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

Piliger

Gits_bone wrote: »

It's always brought up. But it never says if it's average wage or average wage for same job. I don't think in the slightest women get paid less for the same job.

I'd like to see examples.

The reason they don't give examples is because they don't exist. This is one of the biggest 'myths' that feminism peddles and that has been completely swallowed by male politicians and the media - only last week SKYNews presenter Kay Burley banged on about this for a whole week, using this complete lie as the leader in many of her stories during her segment.

Yet it is a lie. A complete lie.

Washington Post
Breitbart
... and many many more people have pointed out the lie repeatedly. But feminists and the man who swallow everything they are told, keep repeating it.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Are men natural born criminals? The prison numbers don't lie

The article's not as bad as the title suggests but it barely acknowledges the fact that it's a lot less likely for a woman to be sent to prison than a man for the same crime.

newport2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are men natural born criminals? The prison numbers don't lie

The article's not as bad as the title suggests but it barely acknowledges the fact that it's a lot less likely for a woman to be sent to prison than a man for the same crime.

"Are men natural born directors? The boardroom numbers don't lie."

Same logic applied, equally ridiculous conclusion.

Gits_bone

newport2 wrote: »

"Are men natural born directors? The boardroom numbers don't lie."

Same logic applied, equally ridiculous conclusion.

"Are men natural born male doctors? The male doctors numbers don't lie."

dogcat

In papers and such articles say "kills women and children", leaving out men, despite men dying. The statement itself is true in a case where women and children died, but it is horrifying when they don't include men.

dogcat

Also, a 109 year old said her secret to living so long was to stay away from men, as they were trouble...

Totally not true and sexist.

LostinBlanch

maybe

You know that recent headline claiming a third of men* would rape if there were no consequences? Well it looks like they were cooking the numbers.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: The authors of the paper did not note this methodological point in the paper itself. This was only revealed after a youtuber contacted the authors. There is no mention of the 100 scale, or the 10 cutoff in the paper.

Okay. For those who haven't heard, there is much discussion about this headline: "A third of male university students say they would rape a woman if there no were no consequences" If that headline seems sensational and unlikely, you will be interested to know that a new discovery by a youtube investigator who contacted the author of the article has exposed very questionable methods.

A (small) sample of students was asked questions about sexual behaviors and responded with a number out of 100. The authors split the responses on the number 10, so anything greater than "10" out of 100 on a question was reported simply as "yes" in the paper itself.

eg.

Q: "Would you force a woman to do something she didn't want to do if nobody would ever know and there wouldn't be any consequences?"

A: "12 / 100"

Interpretation: Respondent said he would rape.

Once again, this methodology was only discovered because a youtuber contacted the authors; the description is not in the paper itself.

The authors report using a methodology from 1989 developed by Malamuth but altered it from a 5-point explicit scale (not likely to very likely) to a 100 point arbitrary scale. If the current criteria were applied to that study (2-5 out of 5 is "yes"), then ~60% of men would have said "yes", meaning that the number has gone down by half since 1989.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7h9AWfBTL8

*US college Students, small sample size.

Not the first time that bad methodology was used to generate hysterical headlines and won't be the last I think.

walshb

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are men natural born criminals? The prison numbers don't lie

The article's not as bad as the title suggests but it barely acknowledges the fact that it's a lot less likely for a woman to be sent to prison than a man for the same crime.

Nothing surprising with that statistic. Men commit a lot more crime than women. Always have and always will. It's part of nature. Men are naturally the more aggressive sex. Testosterone!

This line stood out: "Men do tend to take more risks, according to many studies, which could be relevant."

ancapailldorcha

maybe

walshb wrote: »

Nothing surprising with that statistic. Men commit a lot more crime than women. Always have and always will. It's part of nature. Men are naturally the more aggressive sex. Testosterone!

This line stood out: "Men do tend to take more risks, according to many studies, which could be relevant."

The numbers are skewed by the fact that it's quite difficult for a woman to be sent to prison. Look at the cases where woman have abused young boys. They got the sack and that was it.

DamoKen

walshb wrote: »

Nothing surprising with that statistic. Men commit a lot more crime than women. Always have and always will. It's part of nature. Men are naturally the more aggressive sex. Testosterone!

This line stood out: "Men do tend to take more risks, according to many studies, which could be relevant."

Woman are more likely to be cautioned than charged for the same crime.
Women who are charged are more likely to be released on bail for the same crime.
Women are more likely to not receive a custodial sentence for the same crime.
Women who do receive a sentence are more likely to receive a suspended or community service for the same crime.
Women who do receive a custodial sentence are more likely to receive a lesser sentence for the same crime.
Women who do receive a custodial sentence are more likely to be released earlier.

Numerous reports have come to the conclusion that the gender of a person is the single most discriminatory fact when entering the legal process, greater even than the colour of someone's skin. This seems to prevalent at least in western countries.

Before you ask for links to prove it, it's come up quite a number of times and been linked to more than once on this and other threads. If you're interested might be worthwhile for you to have a search.

You'll see things are not quite so simplistic as you seem to think.

Piliger

A very good post and a timely reminder.

We are inculcated and brainwashed with this sh1t from the time we are kids. This whole gender stereotype about violent criminal men and demure innocent victim women. It's no wonder when we see the extraordinary extent of how women are given free passes on al kinds of crime. All they have to do is point a finger at a man and say 'He forced me' and the whole justice system and the media fold.

iptba

While I think there is a good chance there is a bias in the justice system in favour of women, I'm not convinced it explains all the difference.

Here is one comment under the article which highlights another angle/factor:

Men attach for more importance to being a provider and/or having money (it is seen as the best way to attract a suitable mate). In times of strife, invariably it will be the men going out and breaking the law to make cash. I.e.- in a couple, the man will take the risks, as is his role.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

While I think there is a good chance there is a bias in the justice system in favour of women, I'm not convinced it explains all the difference.

It doesn't need to explain 'all' of the difference.

walshb

DamoKen wrote: »

Woman are more likely to be cautioned than charged for the same crime.
Women who are charged are more likely to be released on bail for the same crime.
Women are more likely to not receive a custodial sentence for the same crime.
Women who do receive a sentence are more likely to receive a suspended or community service for the same crime.
Women who do receive a custodial sentence are more likely to receive a lesser sentence for the same crime.
Women who do receive a custodial sentence are more likely to be released earlier.

Numerous reports have come to the conclusion that the gender of a person is the single most discriminatory fact when entering the legal process, greater even than the colour of someone's skin. This seems to prevalent at least in western countries.

Before you ask for links to prove it, it's come up quite a number of times and been linked to more than once on this and other threads. If you're interested might be worthwhile for you to have a search.

You'll see things are not quite so simplistic as you seem to think.

A lot of valid points. Men still commit more crime, at least more serious kinds of crime. It's not even close. We can look for reasons and arguments for why the numbers are so different, but even taking into account discrepancies, a 95/96 - 3/4 percent prison figure is a staggering difference.

Take one crime: Armed robbery. It's way more likely and prevalent with men. Way more. No amount of searching for reasons explains the huge difference.

Piliger

walshb wrote: »

A lot of valid points. Men still commit more crime, at least more serious kinds of crime. It's not even close. We can look for reasons and arguments for why the numbers are so different, but even taking into account discrepancies, a 95/96 - 3/4 percent prison figure is a staggering difference.

Take one crime: Armed robbery. It's way more likely and prevalent with men. Way more. No amount of searching for reasons explains the huge difference.

All evidence of nothing but the system bias.

walshb

Piliger wrote: »

All evidence of nothing but the system bias.

What do you mean, evidence of nothing? The officially kept state and national figures prove that men are committing crime more than women.

So, you think it's the system and its rules that explains the massive stats gap between men and women and crimes committed? Ridiculous.

Are you of the belief that men and women commit pretty equal amounts of crime? And the system is just tougher on men hence the figures are so skewed?

What about sexual assaults and rape? They pretty equal too for the genders?

Piliger

walshb wrote: »

What do yu mean, evidence of nothing? The officially kept state and national figures prove that men are committing crime more than women.

You are joking right ? Stats you rely on only contain crimes that police decide are crimes and crimes that the prosecutor decides to prosecute.

So, you think it's the system and its rules that explains the massive stats gap between men and women and crimes committed? Ridiculous.

Yet true.

Are you of the belief that men and women commit pretty equal amounts of crime? And the system is just tougher on men hence the figures are so skewed?

Read what I said above. I believe men do commit more, but the comparison is massively exaggerated by gender bias at all levels.

What about sexual assaults and rape? They pretty equal too for the genders?

Child abuse is generally recognised nowadays as being grossly under reported for women perpetrators, usually mothers.

source

No

Piliger wrote: »

Child abuse is generally recognised nowadays as being grossly under reported for women perpetrators, usually mothers.

And lets not forget that women cannot commit rape in this country. The legislation is written is such a way that it is a crime that can only be committed by men against women. Also with respect to sexual assaults by women on men, they do happen but in a society which puts great stock on men not appearing weak, it's not surprising that there aren't more reported annually.

Pawwed Rig

While looking to renew my health insurance I came across this on a Laya policy

Full cover for Mammograms and Dexa scans in certain centres. Women's Cancer Screening up to €60; Men's Cancer Screening up to €50.

Piliger

". . this is what a feminist utopia would look like" from DailyLife outlet in Australia this week.

" it's been a long held wish of mine to sail away on an ocean of male tears and live on an island that recognises the inherent humanity of women. Women of all shapes, sizes, creeds, colours, bodies and backgrounds would live together in harmony and under a system of collaborative leadership. In the evenings, we'd come together to watch the sunset. Over cold cocktails, where the twizzle sticks are actually dehydrated penises, we'd marvel at how much better it is to live in a society that doesn't see us as peripheral to the real experience of what it means to be human, and doesn't expect us to meekly accept the reality of our own supposed weaknesses. We'd make jokes, because women are very funny. And there would be no MRAs and no mosquitos, because the annoying buzz of tiny, obnoxious pests would be banned."

"Genetic engineering that allows the female species to develop so that our eyes have lazers in them. This way, we can eventually enslave men with just the threat of our ability to punish them for stepping out of line. We probably won't even have to use the lazers all that much; it'll be enough for them to know that we could if we wanted to."

"And the ones (men) who kept making a rowdy fuss about it or getting on our nerves? Well, we'd just kill them."


The mind boggles in a way that no one ever thought boggling could be .. imagine for one moment if a man wrote this diatribe of hate and a publisher published it ... what would happen ?

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

While looking to renew my health insurance I came across this on a Laya policy

Full cover for Mammograms and Dexa scans in certain centres. Women's Cancer Screening up to €60; Men's Cancer Screening up to €50.

Could it be due to differences in rates between genders? Perhaps it's the increase in awareness of women's cancers. It's weird to have that €10 difference.

Piliger wrote: »

". . this is what a feminist utopia would look like" from DailyLife outlet in Australia this week.

I'd say whoever wrote this either has some sort of serious issue(/s) to work through or is taking the mick. Laser eyes??

Pawwed Rig

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Could it be due to differences in rates between genders? Perhaps it's the increase in awareness of women's cancers. It's weird to have that €10 difference.

Rates for what? The tests themselves?
Even if there was there is no reason for the difference as the insurance company is not affected.

I won't even broach the subject of me having to pay for maternity cover because of the community rating system.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Rates for what? The tests themselves?
Even if there was there is no reason for the difference as the insurance company is not affected.

Should have been clearer. I was referring to rates of cancers, either as a whole or specific cancers in men and women. I'd love to know what the reasoning is behind this as, to each consumer, it's only a €10 difference. I live in the UK where few bother with health insurance so there might be something I'm missing. Guff like "its4women" explained where they were coming from with their sexism whereas there is no explanation whatsoever provided here, not even an insinuation that women are worth more.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I won't even broach the subject of me having to pay for maternity cover because of the community rating system.

Why would you have to pay for maternity cover? I thought the mother's employer would advertise a 9-month contract to hire a temporary replacement.

newport2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd say whoever wrote this either has some sort of serious issue(/s) to work through or is taking the mick. Laser eyes??

Thousands of women thrown on an island and peace and harmony with cocktails at night expected? Definitely taking the mick.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

newport2 wrote: »

Thousands of women thrown on an island and peace and harmony with cocktails at night expected? Definitely taking the mick.

You get a measure of discord with any large group of people.

newport2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You get a measure of discord with any large group of people.

And a larger measure of discord if there was a lack of diversity amongst those people IMO, which was my point intended. Same would apply for thousands of men, but they've all been killed for fun already in this story.

Wibbs

maybe

***running bloggist hackette translation matrix***
"I'd marvel at how much better it is to live in a society that doesn't see me as peripheral to the real experience of what it means to be human, and doesn't expect me to meekly accept the reality of my own insecurities. I'd make jokes, because I think I'm very funny".***

The whole article is her attempting to be "funny" and "ironic", failing on the former and succeeding on the latter, but not quite in the way she intended. It's standard click bait hackette fare and as such not to be taken seriously. Leave that to the more brain damaged of the "go girlists". This is just like those "feminists" on the Irish Indo whose names escape. They're low powered trolls hired by the owners to increase ire and notoriety increasing advertising sales. Judging from her other articles I suspect she's broadly aware of this, as the rest of her stuff runs the gamut between OK stuff and college level "comment". On the other hand the Irish versions are notable for their almost complete lack of self awareness.

When I read stuff like this my overwhelming response is..

py2006

Wibbs wrote: »

This is just like those "feminists" on the Irish Indo whose names escape. They're low powered trolls hired by the owners to increase ire and notoriety increasing advertising sales. Judging from her other articles I suspect she's broadly aware of this, as the rest of her stuff runs the gamut between OK stuff and college level "comment". On the other hand the Irish versions are notable for their almost complete lack of self awareness.

Una Mulally

Lemming

They're off to an early start today: Minister says "too many women in prison" in the UK.

Nice to see that someone did challenge him (yes, that's right) on why women should be treated differently to men regards custodial sentencing and he just replied with "burlglelibwibblegobldygookweeeeee" (I've paraphrased his argument on its merits fyi).

The mind boggles at shiz like this. I've not had enough coffee to cope with this level of dumb displayed so early in the morning.

py2006

Lemming wrote: »

They're off to an early start today: Minister says "too many women in prison" in the UK.
.

Female offenders are a "special case" and should be treated differently to men because many had been victims themselves,

Typical feminist pandering. Even when women do wrong, its not there fault as they are victims of men.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr :rolleyes:

ems_12

Here's an example; upon graduating (female, MEng, honours), the lads (BEng, all 6-7 of them) were given the exact same job offer as me with +£1,000 salary pa. I had 4-3 summers of experience in engineering offices, some of those guys had the same, some had a summer or two on site, some had less experience due to summers travelling etc.

It took me 3 years to argue my case with the Director, that despite the lack of construction/site experience, they had appointed me in a role that wasn't directly involved on site, and in a role that in fact some of the guys didn't have the skills to do.

I don't usually bother with this male v female thing as it does nothing but disadvantage me in my industry, but to read the belief that salary differences is a myth made me want to reply :mad: Mine is a tiny example, but it certainly exists.

Piliger wrote: »

The reason they don't give examples is because they don't exist. This is one of the biggest 'myths' that feminism peddles and that has been completely swallowed by male politicians and the media - only last week SKYNews presenter Kay Burley banged on about this for a whole week, using this complete lie as the leader in many of her stories during her segment.

Yet it is a lie. A complete lie.

Washington Post
Breitbart
... and many many more people have pointed out the lie repeatedly. But feminists and the man who swallow everything they are told, keep repeating it.

Gits_bone

ems_12 wrote: »

Here's an example; upon graduating (female, MEng, honours), the lads (BEng, all 6-7 of them) were given the exact same job offer as me with +£1,000 salary pa. I had 4-3 summers of experience in engineering offices, some of those guys had the same, some had a summer or two on site, some had less experience due to summers travelling etc.

It took me 3 years to argue my case with the Director, that despite the lack of construction/site experience, they had appointed me in a role that wasn't directly involved on site, and in a role that in fact some of the guys didn't have the skills to do.

I don't usually bother with this male v female thing as it does nothing but disadvantage me in my industry, but to read the belief that salary differences is a myth made me want to reply :mad: Mine is a tiny example, but it certainly exists.

I know a lad who is on internship money doing the same job as someone who gets 35k.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

py2006 wrote: »

Typical feminist pandering. Even when women do wrong, its not there fault as they are victims of men.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr :rolleyes:

Funny how little consideration is afforded men in the same scenario.

ems_12

I was working on the exact same contract (salary excluded :rolleyes:). We were all hired as e.g. 'Graduate engineer'.

I totally understand that once you are in the door, experience and a certain amount of balls to ask for a pay rise means that people end up on different salaries. (I've read that women are less likely to ask, which may lead to a difference, 'Lean In' by Sheryl Sandberg). But as a graduate with a MEng (vs BEng), and experience to suit, the £1,000 difference baffles me.

Gits_bone wrote: »

I know a lad who is on internship money doing the same job as someone who gets 35k.

Maguined

ems_12 wrote: »

I was working on the exact same contract (salary excluded :rolleyes:). We were all hired as e.g. 'Graduate engineer'.

I totally understand that once you are in the door, experience and a certain amount of balls to ask for a pay rise means that people end up on different salaries. (I've read that women are less likely to ask, which may lead to a difference, 'Lean In' by Sheryl Sandberg). But as a graduate with a MEng (vs BEng), and experience to suit, the £1,000 difference baffles me.

Did you try and negotiate your salary upon the offer? I work in a difference industry (finance) but for us even the standard graduate offer has lots of wiggle room depending upon how well the interview went and if they try and negotiate. We had salary differences of 2K-3K with the highest earner actually having a lower qualification because apparently they performed very well in the interviews.

ems_12

Maguined wrote: »

Did you try and negotiate your salary upon the offer? I work in a difference industry (finance) but for us even the standard graduate offer has lots of wiggle room depending upon how well the interview went and if they try and negotiate. We had salary differences of 2K-3K with the highest earner actually having a lower qualification because apparently they performed very well in the interviews.

Yep! This wasn't a works/job issue about me, I just wanted to point out that salary differences certainly happen.

newport2

ems_12 wrote: »

Here's an example; upon graduating (female, MEng, honours), the lads (BEng, all 6-7 of them) were given the exact same job offer as me with +£1,000 salary pa. I had 4-3 summers of experience in engineering offices, some of those guys had the same, some had a summer or two on site, some had less experience due to summers travelling etc.

It took me 3 years to argue my case with the Director, that despite the lack of construction/site experience, they had appointed me in a role that wasn't directly involved on site, and in a role that in fact some of the guys didn't have the skills to do.

I don't usually bother with this male v female thing as it does nothing but disadvantage me in my industry, but to read the belief that salary differences is a myth made me want to reply :mad: Mine is a tiny example, but it certainly exists.

You have a genuine case so. But you have made the assumption that this is down to gender and nothing else. Can you be 100% sure of that? Open and shut case if it's just down to gender.
What did the director say when you said less experienced and less qualified people were hired at the same time as you on more money? Surely he could either see that you were being discriminated against or else point out to you why you got offered less?

Potatoeman

ems_12 wrote: »

Yep! This wasn't a works/job issue about me, I just wanted to point out that salary differences certainly happen.

Of course some happen but they are not necessarily gender based. You are more likely to get pay rises from job hopping. So many companies will not pay rises if they can get away with it.

The pay statistic that women are paid less than men ignores hours worked. Men work more overtime and woman work more part time jobs. Its misleading information and has been pointed out many times.

Pawwed Rig

ems_12 wrote: »

Here's an example; upon graduating (female, MEng, honours), the lads (BEng, all 6-7 of them) were given the exact same job offer as me with +£1,000 salary pa. I had 4-3 summers of experience in engineering offices, some of those guys had the same, some had a summer or two on site, some had less experience due to summers travelling etc.

It took me 3 years to argue my case with the Director, that despite the lack of construction/site experience, they had appointed me in a role that wasn't directly involved on site, and in a role that in fact some of the guys didn't have the skills to do.

I don't usually bother with this male v female thing as it does nothing but disadvantage me in my industry, but to read the belief that salary differences is a myth made me want to reply :mad: Mine is a tiny example, but it certainly exists.

How is this sexism against men?

ThunbergsAreGo

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

How is this sexism against men?

Realise that it isnt what the thread is for but someone commented that there was little concrete examples of instnaces where woman got paid less for the same job.

eviltwin

Was in my local library reading the community notices and saw a flyer for a free stop smoking course starting next week. Went to get the number as my husband is trying to quit and guess what - it's women only :mad:

DoYouEvenLift

eviltwin wrote: »

Was in my local library reading the community notices and saw a flyer for a free stop smoking course starting next week. Went to get the number as my husband is trying to quit and guess what - it's women only :mad:

You should ring and ask why that is, I'm genuinely curious what the reasoning behind a course like that being all female is lol

ancapailldorcha

maybe

I'm quite keen to know myself, same as the example Pawwed Rig mentioned as well.

eviltwin

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

You should ring and ask why that is, I'm genuinely curious what the reasoning behind a course like that being all female is lol

I've asked on their Facebook page, I'm going to keep an eye on it to see their justification. It's being run in conjunction with the HSE and the Irish Cancer Society so I'm surprised it's so blatantly sexist.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

eviltwin wrote: »

I've asked on their Facebook page, I'm going to keep an eye on it to see their justification. It's being run in conjunction with the HSE and the Irish Cancer Society so I'm surprised it's so blatantly sexist.

It's beyond my expertise but lung cancer and smoking would be fairly evenly split between genders I would have thought.

Wibbs

maybe

IIRC ACD, the rates are about the same, though there can be differences in the type. Traditionally women tended to smoke "lighter" cigarettes and were more prone to inhaling more deeply to get a hit so the types of cancers are "deeper" in the lung tissue. Also there were different reasons for continuing the habit, namely the weight loss/appetite suppressant effects of nicotine were more to the fore among women smokers and there was more concern about gaining weight if they gave up. A consideration which would be more lacking, if not absent as a reason among male smokers. So maybe there is a different approach taken on this particular point hence the women only thang? Conjecture of course.

Carlos Orange

No

It looks like men get lung cancer about 60% more often.

Average number of new cases per year 652(female) 1,059(male)
Average number of deaths per year 571(female) 966(male)

http://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/pubs/LungCancerIncidenceMortalityTreatmentandSurvivalinIreland1994-2008.pdf

eviltwin

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

You should ring and ask why that is, I'm genuinely curious what the reasoning behind a course like that being all female is lol

They got back to me. The crowd running the course didn't make the rule, it's an Irish Cancer Society condition that it's female only. They say a male only group will run later in the year but I can't really understand why a stop smoking course needs to be gender specific in the first place.

mrkiscool2

eviltwin wrote: »

They got back to me. The crowd running the course didn't make the rule, it's an Irish Cancer Society condition that it's female only. They say a male only group will run later in the year but I can't really understand why a stop smoking course needs to be gender specific in the first place.

I wonder is it to stop people going with the view of trying to pick up? I know how ridiculous that sounds but it's the only reason I can think of!

jackofalltrades

maybe

eviltwin wrote: »

Was in my local library reading the community notices and saw a flyer for a free stop smoking course starting next week. Went to get the number as my husband is trying to quit and guess what - it's women only :mad:

Is this the course you're talking about?
From looking at the details on another site it seems to offer a lot of support.