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

Zulu

No

Sleepy wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something but can anyone tell me why a woman could justifiably receive a tax credit equivalent to almost twice what her male counterparts would receive?

€100? 2 bras?

Pawwed Rig

Sleepy wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something but can anyone tell me why a woman could justifiably receive a tax credit equivalent to almost twice what her male counterparts would receive?

That is a strange one alright. I looked at the Revenue site and couldn't find why. That said there may be a valid reason as no other occupation shows a difference. I'd be interested to know why.

Sleepy

Zulu wrote: »

€100? 2 bras?

That was genuinely the only thing I could think of... Does using a defibrillator require that a woman wear a bra that isn't under-wired or something along those lines?

Pawwed Rig

Sleepy wrote: »

That was genuinely the only thing I could think of... Does using a defibrillator require that a woman wear a bra that isn't under-wired or something along those lines?

No as you would not be touching the person that is being shocked anyway.

GalwayGuy2

Hmmm, you should check out the last quarter of Come Dine with me that was aired tonight.

It pretty much showed a group of women trying to force a man to eat a banana between a woman's legs. An admittedly very, very attractive russian ladies legs, ut it still appeared a little 'rapey'.

I'm mentioning this because it's an episode that was aired last year and not one word has been said about it.

py2006

Not sure if this is the right thread for this but the BBC has just slapped a ban on panel shows being all male. So there will be at least one woman comedian.

I always thought the likes of QI etc had female panelists on the show regularly?

Pawwed Rig

py2006 wrote: »

I always thought the likes of QI etc had female panelists on the show regularly?

They do in that Sandi Toksvig and Joe Brand are amongst the most regular contributors to QI. I would have thought QI was probably not where this rule was aimed, maybe some of the other panel shows. That said I am a big comedy fan and there is no female in my top 10 favourite comedians at the moment. There is a girl who appears in the Bankers regularly who is hilarious but I've not been there for a while. It seems to be a male dominated profession which may be for good reason.

py2006

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They do in that Sandi Toksvig and Joe Brand are amongst the most regular contributors to QI. I would have thought QI was probably not where this rule was aimed, maybe some of the other panel shows. That said I am a big comedy fan and there is no female in my top 10 favourite comedians at the moment. There is a girl who appears in the Bankers regularly who is hilarious but I've not been there for a while. It seems to be a male dominated profession which maybe for good reason.

I remember Sandi Toksvig from her days on 'No. 73'. She is funny though.

Standman

No

py2006 wrote: »

Not sure if this is the right thread for this but the BBC has just slapped a ban on panel shows being all male. So there will be at least one woman comedian.

I always thought the likes of QI etc had female panelists on the show regularly?

The BBC's public funding is an advantage in so far as they are not slaves to advertisers, which leads to more quality programming which would be deemed to risky for other channels who prefer to churn out tried and tested shows.

The drawback is that they are extremely wary of being what they view as politically correct, seeing as they are firmly in the political sphere. This is where the political agenda can start to encroach on creative ground where it has absolutely no business. Art is not and should not be a democracy; it would lead to shitty art.

I might agree that there should be more women on these shows if it was proven that there were actually more funny and talented women being overlooked simply because of their gender, but apparently it's not the case here. In this instance it's simply the first step in the BBC's new "sex-representation objectives".

Playboy

No

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/feb/11/oppressed-majority-film-women-eleonore-pourriat

Oppressed Majority: the film about a world run by women that went viral
Eléonore Pourriat's short film imagines how a man might experience a sexual assault in a matriarchal society. 'I wanted it to be not so realistic but frightening,' she says


<modsnip> Link to nudity removed.

Have you seen the film Oppressed Majority (Majorité Opprimée)? In less than a week since its director Eléonore Pourriat uploaded it to YouTube, the version with English subtitles has been watched over 2.3m times – and rising. The 10-minute film tells the story of Pierre, an ordinary guy, on an ordinary day, in an unnamed French town. But something is different in Pierre's world. Women are in charge. They run around barechested – hey, it's hot! – piss in an alley, and offer sexual favours to Pierre when he is stuck at a red light. (He's riding a bike, so his lack of physical barriers provides an opportunity if not a provocation.) Events culminate when Pierre is sexually assaulted at knifepoint. Inevitably, the police officer who takes Pierre's statement is female. She raises an eyebrow, but only to check for accuracy: "She pinched my testicles … then she took my penis in her mouth and bit it"?



Ouch. Why that particular assault? "It is the complex of castration," Pourriat says, speaking from Paris. "The worst fright of men. I wanted it to be not so realistic but frightening."

Pourriat made her film five years ago. It won an award at a festival in Kiev but made little impact in France or online. So why its contagion now?



"Actually, when I made it I hoped there would be an interest like this," she says. "In France five years ago people asked me if being a feminist was so contemporary. Today no one asks. The feminist fight is more important now. Five years ago I felt like an alien. Now my film is making a buzz because rights are in danger. You see that in Spain with abortion rights. The whole thing about marriage for all, the homophobia and sexism. It is like a black tide today in France."



One of the strengths of Oppressed Majority is the completeness of its matriarchal vision. No woman lets the side down. They all play their part, right down to Pierre's wife, whose lack of sympathy chills. She would have come to Pierre's side sooner but was held up at work. "I couldn't get out of the meeting … But I think I really knocked 'em dead." Why is she so brutal?



Eléonore Pourriat: 'It is like a black tide today in France.' Photograph: Serge Benhamou/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images


"I wanted her not to imagine, not to sympathise, not to be able to feel what he feels," Pourriat says. "So often when women get assaulted, people say it's their fault. Even close people. That's what I wanted to say with this character." She says that the film "came from a personal experience. I was a woman. I was 30 years old. And my husband didn't believe that I was – I was not assaulted, but I got remarked on in the street. Very often. He said, 'Wow. That's incredible.' His surprise was the beginning of the idea for me. Sometimes men – it's not their fault – they don't imagine that women are assaulted even with words every day, with small, slight words. They can't imagine that because they are not confronted with that themselves."

Pourriat realised that the film had gone viral only when she started seeing activity on Facebook. Her YouTube mailbox filled up, but the messages were so aggressive she deleted them. "I kept one though because really, you can't believe it. Someone said: 'More patronising feminist bull****. Keep whining, bitches!' When I read that, I was more convinced than ever that I have to continue to make films." She is already working on her next project – a mockumentary about the removal of pubic hair.

iptba

Playboy wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/feb/11/oppressed-majority-film-women-eleonore-pourriat

This thread is about sexism that men face - not sure how this fits?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

She is already working on her next project – a mockumentary about the removal of pubic hair.

it's nice to be reminded that there are still real heroes on this planet

Playboy

No

iptba wrote: »

This thread is about sexism that men face - not sure how this fits?

Apologies, I didn't have time to comment when I posted the article. Well I think the 'day in the life' of a woman portrayed in the movie is incredibly sexist. It's trying to paint a picture of modern society that is out of touch with reality. Are we to believe that a woman (an overweight, unattractive one to boot) cant leave the house without been the victim of lewd remarks, sexual assault at knife-point, demeaning comments from men, men running everywhere half naked, pissing in alleys etc etc. For me it is re-enforcing an idea about society (that doesnt exist apart from isolated incidents) in order to serve an agenda. If we all believe that women face this kind of day everyday then of course we need to do everything we can to 'change' ourselves and society to help them. The portrayal of men in the video imo is incredibly sexist, can you envisage men promoting a video where the roles reversed (where women are portrayed in a negative light)?

GalwayGuy2

@Playboy

I find everything about that documentary incoherent. Why it's gaining so much publicity and support is anybodies guess.

Although, the truly sad thing is that it's not too different than what was portrayed (and is portrayed) in patriarchal societies as a reason women should be protected.

It's telling women that they live in a world that wants to harm them. That they should be afraid to step out the door, afraid of a man glancing at them in the street, afraid that if they don't do X, Y and Z then they'll be brutally attacked.

iptba

And I believe studies show men are more likely to be victims of violence outside their homes.

Standman

No

Playboy wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/feb/11/oppressed-majority-film-women-eleonore-pourriat

Oppressed Majority: the film about a world run by women that went viral
Eléonore Pourriat's short film imagines how a man might experience a sexual assault in a matriarchal society. 'I wanted it to be not so realistic but frightening,' she says

Playboy wrote: »

Apologies, I didn't have time to comment when I posted the article. Well I think the 'day in the life' of a woman portrayed in the movie is incredibly sexist. It's trying to paint a picture of modern society that is out of touch with reality. Are we to believe that a woman (an overweight, unattractive one to boot) cant leave the house without been the victim of lewd remarks, sexual assault at knife-point, demeaning comments from men, men running everywhere half naked, pissing in alleys etc etc. For me it is re-enforcing an idea about society (that doesnt exist apart from isolated incidents) in order to serve an agenda. If we all believe that women face this kind of day everyday then of course we need to do everything we can to 'change' ourselves and society to help them. The portrayal of men in the video imo is incredibly sexist, can you envisage men promoting a video where the roles reversed (where women are portrayed in a negative light)?

She said herself that it wasn't meant to be realistic. She basically tried to pack in as much nastiness towards the protagonist as she could in ten minutes in an effort to highlight some issues she feels women face; she is a feminist after all!

Sleepy

I thought the irony of that video was in the portrayal of the man facing such difficulty with the police in trying to report a sexual assault...

I'm open to correction but it's my impression that (despite living in what the director would no doubt describe as a "patriarchy") a man would face a far harder time of getting a sexual assault taken seriously than a woman would; particularly if, as in the short, the perpetrator(s) were female?

Barna77

Not sure if this would be considered as ever experienced sexism, but up till a couple of weeks ago i was looking for a new house, and on daft you'd find lots of houses or apartments to share, all looking very nice, somehow cheaper than average.... the catch been they would only be looking for females.

It's so unfair. I've heard of guys joking about a sex change operation as Househunting in Dublin city centre is crazy atm.

Ah well, let them wait for hours for the loo and have fun with all the long hairs girls leave behind.

And as mentioned before, yeah at work I have to do all the dirty chores them girls wouldn't want.

rant over

ancapailldorcha

maybe

"Female only" in a room/flat/house to let ad is perfectly acceptable but I've yet to see a "Male only" ad and I've moved house a fair bit in the last few years.

Barna77

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

"Female only" in a room/flat/house to let ad is perfectly acceptable but I've yet to see a "Male only" ad and I've moved house a fair bit in the last few years.

In fairness there are some, very few.

PucaMama

Barna77 wrote: »

Not sure if this would be considered as ever experienced sexism, but up till a couple of weeks ago i was looking for a new house, and on daft you'd find lots of houses or apartments to share, all looking very nice, somehow cheaper than average.... the catch been they would only be looking for females.

It's so unfair. I've heard of guys joking about a sex change operation as Househunting in Dublin city centre is crazy atm.

Ah well, let them wait for hours for the loo and have fun with all the long hairs girls leave behind.

And as mentioned before, yeah at work I have to do all the dirty chores them girls wouldn't want.

rant over

I've seen 'no couples' 'female only' or 'male only' quite a few times. Or bizarrely a house where you would have to pay more if you were not a vegetarian or wanted tv/Internet on top of your bill for the service. You also payed more if you were a smoker although you still smoked outside the house. Strange setup.

py2006

Not sure what to say about this:

Female firearms officers win £70,000 payout for sex discrimination - because their guns were too big for their small hands

Pawwed Rig

py2006 wrote: »

Not sure what to say about this:

Female firearms officers win £70,000 payout for sex discrimination - because their guns were too big for their small hands

I actually think that is fair enough.

py2006

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I actually think that is fair enough.

Sex discrimination or heightism?

um7y1h83ge06nx

Could it be argued that they shouldn't have been given the position of firearms officers then?

Not being sexist but if someone is not physically capable of fulfilling a role then they shouldn't be given the role regardless of their sex.

What if in the field their lives or the lives of others were put in immediate danger by a gunman? Luckily it wasn't a tragedy.

Also surely it's more an issue of size discrimination rather than sex discrimination? I know one or two pretty short and small guys that might struggle too.

PucaMama

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

Could it be argued that they shouldn't have been given the position of firearms officers then?

Not being sexist but if someone is not physically capable of fulfilling a role then they shouldn't be given the role regardless of their sex.

What if in the field their lives or the lives of others were put in immediate danger by a gunman? Luckily it wasn't a tragedy.

Also surely it's more an issue of size discrimination rather than sex discrimination? I know one or two pretty short and small guys that might struggle too.

could it not be argued that all that was needed was the right equipment for their size? is it not the employers responsibility to provide the right equipment?

Pawwed Rig

If you give someone a job they need to be provided with the tools to do that job such as ear protection and a smaller gun.
It is like giving everybody size 10 work boots regardless of shoe size. I would hope that anyone with small hands/smaller head would be accommodated. There are thousands of different types of gun, surely one would be suitable.

um7y1h83ge06nx

PucaMama wrote: »

could it not be argued that all that was needed was the right equipment for their size? is it not the employers responsibility to provide the right equipment?

True, they definitely failed them on that count, a complete mess on the part of the police force, as I said lucky for the police force that it came out this way and not when one of them was killed in the field.

I wasn't going to say that it may be difficult to get a suitable gun of the same calibre but looks like I'm wrong:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101226121718AAa8EKr

Lemming

PucaMama wrote: »

could it not be argued that all that was needed was the right equipment for their size? is it not the employers responsibility to provide the right equipment?

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If you give someone a job they need to be provided with the tools to do that job such as ear protection and a smaller gun.
It is like giving everybody size 10 work boots regardless of shoe size. I would hope that anyone with small hands/smaller head would be accommodated. There are thousands of different types of gun, surely one would be suitable.

It's not as simple as "oh nip out and get a smaller gun". You have to consider supply chain& maintenance costs. The more gun types available in the supply chain, the higher your costs. There are also the technical limitations too such as bullet calibre. You can only pare down a pistol grip so much before you are basically gripping the magazine. Newer model pistols have back-straps that can be interchanged, but again see my comments about supply chain. The back-strap wont affect the general width of the pistol grip, just the back bit that sits into the recess area created under your thumb & palm. If you start dropping bullet calibre (i.e. to get a smaller surface area to grip), you also reduce effective stopping power. Whilst that might be all fine and well for James Bond and his Walther PPK, it is not for John/Mary Doe the Nuclear Police Constabulary officer trying to stop an armed attack on a nuclear facility ...

Similarly with the likes of helmets; they tend to be a one-size fits all thing with internal adjustment straps, etc.

The only thing in that article that you could argue fault with was the bench not being adjustable. But other than that, this may sound harsh, but I don't think it's a sexism thing as a physical unsuitability thing (unless the equipment was available but just not requested/provided).

runawaybishop

No

I don't see how that was sexual discrimination in the slightest.

Pawwed Rig

Lemming wrote: »

It's not as simple as "oh nip out and get a smaller gun". You have to consider supply chain& maintenance costs.

Sure and was the glock the only possible type of gun that was useable for this particular task then the inability to use it should have been a disqualifying condition of the job. However, they were hired. Once they were hired they should be provided with the tools necessary to do the job. The extra cost should have been incurred if reasonable or else they should have better assessed their standard issue weapon before deciding on one that is not entirely suitable for all employees.

Absoluvely

runawaybishop wrote: »

I don't see how that was sexual discrimination in the slightest.

The article says they determined that there was indirect sexual discrimination.

It means there'd be big correlation between people who would be directly discriminated against (people who the equipment is too big for) and people who are female. Legally, that counts as (indirect) sexual discrimination.

Lemming

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Sure and was the glock the only possible type of gun that was useable for this particular task then the inability to use it should have been a disqualifying condition of the job.

We don't know from that article, but as a general rule of thumb the police would be issued the same primary and secondary firearms as required by their role. They will then receive extensive training in the use of said firearms (which may also require specific ranges be built or facilities provided) after said firearms have been serviced by whatever maintenance personnel are available and have been certified capable to service said firearms that have undergone an extensive evaluation period from a range of government tenders.

It's not just a case of "oh, try this pair of boots on, they're a size smaller". It really isn't. Unless the pistols have changeable grips (and that's no guarantee either), you are out of luck regardless of what's between your legs if you have small hands.

However, they were hired. Once they were hired they should be provided with the tools necessary to do the job. The extra cost should have been incurred if reasonable or else they should have better assessed their standard issue weapon before deciding on one that is not entirely suitable for all employees.

Sorry to be blunt here, but then the two women in question shouldn't have been assigned to the role of armed officers. It's all fine and well saying if wishes were horses but the practical reality says otherwise if the police do not already have such equipment on the books. If such equipment was available then there really is no excuse. It's no different to male and female recruits being washed out as unsuitable in either the police or armed forces.

iptba

This reminds me of the following, which many people will know about but perhaps some younger readers won't:
the Gardai used to have a height requirement for entry. A problem with it was that the requirement was different for men and women:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1988/en/si/0164.html

Qualifications for admission as trainee.
5. (1) Subject ot these Regulations, the Commissioner shall not admit a person as a trainee unless—

(a) he is satisfied that the person is of good character;
(b) the person is certified by the Surgeon of the Force to be in good health, of sound constitution and fitted physically and mentally to perform the duties of a member, and—

(i) if a man, to be not less than five feet nine inches in height and to be built in proportion, and
(ii) if a woman, to be not less than five feet five inches in height;

etc.

Maguined

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Sure and was the glock the only possible type of gun that was useable for this particular task then the inability to use it should have been a disqualifying condition of the job. However, they were hired. Once they were hired they should be provided with the tools necessary to do the job. The extra cost should have been incurred if reasonable or else they should have better assessed their standard issue weapon before deciding on one that is not entirely suitable for all employees.

Everyone agrees on your overall point I would speculate, it's the definition of reasonable that is the debatable part. In the military costs have to be kept to an absolute minimun for everything, so equipment is standardised as much as possible. They normally determine the reasonability of deviation by cost versus efficiency. For most rifles casings are ejected from the right hand side because more people are right handed. Left handed people have to accept this, it can be an annoyance for some left handed people and there is an answer in that some rifles have the capacity to have the ejection happen on the left side.

The problem is in the budget, they analyse and predict they need X amount of rifles, they decide that rifle Y is the most efficient rifle they can purchase to reach number X while still being in budget. Technically they could purchase rifle Z that could allow left handed ejection but if rifle Z costs more than rifle Y that means they cannot stay under budget or their projected number of rifles so which is the more reasonable answer? Demand a higher budget to afford rifle Z and have the tax payer pick up the bill? Stay within budget but have less weapon numbers than you forecasted was required? Or stay within budget, stay at your forecasted numbers but tell left handed people to put up with it?

It's like every national budget announcement ever, everyone acknowledges that cuts have to be made but no one wants to accept cuts that affects them personally. If more suitable weapons were provided to these 2 instances of extremely petite and small handed people chances are that would of reduced funding in some other category and then you have the 2 soldiers over 7 foot tall complaining they were not issued their size 24 boots.

jonnymurt33

Myself and a friend of mine(female) are recent graduates of St Pats primary education college. Both of us went for the same job, despite my better grades, work experience and living within 20 mins of the school, where as my friend lives 150km away. Now I know you may be thinking it could be my appearance/personality and that's what I thought and that would have been fine until my friend informed me the principal(male) said to her that a woman should be the only one's teaching the ages of 4-7, still in shock. Anyway thats an experience of mine and fairplay to my friend, she now lives in the same town as me so all good

Pawwed Rig

jonnymurt33 wrote: »

until my friend informed me the principal(male) said to her that a woman should be the only one's teaching the ages of 4-7, still in shock.

I would speak to a solicitor if I was you. Employment discrimination on gender grounds has been illegal here for a long time. Until people stand up against this kind of thing it will continue.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would speak to a solicitor if I was you. Employment discrimination on gender grounds has been illegal here for a long time. Until people stand up against this kind of thing it will continue.

I don't know if that'd do him any good unless his friend is willing to back him up. I completely agree with you though.

Pawwed Rig

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know if that'd do him any good unless his friend is willing to back him up. I completely agree with you though.

There will always be some reason not to do anything and that tactic is always the easy option. This is why I will probably be the only male my son will see from one end of the day to the next until he is a teenager.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There will always be some reason not to do anything and that tactic is always the easy option. This is why I will probably be the only male my son will see from one end of the day to the next until he is a teenager.

I wouldn't go so far as to say not taking the legal route is "the easy option" as it's both time consuming and financially draining and if he's seeking work then things will be hard enough as they are without adding a legal challenge. I agree with you in principle but whether or not it's pragmatic is for jonny to decide and I do hope he at least consults a solicitor or, like you've pointed out, things like this will continue.
When I was choosing a career many years ago, I was told that I'd have a much easier time getting a job teaching in a primary school than a woman as the state was trying to address the gender imbalance at the time. This was before the recession and before people started seeing paedophiles everywhere.

iptba

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

When I was choosing a career many years ago, I was told that I'd have a much easier time getting a job teaching in a primary school than a woman as the state was trying to address the gender imbalance at the time. This was before the recession and before people started seeing paedophiles everywhere.

Not doubting what you heard but whether it is true or not is another question:
I've never seen any official talk of gender targets or quotas (while there are gender quotas/targets for state boards and party candidates, to give examples).

GalwayGuy2

principal(male) said to her that a woman should be the only one's teaching the ages of 4-7, still in shock.

Hmmm, at best he's saying that a woman is more caring, or the chilldren will see her as more of a mother figure.

at worst, he's implying something much worse.

honestly, i wouldn't seek legal on that. it's such a bother and there's no real groups to support y you.

Also, do you want to work with a principal like that? If he creates enough smoke, people will start seeing fires.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

iptba wrote: »

Not doubting what you heard but whether it is true or not is another question:
I've never seen any official talk of gender targets or quotas (while there are gender quotas/targets for state boards and party candidates, to give examples).

I never mentioned quotas. I was told that "they're crying out for male teachers" and that I'd "have no problem getting a job". This was in the early 2000s, a long time ago as I said before and before paedophile paranoia caught on. I've no info about the number of men and women teaching in primary schools in Ireland now and can only state that all the teachers at my primary school were women. I don't know if they've ever taken on any male staff.

iptba

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never mentioned quotas. I was told that "they're crying out for male teachers" and that I'd "have no problem getting a job".

I was just pointing out that the feeling may not have meant there was any actual "positive discrimination"/advantage to being male when applying for a job.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This was in the early 2000s, a long time ago as I said before and before paedophile paranoia caught on. I've no info about the number of men and women teaching in primary schools in Ireland now and can only state that all the teachers at my primary school were women. I don't know if they've ever taken on any male staff.

A quick search didn't give me an up-to-date figure:

This INTO document talks of 14% of Irish primary teachers being male (over a decade ago)

The 'endangered species' of men primary teachers

There is a serious and increasing under-representation of men amongst Irish primary school teachers. Drew's 2006 study, Facing Extinction: Why Men Are Not Attracted to Primary Teaching, documents the low level of male representation in primary teaching and probes some of the reasons behind the statistics. Using statistics gathered from 21 countries for 2001/2, Drew places Ireland (with men comprising 14% of all primary teachers) as 5th lowest (percentages of male teachers in the table range from 1% in the Ukraine to 90% in Chad). See the INTO report on this topic.

http://moodle.intolearning.ie/webdav/EqualEyes/modules/Module4/gender_issues_in_irish_schools_today.html

Carlos Orange

No

iptba wrote: »

A quick search didn't give me an up-to-date figure:

This is a little newer (still fairly old). You can see the plummeting number of men in secondary education.

Primary Men Women Second-level Men Women

1999/2000 14.9 85.1 42.2 57.8
2000/2001 14.6 85.4 41.3 58.7
2001/2002 14.0 86.0 40.9 59.1
2002/2003 13.5 86.5 40.2 59.8
2003/2004 16.4 83.6 40.0 60.0
2004/2005 15.9 84.1 39.4 60.6
2005/2006 17.1 82.9 37.9 62.1
2006/2007 17.8 82.2 37.9 62.1
2007/2008 17.2 82.8 36.3 63.7
2008/2009 15.3 84.7 36.6 63.4
Source: Eurostat

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/otherreleases/2011/Women%20and%20Men%20in%20Ireland%202011.pdf

py2006

Another gem from the Daily Fail...


'If your boss is male, there may be factors thwarting your career progression that have nothing whatsoever to do with your ability and everything to do with his personal life'. More...

newport2

py2006 wrote: »

Another gem from the Daily Fail...


'If your boss is male, there may be factors thwarting your career progression that have nothing whatsoever to do with your ability and everything to do with his personal life'. More...

This mentality does my head in.

I didn't get a pay-rise or promotion!! There must be someone else to blame!! It cannot possibly be anything to do with me so I won't even entertain that thought!!

I remember having a few drinks with some colleagues a few years ago, one of which was a woman who had gone for a promotion and not got it. Herself and two men had gone for it and one of them had got it. So all the women out with us were telling her it was nothing to do with her, it was pure sexism, plain and simple. Why else would she not have got it? One of the men out with us - who was the man who also didn't get the job - finally got frustrated and pointed out that the majority of people going for the job were male, 2 of the 3 interviewers were female and the person who made the final call on it was also female, and that maybe the best person had beaten both of them and got the job. He got angrily shouted down and called a sexist pig for daring to point this out.

Playboy

No

newport2 wrote: »

This mentality does my head in.

I didn't get a pay-rise or promotion!! There must be someone else to blame!! It cannot possibly be anything to do with me so I won't even entertain that thought!!

I remember having a few drinks with some colleagues a few years ago, one of which was a woman who had gone for a promotion and not got it. Herself and two men had gone for it and one of them had got it. So all the women out with us were telling her it was nothing to do with her, it was pure sexism, plain and simple. Why else would she not have got it? One of the men out with us - who was the man who also didn't get the job - finally got frustrated and pointed out that the majority of people going for the job were male, 2 of the 3 interviewers were female and the person who made the final call on it was also female, and that maybe the best person had beaten both of them and got the job. He got angrily shouted down and called a sexist pig for daring to point this out.

Sexism, racism and lots of other ism's are abused all the time by lots of people to make up for their own shortcomings. The problem is its very difficult to objectively assess a situation where someone didn't get a job due to racism/sexism. In many cases its not overt racism/sexism and/or the person themselves is not fully cognizant of their own biases.

This is why I feel gender quotas are such a bad idea. The person who gets a job should be the best person for that job and that should be fairly straightforward to objectively assess. As soon as you start discriminating against the 'best' person to achieve some sort of balance then you are effectively throwing away any objective measure of your candidates and it becomes about what gender, sexual orientation, race etc a person is.

All Hail President Murphy

Some general sexism:

If a man takes a child and runs off to America or elsewhere and takes the child away from the woman, he is the scum of the earth.

If a woman takes the child away and never lets the man see him / her again .. you go girl.


How can a child be 50% the man's responsibility, yet 0% his business.

Another one:

Why is violence against men seen as acceptable / funny? A girl I know used to slap guys in the nutsack in secondary school, she did this several times and the worst she ever got was a friendly chat / verging on a warning from the principal. One boy retaliated and punched her back after it happening several times.... guess who got suspended ?? (This story didn't involve me btw).

Any restaurant I've gone to, regardless of who is seated where, will ALWAYS serve women first and give them the menus first. If they had a serve men first policy I can guarantee you there'd be uproar.

A well known restaurant chain have a "Mothers eat free" day on Mother's Day. I can guarantee you, that this will NOT be reciprocated on Father's Day.

Why does everyone oppose female circumcision as something barbaric, but male circumcision is "their culture'. Male circumcision is still practiced in the Western World. This should be something that the boy chooses when he turns 18.

Vojera

All Hail President Murphy wrote: »

Why does everyone oppose female circumcision as something barbaric, but male circumcision is "their culture'. Male circumcision is still practiced in the Western World. This should be something that the boy chooses when he turns 18.

Your other points are good, but there is no comparison between male and female circumcision. I suggest you read up about it a bit more before making that point.