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

Lemming

Piliger wrote: »

I suggest that this is an amazingly naive view point.

You know best Piliger.

Piliger

Lemming wrote: »

You know best Piliger.

Chill. It's just my opinion.

Standman

No

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

..I'm expected to take on the heavier workload if a colleague is pregnant, but a female colleague would not be(reasonable people would think that's acceptable),..

Just out of curiosity, why would your female colleagues not be expected to take a heavier workload when another colleague is pregnant?

Maybe I'm missing something here but that doesn't appear reasonable to me by any standards.

Dozen Wicked Words

Standman wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, why would your female colleagues not be expected to take a heavier workload when another colleague is pregnant?

Maybe I'm missing something here but that doesn't appear reasonable to me by any standards.

Itis only heavier in a physical sense, other areas can be just as busy in other ways tbh. If I'm in a particular area the previous day, they wont expect me to move. Its presumption on their part, and "you don't mind do you?" which I don't but its still always presumed. That is probably my fault as much as theirs. Anyway, I actually like my colleagues and enjoy working with them and have no issue, I was just pointing out how my experiences could be flagged as some terrible sexism when I don't feel it is, because its not my only mission in life to seek out hurt and offence, like it seems to be for some.

jackofalltrades

maybe

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I was just pointing out how my experiences could be flagged as some terrible sexism when I don't feel it is, because its not my only mission in life to seek out hurt and offence, like it seems to be for some.

Then why did you post in a thread titled "Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of"?
Maybe I'm reading the tone of your post wrong. But it kind of comes across as if your having a go at the reason behind the thread.

If your happy how things are in your workplace then that's grand.
The problem can occur for others if they don't want to fit into these usual roles.
I've worked for a company, where at certain times the women were sent home on full pay when lifting/assembly work had to be done.

I find these old fashioned attitudes also extended to worker safety, if you had concerns you were basically told to "man up" and get on with it.

They even extended this policy to their customers, men could help but not women, even if they weightlifted they weren't seen as strong enough.

Wibbs

maybe

I can defo see where you're coming from Jackofalltrades and you make a very valid point re "manning up". I suppose it does come down to personal experience too and how personal reactions can differ. And that's equally valid. I'm quite sure there are things that would really tick me off and upset me that other guys wouldn't even register as an issue. I reckon our collective experiences, even if they may not hit home personally at times are still valid and informative. My 3 cents anyway.

Dozen Wicked Words

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Then why did you post in a thread titled "Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of"?
Maybe I'm reading the tone of your post wrong. But it kind of comes across as if your having a go at the reason behind the thread.

No great thought behind the post, the ramblings probably showed that. Certainly don't mean to belittle people who have had an experience that troubled them.

My post was born of frustration of people who get offended on others behalf, that if most people go looking for it, they can find something in everyday life that they can call sexism. Some, maybe the type of person who took such offence from a shirt, would see similar examples that I listed as some kind of endemic problem, reasonable people would see it as humans interacting with other humans and that any supposed issues could probably be solved by chatting, not arranging meetings or setting up committees and publishing literature and directives.

A lot of things, trivial things, in recent months, not just on boards, and certainly not this forum in particular, have caused apparent anger and upset to people, which I can only understand if their only hope or desire in life is to seek out things to get angry or upset about.

I don't think I've made it any clearer and I'm sorry for that, and apologies if you feel I discounted people's experience of sexism on this forum, it wasn't my intention.

Piliger

A lot of words, but I have no idea what they meant or how they were meant to contribute to the thread.

Dozen Wicked Words

Piliger wrote: »

A lot of words, but I have no idea what they meant or how they were meant to contribute to the thread.

Indeed

iptba

November 7 article:

It's Time to Retire the 'Dumb Dad' Joke Once and for All

by
Mike Cruse
Writer/Blogger, PapaDoesPreach.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-cruse/its-time-to-retire-the-dumb-dad-joke-once-and-for-all_b_5993886.html

Piliger

I am totally flabbergasted that Melanie Sykes is still flouncing around on "I'm A Celebrity" on TV despite the appalling accusation of abuse and assault against her by her former partner !

If this were a man ..... he would be off the air in about 3 seconds and ridiculed and treated with contempt across all of the media !

Instead the media are ignoring it, and treating it as a minor issue of he said she said ........

Laura Palmer

But I thought you didn't agree with people being condemned on the basis of allegations alone.

Absoluvely

Laura Palmer wrote: »

But I thought you didn't agree with people being condemned on the basis of allegations alone.

He was not calling for her to be fired or vilified. He was highlighting the discrepancy between how she is treated by the media and how a man would be treated by the media in the same circumstances. I think you just pretended to misinterpret his post.

tritium

Piliger wrote: »

I am totally flabbergasted that Melanie Sykes is still flouncing around on "I'm A Celebrity" on TV despite the appalling accusation of abuse and assault against her by her former partner !

If this were a man ..... he would be off the air in about 3 seconds and ridiculed and treated with contempt across all of the media !

Instead the media are ignoring it, and treating it as a minor issue of he said she said ........

Its added to by the fact that Melanie was allegedly drunk when she committed the assaults. If a woman is drunk certain parts of the media portray her as a fragile victim who will be taken advantage of. A drunk man however is a potential violent sexual predator

laoch na mona

No

didn't know where to put this, it's not strictly an example of sexism but it is a good article (I think) dealing with male victimhood

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/men-still-hidden-as-victims-of-violence-in-the-home-1.2012221

tritium

laoch na mona wrote: »

didn't know where to put this, it's not strictly an example of sexism but it is a good article (I think) dealing with male victimhood

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/men-still-hidden-as-victims-of-violence-in-the-home-1.2012221

It started off so well and then descended into stuff about 'patriarchy' that bogeyman so beloved of una Mullally. By the end the summary would read something like 'its terrible that men are blamed for everything bad, I blame men its all their fault'. Many of the online commentators seem to have picked up on that.

I can think of several groups who over the years have downplayed the suffering of men in areas like domestic abuse. None of them would comfortably align themselves to the 'patriarchy'

laoch na mona

No

tritium wrote: »

It started off so well and then descended into stuff about 'patriarchy' that bogeyman so beloved of una Mullally. By the end the summary would read something like 'its terrible that men are blamed for everything bad, I blame men its all their fault'. Many of the online commentators seem to have picked up on that.

I can think of several groups who over the years have downplayed the suffering of men in areas like domestic abuse. None of them would comfortably align themselves to the 'patriarchy'

the patriarchy is just a sociological term for explaining gendered society which is and has historically been male dominated, she just points out how this gendered society effects men.

Patriarchy doesn't mean men are bastards or that men are to blame, women reinforce patriarchal as much as men

in short it's just a word for a social phenomena, it's not blaming men

kiffer

No

laoch na mona wrote: »

the patriarchy is just a sociological term for explaining gendered society which is and has historically been male dominated, she just points out how this gendered society effects men.

Patriarchy doesn't mean men are bastards or that men are to blame, women reinforce patriarchal as much as men

in short it's just a word for a social phenomena, it's not blaming men

Or a word that means a society ruled by the oldest male.

iptba

laoch na mona wrote: »

the patriarchy is just a sociological term for explaining gendered society which is and has historically been male dominated, she just points out how this gendered society effects men.

Patriarchy doesn't mean men are bastards or that men are to blame, women reinforce patriarchal as much as men

in short it's just a word for a social phenomena, it's not blaming men

If one simply wants to talk about a gendered society, a more neutral word than "patriarchy" would be preferable. I imagine many would have the same objection if "matriarchy" was used to describe a "gendered society" e.g. women have problems but they're down to the matriarchy.

Laura Palmer

Absoluvely wrote: »

He was not calling for her to be fired or vilified. He was highlighting the discrepancy between how she is treated by the media and how a man would be treated by the media in the same circumstances. I think you just pretended to misinterpret his post.

You're not correct in your thinking, but thanks for clarifying.

Pawwed Rig

laoch na mona wrote: »

Patriarchy doesn't mean men are bastards or that men are to blame, women reinforce patriarchal as much as men

Yet in other articles Miss Mulally is at pains to point out how all men are to blame for all manner of societal ills. I found this article extremely hypocritical when compared to some of her other articles.

laoch na mona

No

iptba wrote: »

If one simply wants to talk about a gendered society, a more neutral word than "patriarchy" would be preferable. I imagine many would have the same objection if "matriarchy" was used to describe a "gendered society" e.g. women have problems but they're down to the matriarchy.

except for the fact that men broadly enjoy a societal privilege, hence patriarchy

Carlos Orange

No

laoch na mona wrote: »

except for the fact that men broadly enjoy a societal privilege, hence patriarchy

When it comes to grand social theories about privileged classes I think I'll stick with marxism.

Piliger

Absoluvely wrote: »

He was not calling for her to be fired or vilified. He was highlighting the discrepancy between how she is treated by the media and how a man would be treated by the media in the same circumstances. I think you just pretended to misinterpret his post.

Exactly. On both counts.

Piliger

laoch na mona wrote: »

except for the fact that men broadly enjoy a societal privilege, hence patriarchy

No such 'broad' privilege exists and has not existed for a long time.

tritium

laoch na mona wrote: »

except for the fact that men broadly enjoy a societal privilege, hence patriarchy

From the Wikipedia entry on it:

Feminist theory defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women. In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy is fluid and loosely defined.[31] It often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.[32]

Given her leanings I think we can reasonably infer this is a definition Una Mulally is comfortable with. So in effect she's blaming a system that discriminates against men on the oppression of women. While I don't want to get into the whole gender war thing a great deal of the attempts to diminish the scale of female on male domestic violence over recent years has come from groups like Women's Aid and Amnesty International rather than from grous supporting the status quo.

laoch na mona

No

tritium wrote: »

From the Wikipedia entry on it:


.

Wikipedia?? really if you can't reference in an essay you can't reference in life

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - the thread is about discrimination against men. Keep on topic and keep it civil

Wibbs

maybe

laoch na mona wrote: »

the patriarchy is just a lazy quasi political term beloved of your "leftist" feminists for explaining various societies that have historically been dominated by elites that were usually men, but not always

FYP.

For me the term "patriarchy" when it comes up in an opinion piece pretty much always renders much of what follows as superannuated student think, banally too well trodden and equally arguable nonsense.

Pretty much anything and everything Una Mulally "writes" is so "politically correct" that she is a near Daily Mail parody of the term. This example just adds to the pile. Starts off OK, but then falls into the usual bullshít of "why can't men be more like Women(tm)". Her notion of Women(tm) of course. Perennial victims, always looking for someone or something to blame, rather than forging their own course regardless, like the majority of the rest of men and women do.

I would rate her output as something akin to farting. Mostly objectionable, rarely to be exposed in polite or learned company, but every so often one is expelled that is so appalling it has its own unique gravitas. It still smells of shít mind you.

laoch na mona

No

Wibbs wrote: »

FYP.

For me the term "patriarchy" when it comes up in an opinion piece pretty much always renders much of what follows as superannuated student think, banally too well trodden and equally arguable nonsense.

Pretty much anything and everything Una Mulally "writes" is so "politically correct" that she is a near Daily Mail parody of the term. This example just adds to the pile. Starts off OK, but then falls into the usual bullshít of "why can't men be more like Women(tm)". Her notion of Women(tm) of course. Perennial victims, always looking for someone or something to blame, rather than forging their own course regardless, like the majority of the rest of men and women do.

I would rate her output as something akin to farting. Mostly objectionable, rarely to be exposed in polite or learned company, but every so often one is expelled that is so appalling it has its own unique gravitas. It still smells of shít mind you.

thats fighting talk

but as you said for you that is what it is to you. In reality it is another part of the language of sociology which explains the evolution and structure of human society, but it is bashed by people who seem intent on justifying inequality, much like people who say politically correct like it's a bad thing as if they want to live in a world that tolerates racism/sexism/homophobia

Wibbs

maybe

laoch na mona wrote: »

thats fighting talk

Oh yes.

but as you said for you that is what it is to you. In reality it is another part of the language of sociology which explains the evolution and structure of human society

I would say it's an incredibly simplistic thumbnail take on sociology by those not well versed in the nuances, but who want to make hay with what they see as bolstering their political viewpoint. Sociology is up there with Evolutionary psychology and Quantum physics as lodestones for quacks peddling "reality" snake oil mixed to their particular recipe. Patriarchy in these simplistic terms is easily conflated with Deepak Chopra's grasp of the quantum world.

but it is bashed by people who seem intent on justifying inequality, much like people who say politically correct like it's a bad thing as if they want to live in a world that tolerates racism/sexism/homophobia

Intolerance of racism/sexism/homophobia is one thing, too often "PC thinking" seeks to make a victim of everyone and a virtue of that victimhood. For me(again) it's too often a very adolescent view of the world we all live in, forever looking for blame, forever looking for some "parent" to take away the pain and blame and ultimately about as much use as a comb to a bald man.

tritium

laoch na mona wrote: »

Wikipedia?? really if you can't reference in an essay you can't reference in life

Are you actually addressing my point? I can't genuinely tell. If the wiki is incorrect then please feel free to give the correct definition in rebuttal

tritium

Wibbs wrote: »

FYP.

For me the term "patriarchy" when it comes up in an opinion piece pretty much always renders much of what follows as superannuated student think, banally too well trodden and equally arguable nonsense.

Pretty much anything and everything Una Mulally "writes" is so "politically correct" that she is a near Daily Mail parody of the term. This example just adds to the pile. Starts off OK, but then falls into the usual bullshít of "why can't men be more like Women(tm)". Her notion of Women(tm) of course. Perennial victims, always looking for someone or something to blame, rather than forging their own course regardless, like the majority of the rest of men and women do.

I would rate her output as something akin to farting. Mostly objectionable, rarely to be exposed in polite or learned company, but every so often one is expelled that is so appalling it has its own unique gravitas. It still smells of shít mind you.

Quite beautifully put sir!

tritium

I see that other doyen of the Irish time martyrs brigade Donald Clarke was also peddling his views on international men's day over the weekend

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/did-international-men-s-day-pass-you-by-1.2011003

I'd say lunch time is a hoot in their offices......

Piliger

tritium wrote: »

I see that other doyen of the Irish time martyrs brigade Donald Clarke was also peddling his views on international men's day over the weekend

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/did-international-men-s-day-pass-you-by-1.2011003

I'd say lunch time is a hoot in their offices......

What a pathetic excuse for a man.

tritium

Piliger wrote: »

What a pathetic excuse for a man.

Journalism at its finest. I'd urge anyone who was offended by it to send a letter to the editor at lettersed@irishtimes.com. I did already and I know of others who have (though past experience would suggest they'll at best publish a token effort and then keep on with their ivory tower- still worth 5 minutes of anyone's time I reckon)

Wibbs

maybe

Better yet, just don't by the rag, nor link to their clickbait.

tritium

Wibbs wrote: »

Better yet, just don't by the rag, nor link to their clickbait.

Oh in general I'd agree with you Wibbs, but when a group or publication is this influential (including links to prominent politicians) and so blatantly pushes an agenda like that (even their pro male articles manage to cone across as anti male if you get my drift) then sometimes its better to highlight it in any way you can

(Mumble mumble something about good men and evil prospering etc......)

reprazant

Ah come on, Donald Clarke does that every week. He takes something which is big that week and writes something contrary about it with the intention of getting people annoyed. Its akin to complaining about Kevin Myers. I also don't think that the IT has an 'agenda' unless you feel that Una Mulally sets the agenda for the paper.

Pawwed Rig

Wibbs wrote: »

Better yet, just don't by the rag, nor link to their clickbait.

It is still the paper of record in this country

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is still the paper of record in this country

I've not picked up an Irish newspaper in several years but it'd be either the Indo, the Examiner or the Irish Times I'd consider as the lessers of several evils.

laoch na mona

No

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've not picked up an Irish newspaper in several years but it'd be either the Indo, the Examiner or the Irish Times I'd consider as the lessers of several evils.

I'd only go for the examiner, good articles are few and far between in the times imo and the indo is well the indo.

that said I rarely buy a newspaper I just scan the websites for stories of interest

ancapailldorcha

maybe

laoch na mona wrote: »

I'd only go for the examiner, good articles are few and far between in the times imo and the indo is well the indo.

that said I rarely buy a newspaper I just scan the websites for stories of interest

Until a few minutes ago, I'd completely forgotten that the Examiner even existed. I'd been using the websites of the Indo and RTÉ to stay updated on what's going on, along with Boards of course!

tritium

reprazant wrote: »

Ah come on, Donald Clarke does that every week. He takes something which is big that week and writes something contrary about it with the intention of getting people annoyed. Its akin to complaining about Kevin Myers. I also don't think that the IT has an 'agenda' unless you feel that Una Mulally sets the agenda for the paper.

Interesting analogy to Kevin Myers. I remember he was excoriated in the media and by public opinion a few years ago for an infamous piece he wrote on single mothers and their children. As I recall not long after he skulked off to the info.

reprazant

tritium wrote: »

Interesting analogy to Kevin Myers. I remember he was excoriated in the media and by public opinion a few years ago for an infamous piece he wrote on single mothers and their children. As I recall not long after he skulked off to the info.

Don't get your point. If the IT has an "agenda", how come they had John Waters singing alone about fathers rights for years until his other opinions made him take a sabbatical, off to the Indo as well.

Btw, that Myers piece on single mothers was truly awful. I am not sure if you are attempting to compare it Donald Clarke piece but if you are, they are nothing alike.

Such as that our system of benefits to unmarried mothers is creating a long-term time-bomb. Even as things stand, we are bribing the unmotivated, the confused, the backward, the lazy into making the worst career decision of their young lives, and becoming professional unmarried mothers, living off the State until the grave takes over. Our welfare system is creating benefits-addicted, fatherless families who will be raised in a culture of personal and economic apathy - and from such warped timber, true masts are seldom hewn.

The piece had a point but was written in such an intentional cutting and insulting way to ensure that all it did was get controversy for the sake of it rather than an actual debate.

tritium

reprazant wrote: »

Don't get your point. If the IT has an "agenda", how come they had John Waters singing alone about fathers rights for years until his other opinions made him take a sabbatical, off to the Indo as well.

Btw, that Myers piece on single mothers was truly awful. I am not sure if you are attempting to compare it Donald Clarke piece but if you are, they are nothing alike.



The piece had a point but was written in such an intentional cutting and insulting way to ensure that all it did was get controversy for the sake of it rather than an actual debate.

Actually I was just drawing the analogy that even the Irish times seems to ditch writers whonpush it too far. Any other inference you drew is entirely yours......

I'd agree the Myers piece was damn offensive. I never tried to compare and contrast them. However Clarke's piece is also offensive and intended only to create controversy

The Black Oil

Myers was there to stir the pot long before interweb started to supplant the traditional print media. At least he usually had something to say, was honest and unafraid of putting his point across. As for Donald Clarke, I think that's fairly typical of his approach, given his Twitter machine and recent reaction to American F16 jets hanging out around Dublin.

As noted by Wibbs, the Mullally bubble, as it were, is so filtered by her own world view that it seems impossible for her to think outside of it even though she tries. Curious for her to write about this given her past tendencies to grab a great big brush and a dollop of tar. The first 3 paras of that article are fine, but then she shifts to popular culture (I know that's another part of her output, her IT blog). Why? This attempt at insight, not her specialist subject, does little to illuminate why men face barriers in speaking out on this issue. The bit Hollywood's output, and dodgy advertising stereotypes, yes, Hollywood has a laziness problem with writing for men and women, but anyone could have put that together. At least she included the helpline number at the end.

Piliger

tritium wrote: »

Journalism at its finest. I'd urge anyone who was offended by it to send a letter to the editor at lettersed@irishtimes.com. I did already and I know of others who have (though past experience would suggest they'll at best publish a token effort and then keep on with their ivory tower- still worth 5 minutes of anyone's time I reckon)

I sent it at lunch time. I would NEVER send an email. They don't bother their arses with emails. Only actual paper letters matter in these kinds of situations.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

I sent it at lunch time. I would NEVER send an email. They don't bother their arses with emails. Only actual paper letters matter in these kinds of situations.

I've had a lot of letters published in the Irish Times over the years*. One tends to need to get in quickly in my experience i.e. letters sent in the first 12 hours of a paper coming out (overnight) had a much better chance than in the 24 hours after that (so snail mail reduces the chances of getting it published when competing with an e-mail)

*30-40? And a pretty good success rate for the Irish Times - maybe 50%. I found to get published there letters had to be tighter there than for other newspapers i.e. how it was written was probably at least as important as the content.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

I've had a lot of letters published in the Irish Times over the years*. One tends to need to get in quickly in my experience i.e. letters sent in the first 12 hours of a paper coming out (overnight) had a much better chance than in the 24 hours after that (so snail mail reduces the chances of getting it published when competing with an e-mail)

*30-40? And a pretty good success rate for the Irish Times - maybe 50%. I found to get published there letters had to be tighter there than for other newspapers i.e. how it was written was probably at least as important as the content.

My mistake. My brain skipped over the point that it was for "letters to the Ed". I was thinking about protesting the article. Yes they have a system set up for email to that section. But not for protest-type emails ... they need to be written on paper definitely, and are the only ones that push people into replying and reading them. Emails are far too ephemeral.