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

Recondite49

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You should have told her that that rule only applies to ladies.

Seriously, I've met a few who're more than willing to give the aul chivalry teat a good squeeze when it suits them.

A good point my friend!

Then again when I was at Uni, I did hold a door open once for a lady and she became very irritated with me. Stopped in the doorway - I can't remember her exact words but said she didn't need a man to hold the door open for her.

I was becoming a bit irritated and frankly my arm was getting tired as it was one of those big glass doors with a pole all the way up by way of a handle, so I let go, it swung back and knocked her backwards.

I swear it wasn't deliberate! I couldn't hear what she said after that through the glass but no doubt they weren't very polite words! :-D

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep A, cos that stuff sells papers and "hits" on websites and gets the bums on seats. Now there are problems with wealth disparities, there are problems with immigration(and emmigration) and there are problems that are gender specific. Bloody right there are and all are up for debate and all should be up for finding equatable solutions.

You would think but these things have to appeal to the lowest common denominator regardless of whether or not they'd actually need things dumbed down to the ridiculous level we see today.

Wibbs wrote: »

However too often people want easy answers to easy questions and the media feed that, indeed overfeed it to the point where people end up wanting to be spoonfed* and the tail wags the dog and you end up with daftness on both sides of any argument as they try to outdo each other in outrage, while the media cherrypicks the nutters and promotes them. Rinse and repeat.

Oh and it's not just the Daily Fail and the like, at least they're obvious, it's the "broadsheets" too. Look at our own "Independent" and the UK Guardian is a handwringers handbook. At least the mail leaves comments open. The middle brow stuff is just generally more subtle in it's BS regardless of the side it's trying to sell.

So beware the bullshít dear fellow travelers, it can set us against each other in nitpicked battles unneeded and make us forget what we really should be fighting for and it can lay low even the mightiest of us.

The lefty rags like the (UK) Indo and the Guardian pretend to be about equality and public empowerment but they're owned by wealthy elitists in exactly the same was as the Mail, the Sun and so on.

Take the peoples' assembly in London not too long ago. 50,000 people marched against austerity cuts outside BBC headquarters in London. The BBC release a 90 second video without editing or narration. The self-proclaimed champions of the people were silent. I did notice a token summary on the Guardian's website which appeared a few days later. They'll pretend to foster debate and push for a fairer society without actually doing so because such a turn of events would be a disaster for them. Heck, if you're a Sun or Independent columnist you won't even slag a rival paper as they represent a possible career opportunity in the long run. In addition, almost all journalists come from upper middle class backgrounds but I think I'm beginning to veer off point.

Wibbs wrote: »

*Look at the US. Oft the butt of "dumb Merkins" jokes and sneers. Yea well those dumb yokels put men on the moon and have changed the course and tech of the 20th century more than any other nation. Once they were among the best informed and clued in of any peoples on earth. Today, far less so and why? Just look at the changes in their media since say 1970, especially since around 1990 and especially their news media. Increasingly local, increasingly fearful and increasingly dumbed down into between commercial break bite sizes. Same with their political speeches. Now way in hell would Abe Lincoln get elected today. Too old, too beardy and most of all too wordy.

Terrifying but I suppose they can't risk having too many educated people running around innovating or some similar nefarious activity now can they.

What's the old adage? Divide and conquer? Sounds appropriate.

PucaMama

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But that's what happens in the media. It's middle class vs scroungers, women vs men, natives vs foreigners, etc...

Doesn't mean it has to happen everywhere

Zulu

No

PucaMama wrote: »

Doesn't mean it has to happen everywhere

Just so I'm clear, we're dismissing my salient point because...
A) sexist jokes are acceptable
Or
sauce for the goose is no good for the gander

I like clarity and dismissing points under the pretence that I'm being confrontational/seeking issues where they don't exist isn't working for me.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

PucaMama wrote: »

Doesn't mean it has to happen everywhere

But it does. That's my point.

tritium

tritium wrote: »

The current low level of reporting for the story of Ted bishop, the president of the PGA of America and his comments about Ian Poulter is a pretty good example of sexism and double standards.

He described poulter as a 'lil girl' as an insult due ti some comments Poulter had made in a book. Only a few weeks ago a similar gender based insult against the Williams sisters led to massive media backlash and sanction against the culprit, calking out the sexism and mysogony. For this one, not so much strangely enough.....

Pleasantly surprised to see that the PGA sacked him (apparently after he refused to go on his own).

Unpleasantly surprised to see that its still being relegated to a fairly low key sports story.

( and yes I agree its weird to quote your own post )

DoYouEvenLift

Recondite49 wrote: »

A good point my friend!

Then again when I was at Uni, I did hold a door open once for a lady and she became very irritated with me. Stopped in the doorway - I can't remember her exact words but said she didn't need a man to hold the door open for her.

I was becoming a bit irritated and frankly my arm was getting tired as it was one of those big glass doors with a pole all the way up by way of a handle, so I let go, it swung back and knocked her backwards.

I swear it wasn't deliberate! I couldn't hear what she said after that through the glass but no doubt they weren't very polite words! :-D

I don't get women like that. Do they assume every man that does anything that's a common courtesy is doing so because they're women and want to sleep with them? Such a sad attitude to have. Most people hold doors for people, regardless of fuking gender, because what kind of person would open a door and not give a quick glance behind them to check if anyone is coming to avoid otherwise just letting it swing back and hit them and probably give the impression you're rude.

Recondite49

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I don't get women like that. Do they assume every man that does anything that's a common courtesy is doing so because they're women and want to sleep with them? Such a sad attitude to have. Most people hold doors for people, regardless of fuking gender, because what kind of person would open a door and not give a quick glance behind them to check if anyone is coming to avoid otherwise just letting it swing back and hit them and probably give the impression you're rude.

I've realised there's no pleasing the Femtards, that's why it's better just to poke fun at them...!

Edit : To please the mods, I would like to substitute Femtards for "Feminazis". :-D

iptba

I hate this insidious trend for belittling men, says MELISSA KITE

Summary*
- There is something dishonourable about portraying men as useless
- In Friends the male characters are well-meaning but ineffectual geeks
- The female characters are far more worldly and well-rounded
- Gavin Henson was praised on Strictly for working his assets
- Such comments would be unacceptable if made about a woman
- Jo Brand jokes about men that wouldn't be acceptable about women
- Last year, there were 40,000 more female applicants for university places
- Women outnumber men by three to two in many universities

By Melissa Kite for Daily Mail

Published: 23:54 GMT, 22 October 2014 | Updated: 00:06 GMT, 23 October 2014


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2804170/I-hate-insidious-trend-belittling-men-says-MELISSA-KITE.html#ixzz3HOq9bytQ

*Not sure it's the best summary. A lot of it is about how men are portrayed on TV. Then she talks about how some women talk down to their husband, incl. in front of children and then some general points.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

*Not sure it's the best summary. A lot of it is about how men are portrayed on TV. Then she talks about how some women talk down to their husband, incl. in front of children and then some general points.

Unfortunately there NO VOICE making these issues known in the media. It is a one way megaphone 24/7/365 these days and any voice of challenge is slapped down and attacked mercilessly.

Recondite49

Piliger wrote: »

Unfortunately there NO VOICE making these issues known in the media. It is a one way megaphone 24/7/365 these days and any voice of challenge is slapped down and attacked mercilessly.

Well said chief,

I have noticed this of late as for the first time in around six years I've moved somewhere which has a television and am watching local adverts. Husbands are shown as bland, passive and ineffectual versus capable wives.

I don't make a song and dance about it, because it's really not that important ; I just think it's an act of gross hypocrisy then for the Feminazis to complain about how women are then portrayed in the media.

Wibbs

maybe

OK folks, we're heading towards a more general discussion(I'm guilty of it myself TBH) and there are other better suited threads for that. Let's get back to the topic of the sexism that you may have personally experienced as guys, or the experiences of other guys you know.

*EDIT* it's just been pointed out to me that this thread also encompasses a general discussion of sexism against men. My mistake. Damn newbies eh . I could delete the previous but I'll leave it here as a reminder for me not to be so quick on the draw.

Piliger

I don't know if anyone saw The One Show this evening on BBC ? Truly mind blowing stuff. Mind BLOWING !!

They had Ola Jordan and Steve Backshall from Strictly as guests.

During their segment we were delivered one long drool over Steve's body, his muscles, his chest, his arms, his shoulders and his chest hair. At one point the hostess Alex Jones drooled and said "I'm just trying to see inside your shirt ". Then they continued on and on about the fact that in an upcoming dance Ola would be getting him to sand topless ... woooooo.

In the media a man cannot even say a complimentary word about a woman's legs, never mind ogle her or her breasts or shoulders or ANY part of her body. He is guaranteed to be completely slated and shamed, and them eviscerated in the media and newspapers the next day ....

The hypocrisy is truly stunning.

Recondite49

Wibbs wrote: »

OK folks, we're heading towards a more general discussion(I'm guilty of it myself TBH) and there are other better suited threads for that. Let's get back to the topic of the sexism that you may have personally experienced as guys, or the experiences of other guys you know.

*EDIT* it's just been pointed out to me that this thread also encompasses a general discussion of sexism against men. My mistake. Damn newbies eh . I could delete the previous but I'll leave it here as a reminder for me not to be so quick on the draw.

I for one am happy to be forgiving to you Mod, as a lot of the sexism I and others have experienced are directly due to having dealings with Feminists.

This is hardly surprising in that when I debated members of the British National Party at Uni, I could hardly cry foul when they espoused racist attitudes.

The comparison didn't end there however. Holcaust deniers in particular remind me of Feminists, who will often cite bogus statistics e.g the the myth that 1 in 5 female college students are sexually assaulted on a regular basis.

We've also already touched on the myth that women earn 77 cents to the dollar, a statistic that becomes meaningless when you take into account the longer hours worked by men on average, tenure and the simple fact that men are more likely to want to train at college for higher paid jobs.

When I've put this to Feminists in the past and have asked them to substantiate their claims, they'll either just throw a tantrum and ask me to apologise for being a chauvinist pig or (more commonly) cite a prominent feminist or an opinion piece by a journalist which isn't substantiated by actual data.

This is a trick commonly employed by neo Nazis I spoke to as well. When pressed, they'll simply cite another Holocaust Denier e.g David Irving who is simply addressing yet another unsubstantiated opinion. The best part of this is that other deniers will sometimes also then cite that same person as having quoted another, and so on in an endless loop of self referential bullcrap.

I oppose modern Western Feminism for the same reasons I oppose Fascism. It's illogical, hateful and even in the best light seems self serving.

However I am also not naive enough to think that if you put it to Feminists in these terms, you're going to avoid a good deal of sexism. The movement by definition is going to attract those with a healthy prejudice against men, just as a White Supremacist rally will attract those who hate ethnic minorities.

Playboy

No

Piliger wrote: »

I don't know if anyone saw The One Show this evening on BBC ? Truly mind blowing stuff. Mind BLOWING !!

They had Ola Jordan and Steve Backshall from Strictly as guests.

During their segment we were delivered one long drool over Steve's body, his muscles, his chest, his arms, his shoulders and his chest hair. At one point the hostess Alex Jones drooled and said "I'm just trying to see inside your shirt ". Then they continued on and on about the fact that in an upcoming dance Ola would be getting him to sand topless ... woooooo.

In the media a man cannot even say a complimentary word about a woman's legs, never mind ogle her or her breasts or shoulders or ANY part of her body. He is guaranteed to be completely slated and shamed, and them eviscerated in the media and newspapers the next day ....

The hypocrisy is truly stunning.

It seems objectification is never an issue when it is directed at men, sure its only a bit of fun :rolleyes: To be honest that type of behavior doesn't bother me much as long as it isn't a double standard.

Piliger

Playboy wrote: »

It seems objectification is never an issue when it is directed at men, sure its only a bit of fun :rolleyes: To be honest that type of behavior doesn't bother me much as long as it isn't a double standard.

Of course ! Me neither. But it is the hypocrisy that is the BIG issue ! I was watching this segment completely agog .... you think I am over reacting but I guess this whole issue was on my mind at the time. And as it was unfolding I was imagining if one of the presenters started ogling Ola's legs and her neck and her breasts ... and saying he was trying to see down her blouse ....

The double standards are truly insane. And this would be fine if it were 'just a tv program'. But it is completely indicative and typical of how our whole western society is these days. Men are subjected to nothing but negative and demeaning criticism for everything we do .. while women are exalted and praised and celebrated for everything they do.

aphex™

Brought the girlfriend to the new TK Maxx in Dundrum. We popped into a supermarket as she wanted to do some of her weekly shop and I bagged her shopping while she paid for it.
The cashier clearly asked her 'is everything OK?', as if I'm making her pay for my weekly shopping.

Took the day off and brought the grandmother to the shops. She's over 80, but still likes to go to the supermarket in person to see if she spots a few locals to have a chat with.

I was bagging the shopping and a cashier from another checkout stares me out of it, again seeming to suggest that I'm making my grandmother buy my shopping when in actual fact I've taken the time to drive her to the shop and spend the afternoon with her to take her out and have a chat and a cup of tea.

tritium

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/court-says-children-should-be-factor-in-father-s-rent-allowance-1.1982594

Delighted to see a ruling like this.

Embarrassed to live in a country where officialdom makes such a ruling necessary- reminds me of the kind of nonsense my dad faced from the state after he was widowed in the eighties. I'd hoped we'd moved on but apparently I was wrong.......

iptba

tritium wrote: »

Embarrassed to live in a country where officialdom makes such a ruling necessary- reminds me of the kind of nonsense my dad faced from the state after he was widowed in the eighties. I'd hoped we'd moved on but apparently I was wrong.......

I remember when there were payments for widows but not widowers.

Here's another example of a single-sex payment. It has been closed off to new applicants for a good while (though some people may still get it, though probably not many now).

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/281_Prisoners-Wifes-Allowance.aspx

Prisoner's Wife's Allowance was closed off to new applications with effect from 2 January 1997 when One-Parent Family Payment was introduced. Prisoner's Wife's Allowance is a means tested payment made to women under 66 years of age whose husband is in prison and who have no dependent children.

murphm45

aphex™ wrote: »

Took the day off and brought the grandmother to the shops. She's over 80, but still likes to go to the supermarket in person to see if she spots a few locals to have a chat with.

I was bagging the shopping and a cashier from another checkout stares me out of it, again seeming to suggest that I'm making my grandmother buy my shopping when in actual fact I've taken the time to drive her to the shop and spend the afternoon with her to take her out and have a chat and a cup of tea.

Personally i think this would be more ageist rather than sexist, I'd wager if you were a women of the same aged the cashier would give you dirty looks too for having an elderly woman paying, people are just far too quick to jump to conclusions (myself included i won't lie). Only my 2 cents so will accept if I'm wrong!

On an unrelated matter fair play for taking the day off to do something with your Granny.

Recondite49

I think it's best to avoid playing the same game Femtards do and get offended by every perceived slight.

D'Agger

No

Recondite49 banned for abusive language. 'Femtards' and other such colourful terms aren't tolerated here folks

DoYouEvenLift

I always crack up at this quote from Hilary Clinton







And tumblr feminists always bring the lols




Let me know if this one isn't okay

Wibbs

maybe

The Hilary Clinton quote if true is all sorts of daft and wrong and ironic encapsulated in one sentence. Kudos Hills, kudos.

Scannal

Sexism towards men happens but it's usually just trivial stuff in fairness.

Wibbs

maybe

Oh so you come onto this thread and trivialise the subject? Don't post in this thread again, unless you have something worthwhile to add.

mrkiscool2

Scannal wrote: »

Sexism towards men happens but it's usually just trivial stuff in fairness.

Oh great, yet another person who wants to downplay sexism. Sure it's grand like, let women call men pigs and if you make a joke about a female that is even a slight bit sexist you should automatically get 40 lashes :rolleyes:. Sexism is bad, full stop. There is nothing trivial about sexism. Would you be offended if some guy was making trivial comments about someone based on there race? Or would you just tell him that "Ara sure it's only trivial"? Misandry does exist and to be fair I have seen some pretty bad examples of sexism on this thread

Scannal

Well getting called names is one thing but surely being treated as a second class citizen is worse?

mrkiscool2

Scannal wrote: »

Well getting called names is one thing but surely being treated as a second class citizen is worse?

Mmhm because no female has ever thought when they are walking down the street and seen some guy walking towards them or behind them as a person that might rape them right? And that's just one example. I was in a playground a few weeks ago with my three sisters when my Ma was on holiday and the dirty looks I got from some of the women there literally turned my stomach. I felt so awkward I just had to keep calling out my sisters names as they were playing so I wouldn't be seen as a pedo. If that's trivial to you fair enough, but it wasn't to me

Scannal

You know maybe you're right, I just got an infraction from this thread. That's sexist bullsh1t. Leave us mens alone!!!!!

Wibbs

maybe

Scannal you were warned. So now take a week off. Come back here after with that style of posting on this and other threads herein and you won't be here for very long.

ireland.man

That Hillary Clinton quote when put into its proper context is fairly uncontroversial. Male soldiers dying by gun or bomb is usually less likely than women dying from displacement, child-birth complications, etc in war zones and it's because of their already vulnerable status in most societies. So yeah, there is group privilege working against them:

UN Says Women, Children Are Biggest Victims of War
http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2009-03-08-voa9-68678402/408727.html


War hits home when it hits women and girls
http://www.unicef.org/graca/women.htm

Carlos Orange

No

ireland.man wrote: »

That Hillary Clinton quote when put into its proper context is fairly uncontroversial. Male soldiers dying by gun or bomb is usually less likely than women dying from displacement, child-birth complications, etc in war zones and it's because of their already vulnerable status in most societies. So yeah, there is group privilege working against them:

Pretty unconvincing when you seem to presume the only males impacted by war are soldiers.

Lemming

ireland.man wrote: »

That Hillary Clinton quote when put into its proper context is fairly uncontroversial. Male soldiers dying by gun or bomb is usually less likely than women dying from displacement, child-birth complications, etc in war zones and it's because of their already vulnerable status in most societies. So yeah, there is group privilege working against them:

UN Says Women, Children Are Biggest Victims of War
http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2009-03-08-voa9-68678402/408727.html


War hits home when it hits women and girls
http://www.unicef.org/graca/women.htm

Actually, it is fairly controversial. It's an obscenity that trivialises the impact of war, distilling it down to a woman's issues sound-bite. And quite frankly, how f*cking dare she.

Fun fact: in any given day of WW1, the British army (to include common-wealth forces such as Ireland, Canada, Australia, & New Zealand - never mind the French, Germans, or Americans) lost on average 650 men a day. That's every day for four years. Entire generations of men aged 18 - 45 were lost in four years. The UK never really recovered for decades afterwards, and after the carnage of WW2, the Russian female population outnumbered the male population until the 1990s.

Warning: this next bit is not going to read as politically correct. It's possibly going to come out wrong but I'm going to say it anyway.

That someone might try to paint those left behind as somehow the biggest victims is breathtaking in its appalling ignorance and indifference. Those left behind at least have a chance to live their lives or somehow rebuild their lives if traumatised in some way. One of the oft-cited issues in war is rape; a victim of rape at least has a chance to rebuild their life. Why? Because they're still alive; they're still able to employ free will to some degree or other. They can seek and be given help to overcome what was inflicted upon them. What can those who have been killed do? Literally "Nothing." They've had their lives taken from them; the greatest taboo in human society and we treat it like it's subservient to contemporary women's issues.

Hillary was pandering to an audience of women who - of course - lapped up her comment without question because it was to their benefit. It was a cynical, crass, and appallingly ignorant thing to say.

DoYouEvenLift

psinno wrote: »

Pretty unconvincing when you seem to presume the only males impacted by war are soldiers.

This. Do fathers, brothers and sons etc. magically cease to exist once a war starts?

Lemming

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

This. Do fathers, brothers and sons etc. magically cease to exist once a war starts?

Not to mention any male civilian populace rounded up and executed out of hand in wars around the world.

wexfordman2

Being told to lookup www.manup.ie by an ad on the radio, cos if I'm a man, I must be a sexist or a wife bearer/child bearer so need to be taught how to behave.

iptba

Wibbs wrote: »

The Hilary Clinton quote if true is all sorts of daft and wrong and ironic encapsulated in one sentence. Kudos Hills, kudos.

Here's the paragraph:

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html

The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence.

DoYouEvenLift

I'm having trouble finding it but I read a very good blog about anti feminism the other day that also talked about the topic of war and it included the difference in the amount of men and women in armies firstly and also the difference between the number of male and female soldiers killed, you can easily guess which gender had the massive percentage of deaths and were actual primary victims of war.


Wonder what the difference between men and women is for the reconstruction of destroyed and damaged cities due to war also, and cleaning up and finding all the dead bodies and burying them etc....of course, while the women, apparently, have the real hardest job of caring for the kids at home.

iptba

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Being told to lookup www.manup.ie by an ad on the radio, cos if I'm a man, I must be a sexist or a wife bearer/child bearer so need to be taught how to behave.

In case you're interested, there's a specific thread on this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057082283
(a lot of the messages in more recent times are about male victims of domestic violence who are ignored by this campaign).

ireland.man

psinno wrote: »

Pretty unconvincing when you seem to presume the only males impacted by war are soldiers.

I was referencing a post depicting an image of soldiers dying beside an image of Hillary's face. Go back to that poster and complain how it misrepresents the true face of the victims of war if you've a problem with it.

DoYouEvenLift

ireland.man wrote: »

I was referencing a post depicting an image of soldiers dying beside an image of Hillary's face. Go back to that poster and complain how it misrepresents the true face of the victims of war if you've a problem with it.

They're separate images

tritium

Lemming wrote: »

Actually, it is fairly controversial. It's an obscenity that trivialises the impact of war, distilling it down to a woman's issues sound-bite. And quite frankly, how f*cking dare she.

Fun fact: in any given day of WW1, the British army (to include common-wealth forces such as Ireland, Canada, Australia, & New Zealand - never mind the French, Germans, or Americans) lost on average 650 men a day. That's every day for four years. Entire generations of men aged 18 - 45 were lost in four years. The UK never really recovered for decades afterwards, and after the carnage of WW2, the Russian female population outnumbered the male population until the 1990s.

Warning: this next bit is not going to read as politically correct. It's possibly going to come out wrong but I'm going to say it anyway.

That someone might try to paint those left behind as somehow the biggest victims is breathtaking in its appalling ignorance and indifference. Those left behind at least have a chance to live their lives or somehow rebuild their lives if traumatised in some way. One of the oft-cited issues in war is rape; a victim of rape at least has a chance to rebuild their life. Why? Because they're still alive; they're still able to employ free will to some degree or other. They can seek and be given help to overcome what was inflicted upon them. What can those who have been killed do? Literally "Nothing." They've had their lives taken from them; the greatest taboo in human society and we treat it like it's subservient to contemporary women's issues.

Hillary was pandering to an audience of women who - of course - lapped up her comment without question because it was to their benefit. It was a cynical, crass, and appallingly ignorant thing to say.

Don't forget also the even larger number of male survivors suffering long term physical and mental disability

newport2

Lemming wrote: »

That someone might try to paint those left behind as somehow the biggest victims is breathtaking in its appalling ignorance and indifference. Those left behind at least have a chance to live their lives or somehow rebuild their lives if traumatised in some way. One of the oft-cited issues in war is rape; a victim of rape at least has a chance to rebuild their life. Why? Because they're still alive; they're still able to employ free will to some degree or other. They can seek and be given help to overcome what was inflicted upon them. What can those who have been killed do? Literally "Nothing." They've had their lives taken from them; the greatest taboo in human society and we treat it like it's subservient to contemporary women's issues.

Hillary was pandering to an audience of women who - of course - lapped up her comment without question because it was to their benefit. It was a cynical, crass, and appallingly ignorant thing to say.

+1

The reason women are the biggest victims of war are because men are just not seen as victims. In today's media, only women can be victims. Why? Because they're the biggest "group" of people in the world to pander to. So the media and politicians do it.

Carlos Orange

No

newport2 wrote: »

+1

The reason women are the biggest victims of war are because men are just not seen as victims. In today's media, only women can be victims. Why? Because they're the biggest "group" of people in the world to pander to. So the media and politicians do it.

Children are victims too, until some arbitrary age. Then only half of them.

newport2

psinno wrote: »

Children are victims too, until some arbitrary age. Then only half of them.

200 schoolgirls kidnapped in Nigeria, followed by quite justified media/politicians outcry.

Then emerges 59 schoolboys slaughtered a month beforehand in the same area by the same people. Media didn't see fit to report in any detail. No outcry.

Pathetic excuses used to justify this double-standard included things along the line of "Sure the girls were still alive and could be saved".

Males don't make good victims.

kiffer

No

newport2 wrote: »

200 schoolgirls kidnapped in Nigeria, followed by quite justified media/politicians outcry.

Then emerges 59 schoolboys slaughtered a month beforehand in the same area by the same people. Media didn't see fit to report in any detail. No outcry.

Pathetic excuses used to justify this double-standard included things along the line of "Sure the girls were still alive and could be saved".

Males don't make good victims.

Dead men tell no tales.
Check out what else Boko Haram have been upto since then. Hundreds dead, more kidnappings (of boys as well) and they've seized a town and renamed it...
The massive amount of girls kidnapped is shocking but what's also shocking is how little else is said about this group.

Seriously?

kiffer wrote: »

Dead men tell no tales.
Check out what else Boko Haram have been upto since then. Hundreds dead, more kidnappings (of boys as well) and they've seized a town and renamed it...
The massive amount of girls kidnapped is shocking but what's also shocking is how little else is said about this group.

Lets not forget the wholesale killing of men and boys by isis in villages/towns they capture, there's an endless list of boys abducted into child armies in africa also forgotten by western media because afterall men are disposable.

Seriously?

On a different note if anyone is following the accustions of abuse against Lena Dunham might be interested in the following article.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/11/6-reasons-the-allegations-of-abuse-against-lena-dunham-might-be-true/

Its hard to imagine that if the author was male and had documented in their own words in a published book performing similar activities there would be a similar defence offered and readily accepted.

DoYouEvenLift

Seriously? wrote: »

On a different note if anyone is following the accustions of abuse against Lena Dunham might be interested in the following article.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/11/6-reasons-the-allegations-of-abuse-against-lena-dunham-might-be-true/

Its hard to imagine that if the author was male and had documented in their own words in a published book performing similar activities there would be a similar defence offered and readily accepted.

Lol can't take thoughtcatalog seriously, they regularly publish articles by trolls, one of which is a male poster on another forum I browse and he makes a total mockery of the site.