profile examples people might just get real and start re-evaluating the whole non-person approach.

It may seem a bit harsh but do you think this guy would reflect on his action or opinions had he not become a victim of the system he was pushing.

H3llR4iser

Calhoun wrote: »

Exactly it is irrelevant but look at who this is, someone who has been in a position to fight back. If it was just a regular joe soap they would be screwed and the likes of Andy would be in the dog pile on top of them.

Maybe when we have a few more high profile examples people might just get real and start re-evaluating the whole non-person approach.

It may seem a bit harsh but do you think this guy would reflect on his action or opinions had he not become a victim of the system he was pushing.

Most likely not - the same way there are plenty of others who will duly ignore all the evidence and keep saying he's trying to "get away with it";

What I mean is that this should not be a game of "scoring points" and being elated that a "male feminist" gets swamped in the quagmire of a witch hunt that is "#metoo"; Sure enough, there's an undeniable component of schadenfreude in this - but the focus should be on the actions of the accuser and, even more so, on those of the absolute basket cases who jumped in on with completely outlandish claims.

Otherwise, it'll be too easy for the media to turn even this into a "rapist makes excuses, conservative angry white men rejoice" scenario. They can turn ANYTHING around, given a bit of leeway.

Prime example - Anthony Rapp has retracted his accusations to Kevin Spacey after a long back&forth where he basically refused to detail what happened to the court...but you need to go search deep to find the information.

Tombo2001

The most acute are of Sexism faced by men these days is in the area of Parenting.

I have pretty strong views on this - as Parenting, for a lot of us, is the single most important thing we will do in life.

But we are routinely told by society and by women - that women are better parents - that they are closer to the kids, that they have a stronger bond with the kids and that they are the more important carer for the kids.

More importantly, the legal system also tells us this.

its wrong, it puts many men in an appalling position - and its something that men need to contest and challenge.

Tombo2001

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The most acute are of Sexism faced by men these days is in the area of Parenting.

I have pretty strong views on this - as Parenting, for a lot of us, is the single most important thing we will do in life.

But we are routinely told by society and by women - that women are better parents - that they are closer to the kids, that they have a stronger bond with the kids and that they are the more important carer for the kids.

More importantly, the legal system also tells us this.

its wrong, it puts many men in an appalling position - and its something that men need to contest and challenge.

This one outweighs anything else. Parents should never be kept from their children unless they are a danger to them. Imagine some state agency keeping mothers from seeing their kids !!!!