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

rapul

It's all a load of bolox

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Unfortunately, I can't imagine other "advanced" areas of the world to be immune to this pointless "us vs them" mentality for very long. Hopefully I'm very, very wrong...

SE Asia has mostly avoided it, since the backbone of their societies tend to be very male dominated. Show the women on the surface to present the idea of equality, but the real power/influence is firmly centered around the males.

Feminism has gained some traction, but it's not being overly tolerated, even by the women themselves, because they can see many of the downsides associated with western culture.

Come visit me in China sometime. (Although, I'm planning to move to Vietnam next year)

terryduff12

They must have been running past all those male type teachers from that carlow school, will the next headline be It’s shocking how muslims have driven people away from exercising in public in France.

H3llR4iser

Deleted User wrote: »

SE Asia has mostly avoided it, since the backbone of their societies tend to be very male dominated. Show the women on the surface to present the idea of equality, but the real power/influence is firmly centered around the males.

Feminism has gained some traction, but it's not being overly tolerated, even by the women themselves, because they can see many of the downsides associated with western culture.

Come visit me in China sometime. (Although, I'm planning to move to Vietnam next year)

Well, maybe it'll stay as it is, although it's not really what I would advocate - actual, real equality, where everyone not only has the same rights but most importantly is held ACCOUNTABLE at the same level would be ideal.

terryduff12 wrote: »

They must have been running past all those male type teachers from that carlow school, will the next headline be It’s shocking how muslims have driven people away from exercising in public in France.

That is an article you will never see, because it'd be "racist" and going against a "minority". Of course.

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Well, maybe it'll stay as it is, although it's not really what I would advocate - actual, real equality, where everyone not only has the same rights but most importantly is held ACCOUNTABLE at the same level would be ideal.

Ahh well, equality is.. an odd fish. I was amazed when I first arrived in China, and found large numbers of women working as construction workers, or in just about every industry, the same as a men. They're expected to do the same work too, carrying heavy loads, and such. The police has huge numbers of women working, and while many will end up in administration, many others will be patrolling the streets, the same as the men. So, there's is equality here.. of sorts.

And when people get married, the guy is expected 99% of the time, to provide a house and car. There could also be a bride price involved, depending on where you're from.. so it can be hard for men to get married here. The focus is very much on providing for your wife.. although that's offset by the domestic abuse, and cheating that seems commonplace. However, I've seen Chinese women completely batter their boyfriends/husbands in public, with the guy not raising a finger in his defense. It's a strange country at times, with a wide variety of customs or behavioral norms.

Actual equality (egalitarian rather than feminism) should be the goal, and TBH China is far closer to that, than most western nations (unless you're part of the elite, who have entirely different rules). I wouldn't want to be a woman growing up/living in China though. Too many other negatives. Still... it's interesting to see how they're approaching the situation.

H3llR4iser

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh well, equality is.. an odd fish. I was amazed when I first arrived in China, and found large numbers of women working as construction workers, or in just about every industry, the same as a men. They're expected to do the same work too, carrying heavy loads, and such. The police has huge numbers of women working, and while many will end up in administration, many others will be patrolling the streets, the same as the men. So, there's is equality here.. of sorts.

And when people get married, the guy is expected 99% of the time, to provide a house and car. There could also be a bride price involved, depending on where you're from.. so it can be hard for men to get married here. The focus is very much on providing for your wife.. although that's offset by the domestic abuse, and cheating that seems commonplace. However, I've seen Chinese women completely batter their boyfriends/husbands in public, with the guy not raising a finger in his defense. It's a strange country at times, with a wide variety of customs or behavioral norms.

Actual equality (egalitarian rather than feminism) should be the goal, and TBH China is far closer to that, than most western nations (unless you're part of the elite, who have entirely different rules). I wouldn't want to be a woman growing up/living in China though. Too many other negatives. Still... it's interesting to see how they're approaching the situation.

Yeah I had an idea about the situation as I know a couple of people who worked in China for a long time.

The work scenario you outline is very close to what I would consider actual "equality", spanning across all jobs regardless of how dangerous, physically taxing or demanding they are. Incidentally, it's typical of Communist economies/ideals, as we've seen this with the Soviet Union before. It went as far as war efforts, the Soviets had many more women on the frontline than any other country, including the only two female ace pilots that have ever been.

It's again an accountability issue - "we need more women in the boardroom", but then when it's about the more minial occupations which have few or no women in them, it's a man's job. If we need "more women in STEM", we need more women in construction. If we need more women in politics, we need more women in law enforcement. And so on and on and on. Not make it all about cushy, high paying positions.

The private side of life in the East is what I would be totally against, however.

Panthro

maybe

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9010601/Mother-three-32-sex-boy-14-tells-court-didnt-tell-Year-9.html


Poor woman, it never occurred to her that the 14yr old might be underage... Ffs.

But Ah she's got kids judge.
Should be locked up.

The funny thing about the F1 grid girls is that the same kind of people who would be very much against their existence are the same who are totally right-on with the normalisation and increase in number of Only Fans "models". Because those women who are making peanuts exposing themselves in their homes for the world to see are owning their sexuality. Those grid girls who got to travel around get access to F1 paddocks, hotels, sponsorship opportunities all while showing less skin than an office worker were being taken advantage of.

Pawwed Rig

Panthro wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9010601/Mother-three-32-sex-boy-14-tells-court-didnt-tell-Year-9.html


Poor woman, it never occurred to her that the 14yr old might be underage... Ffs.

But Ah she's got kids judge.
Should be locked up.

Severe lack of 'sick pedo' and 'pervert' references in that article which would (and should) be there were it a man (32) have lured 2 14 year old girls to his house and mounted them.

The J Stands for Jay

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Severe lack of 'sick pedo' and 'pervert' references in that article which would (and should) be there were it a man (32) have lured 2 14 year old girls to his house and mounted them.
Also lack of references to victims in the case

They also misspelled 'rape' as 'had sex with'.

Panthro

maybe

To follow on from my earlier link. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9014549/Mother-32-weeps-uncontrollably-CLEARED-having-sex-14-year-old.html

I know its a UK story but FFS.
What is the actual point in a justice system if a 32yr old gets away with raping a 14 Yr old.

Should be locked up not fcukin freed to carry on as normal.
Is there a double standard in the justice system and the media coverage? You bet your sweet ass there is.
Such utter bollocks.

cms88

Panthro wrote: »

To follow on from my earlier link. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9014549/Mother-32-weeps-uncontrollably-CLEARED-having-sex-14-year-old.html

I know its a UK story but FFS.
What is the actual point in a justice system if a 32yr old gets away with raping a 14 Yr old.

Should be locked up not fcukin freed to carry on as normal.
Is there a double standard in the justice system and the media coverage? You bet your sweet ass there is.
Such utter bollocks.

But remember no guilty isn't the same as innocent. Oh wait that's only when it's the other way around..

shameless liberal

Well fair play. >9000 posts. TL;DR.

Referring to the title of the thread, it's a really interesting and very real phenomenon. In liberal circles, it feels like men (straight/gay/other) sometimes are felt to be "not qualified enough" to comment on certain issues or values and I've seen straight men portrayed as literally the enemy of liberal values or their life experiences rendered not worth hearing about by virtue of their being straight men.

I genuinely think that the poo-pooing of male issues might deter some men from speaking about how they're feeling and speaking up if they're struggling. I don't think toxic masculinity and the mental health crisis in men comes from here, but I think it does contribute to it.

One eyed Jack

Panthro wrote: »

To follow on from my earlier link. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9014549/Mother-32-weeps-uncontrollably-CLEARED-having-sex-14-year-old.html

I know its a UK story but FFS.
What is the actual point in a justice system if a 32yr old gets away with raping a 14 Yr old.

Should be locked up not fcukin freed to carry on as normal.
Is there a double standard in the justice system and the media coverage? You bet your sweet ass there is.
Such utter bollocks.

The point of the justice system is to determine objectively whether a person is guilty of committing rape in this instance. The same standards which were applied in this instance would equally apply if the defendant were a man, and all other circumstances were equal such as the test of the defendants belief that they thought the victim was of the age of consent in the UK was reasonable. The detail about the victims age they had put on social media supported the defendants belief which taking all the other evidence into account, the jury concluded was reasonable. Therefore she could not be found guilty of committing rape.

You can bet your sweet ass the coverage would appeal to an audience which thrives on being outraged, especially when your source for the story is a tabloid rag.

Panthro

maybe

Tell me now and tell me no more, do you believe she's at least guilty of a lesser charge so?

One eyed Jack

Panthro wrote: »

Tell me now and tell me no more, do you believe she's at least guilty of a lesser charge so?

A lesser charge of what though? Don’t get me wrong, I think what she did is disgusting and morally reprehensible, but rape has a specific definition in law as opposed to the colloquial “rape” that gets bandied about and there’s no clear meaning, allowing everything to be equated with rape.

I don’t know could what she did even constitute sexual assault because she wasn’t in a position of authority, by all accounts it appears to have been consensual and the victim had the capacity to consent, but that doesn’t mean that what she did was acceptable, it was obviously wrong, but it was morally wrong. Criminal liability for what she did requires a higher degree of culpability because it means the possibility of a conviction and, in all likelihood a suspended sentence as opposed to jail time.

They might have gotten an admission of guilt for sexual assault and saved everyone the stress of a trial, but they chose to pursue a conviction for rape, and failed to make their case at trial. That’s how the justice system is supposed to work, much as we might imagine it’s unjust and could argue there’s a double standard when we’re not satisfied with the outcome of any given case.

hots

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A lesser charge of what though? Don’t get me wrong, I think what she did is disgusting and morally reprehensible, but rape has a specific definition in law as opposed to the colloquial “rape” that gets bandied about and there’s no clear meaning, allowing everything to be equated with rape.

I don’t know could what she did even constitute sexual assault because she wasn’t in a position of authority, by all accounts it appears to have been consensual and the victim had the capacity to consent, but that doesn’t mean that what she did was acceptable, it was obviously wrong, but it was morally wrong. Criminal liability for what she did requires a higher degree of culpability because it means the possibility of a conviction and, in all likelihood a suspended sentence as opposed to jail time.

They might have gotten an admission of guilt for sexual assault and saved everyone the stress of a trial, but they chose to pursue a conviction for rape, and failed to make their case at trial. That’s how the justice system is supposed to work, much as we might imagine it’s unjust and could argue there’s a double standard when we’re not satisfied with the outcome of any given case.

"Can you be sure he told her she was 14 before they had sex or had he lied about his age?"

To get a conviction of raping a minor does the minor have to have told you they are underage? I don't think so. It doesn't matter how old a 14 year old looks or behaves (although playing football on the green with a mate is hardly trying to act over age) surely, it's like consent, the onus isn't on the minor it's on the responsible party no?

One eyed Jack

hots wrote: »

"Can you be sure he told her she was 14 before they had sex or had he lied about his age?"

To get a conviction of raping a minor does the minor have to have told you they are underage? I don't think so. It doesn't matter how old a 14 year old looks or behaves (although playing football on the green with a mate is hardly trying to act over age) surely, it's like consent, the onus isn't on the minor it's on the responsible party no?

Yes, the onus is absolutely on the responsible party. That’s why their belief regarding the age of the victim is so important to determine whether that belief was reasonable or not. Given that the victim had falsified their age on social media, it didn’t help the case for the prosecution. I’m not suggesting that the detail alone was what led to the perpetrator being found not guilty, I’ve no doubt there was other evidence presented, but that’s not been reported in the article. It’s just not a great case to use as an example of sexism endemic within the justice system in the UK.

I posted this a few days ago in another thread, but it’s relevant here in terms of combatting sexism and prejudiced attitudes and beliefs in society about male victims of sexual abuse and assault and rape perpetrated by women against men, and the complexities involved in those circumstances which often go unreported in the tabloid rags -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Good storyline in Eastenders at the moment:


Why Mick Carter’s historic abuse ordeal in EastEnders could last months


Watching it now and it shows that they’ve really done their research. Fair play to everyone involved.

givyjoe

hots wrote: »

"Can you be sure he told her she was 14 before they had sex or had he lied about his age?"

To get a conviction of raping a minor does the minor have to have told you they are underage? I don't think so. It doesn't matter how old a 14 year old looks or behaves (although playing football on the green with a mate is hardly trying to act over age) surely, it's like consent, the onus isn't on the minor it's on the responsible party no?

I somehow doubt Jack would be so "reasonable", if the case was of mid thirties, married male who'd taken advantage of and had sex with schoolgirl of 14.

Just saw jacks latest post, so above is possibly unfair!

hots

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, the onus is absolutely on the responsible party. That’s why their belief regarding the age of the victim is so important to determine whether that belief was reasonable or not. Given that the victim had falsified their age on social media, it didn’t help the case for the prosecution. I’m not suggesting that the detail alone was what led to the perpetrator being found not guilty, I’ve no doubt there was other evidence presented, but that’s not been reported in the article. It’s just not a great case to use as an example of sexism endemic within the justice system in the UK.

I posted this a few days ago in another thread, but it’s relevant here in terms of combatting sexism and prejudiced attitudes and beliefs in society about male victims of sexual abuse and assault and rape perpetrated by women against men, and the complexities involved in those circumstances which often go unreported in the tabloid rags -

'Belief ' isn't something that normally stands up well as a defense though right? I believed they weren't that drunk, I believed they wanted it, I believed they were over age etc. Not exactly the sort of thing that passes these days (thankfully!).

One eyed Jack

hots wrote: »

'Belief ' isn't something that normally stands up well as a defense though right? I believed they weren't that drunk, I believed they wanted it, I believed they were over age etc. Not exactly the sort of thing that passes these days (thankfully!).

Whether it stands up or not is dependent upon whether a jury believes it is a reasonable or unreasonable belief.

iptba

I vaguely recall a case where a female was at an over 18s venue/event (nightclub I think) but the man didn’t get much sympathy from the court for assuming she was over 18/not underage. I’m afraid I don’t recall much more at this stage.

Gervais08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, the onus is absolutely on the responsible party. That’s why their belief regarding the age of the victim is so important to determine whether that belief was reasonable or not. Given that the victim had falsified their age on social media, it didn’t help the case for the prosecution. I’m not suggesting that the detail alone was what led to the perpetrator being found not guilty, I’ve no doubt there was other evidence presented, but that’s not been reported in the article. It’s just not a great case to use as an example of sexism endemic within the justice system in the UK.

I posted this a few days ago in another thread, but it’s relevant here in terms of combatting sexism and prejudiced attitudes and beliefs in society about male victims of sexual abuse and assault and rape perpetrated by women against men, and the complexities involved in those circumstances which often go unreported in the tabloid rags -

You might want to speak to Adam Johnson who didn’t have sex with a 15 year old girl who told him she was 18. And was sentenced to six years and a ruined life.

This bitch should have got longer and I’d say you should be ashamed defending her but I don’t want to suffer a ridiculously long multi quote Wikipedia dump post.

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

You might want to speak to Adam Johnson who didn’t have sex with a 15 year old girl who told him she was 18. And was sentenced to six years and a ruined life.

This bitch should have got longer and I’d say you should be ashamed defending her but I don’t want to suffer a ridiculously long multi quote Wikipedia dump post.

I’m familiar enough with the Adam Johnson case to know that you’re being deliberately misleading about the facts of that case. I’m not defending her either but I won’t drag it on seeing as you don’t appear to have read my previous posts as they were intended and then try to claim you don’t want to suffer?

Righto, makes complete sense.

Gervais08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m familiar enough with the Adam Johnson case to know that you’re being deliberately misleading about the facts of that case. I’m not defending her either but I won’t drag it on seeing as you don’t appear to have read my previous posts as they were intended and then try to claim you don’t want to suffer?

Righto, makes complete sense.

Nah. You talk ****e. As demonstrated here again.

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

Nah. You talk ****e. As demonstrated here again.

Jaysis :pac:

Any time you want to contribute to the discussion at hand would be good, no need for the personal attacks.

Wibbs

maybe

Gervais08 wrote: »

Nah. You talk ****e. As demonstrated here again.

Yeah. No, let's dial that kinda post right back please. Uncalled for.

One eyed Jack

iptba wrote: »

I vaguely recall a case where a female was at an over 18s venue/event (nightclub I think) but the man didn’t get much sympathy from the court for assuming she was over 18/not underage. I’m afraid I don’t recall much more at this stage.

That would likely have been because his belief that she was 18 was considered unreasonable by the jury. It’s worded slightly differently here than in the UK, but the effect is essentially the same. If we were to go through each case on a case by case basis, I’d defy anyone to claim the man involved in this case didn’t get much sympathy from the Courts -


Judge criticised after claiming 16-year-old pupil groomed teacher

Pawwed Rig

I would assume it cannot be rape given that SHE did not penetrate him and penetration is required in a strict legal definition of rape.
Either way I would assume he is too young to give consent so it would be a crime of sexual assault
The Mail is really playing on the woman's looks though. There is an implication in the story that it is not a serious issue.
I am trying to imagine how I would view this as the 14 year old child v how I would view it as a parent.

There is also the implication that heterosexual relations for a 14 year old are better than gay relationships given the normal reaction where the perpetrator was a 32 year old man.

iptba

I just heard reference to the Pope's remarks on NewsTalk

Pope says women leaders 'better' than men

Pope Francis says countries with female leaders have handled the Covid-19 pandemic better than others and that he has increased the number of women in decision making roles in the Vatican because they are “much better administrators than men”.

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/13597/pope-says-women-leaders-better-than-men

A couple of analyses that look pretty rigourous with regard to Covid-19 that suggest otherwise:

Conclusion

The claim made by Garikipati and Kambhampati, namely that “COVID-outcomes are systematically better in countries led by women”, is not supported by the data. On the contrary, there is no statistically significant difference between female-led countries and the totality of countries.

Garikipati and Kambhampati compare male and female led countries by pair-wise comparison, i.e., one female led country is paired with one male-led country. This is illustrated by the Guardian graphic reproduced as Figure 1. It is clear from the huge scatter in the data shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7 that how one chooses the pairs in question will dictate the answer one gets. In other words, Garikipati and Kambhampati have indulged in a particularly crude form of cherry picking and referring to it “nearest neighbour matching” does not improve its validity. It is readily seen from Figures 5-7 that one could easily pick pairs of countries which would seem to support the idea that women leaders were crap compared with men – if anyone were so silly as to wish to do so.

http://empathygap.uk/?m=202008

Female-Led Countries versus Male-Led Countries in the COVID-19 Pandemic: My Own Analysis of Data from the European CDC and Oxford Government Response Tracker

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/hpds9c/femaleled_countries_versus_maleled_countries_in/