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

Maguined

An article in the IT discussing teenage violence against their parents. The article gives a breakdown of the teenagers committing the violence which is 41% comitted by teenage girls and 59% comitted by teenage boys.

This naturally warrants a headling of "That’s Men: Violence towards parents is too big a problem to solve alone".

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/that-s-men-violence-towards-parents-is-too-big-a-problem-to-solve-alone-1.2126133

So even though the article is about teenagers and the ratios are relatively even men are somehow being held to blame?

hots

Maguined wrote: »

An article in the IT discussing teenage violence against their parents. The article gives a breakdown of the teenagers committing the violence which is 41% comitted by teenage girls and 59% comitted by teenage boys.

This naturally warrants a headling of "That’s Men: Violence towards parents is too big a problem to solve alone".

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/that-s-men-violence-towards-parents-is-too-big-a-problem-to-solve-alone-1.2126133

So even though the article is about teenagers and the ratios are relatively even men are somehow being held to blame?

Weirdly there's almost no mention of gender in the entire article apart from the title and the photo caption... a bit clickbait-y imo.

Lemming

hobbit of the shire wrote: »

Weirdly there's almost no mention of gender in the entire article apart from the title and the photo caption... a bit clickbait-y imo.

The example problem child given is female. Other than that, none that I can recall.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

http://www.gq.com/long-form/male-military-rape

GQ wrote:

Sexual assault is alarmingly common in the U.S. military, and more than half of the victims are men. According to the Pentagon, thirty-eight military men are sexually assaulted every single day. These are the stories you never hear—because the culprits almost always go free, the survivors rarely speak, and no one in the military or Congress has done enough to stop it

Carlos Orange

No

Professor in Germany rejecting all male applicants from India.

You can be sure for everyone openly telling the men they reject due to their gender there are plenty more not.

“Dear Sir,

Unfortunately I don’t accept any Indian male students for internships. We hear a lot about the rape problem in India which I cannot support.

I have many female students in my group, so I think this attitude is something I cannot support.”


“Many female professors in Germany decided to no longer accept male Indian students for these reasons, and currently other European female association [sic] are joining,” she wrote. “Of course we cannot change or influence the Indian society, but only take our consequence here in Europe.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/09/german-professor-triggers-controversy-by-citing-indias-rape-problem-in-e-mail-to-rejected-indian-applicant/

iptba

psinno wrote: »

Professor in Germany rejecting all male applicants from India.

You can be sure for everyone openly telling the men they reject due to their gender there are plenty more not.

“Dear Sir,

Unfortunately I don’t accept any Indian male students for internships. We hear a lot about the rape problem in India which I cannot support.

I have many female students in my group, so I think this attitude is something I cannot support.”


“Many female professors in Germany decided to no longer accept male Indian students for these reasons, and currently other European female association [sic] are joining,” she wrote. “Of course we cannot change or influence the Indian society, but only take our consequence here in Europe.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/09/german-professor-triggers-controversy-by-citing-indias-rape-problem-in-e-mail-to-rejected-indian-applicant/

What about:

“Dear Madam,

Unfortunately I don’t accept any German female students for internships. We hear a lot about the sexism problem in Germany which I cannot support.

I have many male students in my group, so I think this attitude is something I cannot support.”

jackofalltrades

maybe

psinno wrote: »

“Dear Sir,

Unfortunately I don’t accept any Indian male students for internships. We hear a lot about the rape problem in India which I cannot support.

I have many female students in my group, so I think this attitude is something I cannot support.”

WTF:eek:

How can someone get to the level of education and experience needed to become a professor and then come out with a sexist/racist decision like that.
The mind boggles.

dogcat

Absolutely horrific that is. Hopefully the professors see they are wrong and allow them to apply again, and if not that they are fined.

Lemming

This is nothing about the professor being wrong (she is anyway); she's just a racist. Or possibly so blindlingly indoctrinated as to be positively puritanical on matters feminist (i.e. extremist). In either case, she is not suitable to hold such a position of privelege over young minds.

tritium

Love how the report notes shes at pains to state she's not racist but is blindingly oblivious the the possibility she's just a sexist

Lemming

tritium wrote: »

Love how the report notes shes at pains to state she's not racist but is blindingly oblivious the the possibility she's just a sexist

"I'm not a racist, but ... "

"Yeah, sure. Of course. No no, you go right on ahead believing yourself."


The professor allegedly has past form on this: link. Mind you, could as well be a copy-cat troll but I don't see what the guy has to gain given his anonymity.

Liam McPoyle

No

Cant find any direct news links but a friend of mine who is into athletics etc just posted on her FB page that the VHI Mini Marathon have blocked a visually impaired woman from doing the race because her running companion/guide happens to be male.

On the Event page for the event on FB there are a number of people commenting on it so Im presuming its true.

Shocking behaviour.

Pawwed Rig

Never heard of the42 but here is the story


http://www.the42.ie/visually-impaired-runner-womens-mini-marathon-1986440-Mar2015/

tritium

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Never heard of the42 but here is the story


http://www.the42.ie/visually-impaired-runner-womens-mini-marathon-1986440-Mar2015/

Its a strange one. Being reported on quite a few non_mainstream sites and tweeted by some of the affected parties but can't find anything about it on mainstream sites. Is there more going on here? . Couldn't be that theyre passing up on a topical social justice story because it doesn't fit some wider agenda could it?

Nice to see the mm seems happy to discriminate against the disabled in order to maintain the sexism.....

mrkiscool2

Holding a door open and smiling are now sexist, apparently. What absolute rubbish! I love the list the give though!



Seriously? Giving a women your with your coat because she's cold is an obvious sign that the Patriarchy is oppressing her!

newport2

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Holding a door open and smiling are now sexist, apparently. What absolute rubbish! I love the list the give though!



Seriously? Giving a women your with your coat because she's cold is an obvious sign that the Patriarchy is oppressing her!

If that's true, most women I know LOVE benevolent sexists

What about when I hold doors open for men? Is it only sexist when I do it for women? I suppose it's like other things, I'll be told that when it happens to women it's sexism, when it happens to men it isn't because there's some deep-down motivation that's different for each action.

newport2

Deleted User wrote: »

What about when I hold doors open for men? Is it only sexist when I do it for women? I suppose it's like other things, I'll be told that when it happens to women it's sexism, when it happens to men it isn't because there's some deep-down motivation that's different for each action.

If you follow the benevolent sexism rules to a tee above (with the exception of maybe the love or dear one), you will please more women than you will offend. Whoever wrote the above loves being offended and will seek it at every opportunity, not representative of most women.

flyingsnail

tritium wrote: »

Its a strange one. Being reported on quite a few non_mainstream sites and tweeted by some of the affected parties but can't find anything about it on mainstream sites. Is there more going on here? . Couldn't be that theyre passing up on a topical social justice story because it doesn't fit some wider agenda could it?

Nice to see the mm seems happy to discriminate against the disabled in order to maintain the sexism.....

It seems to be gaining some traction now, they are on Today FM at the moment.

flyingsnail

Seems they didn't like all the negative attention and have changed their policy.

The Women’s Mini Marathon has said male assistants will now be allowed after it emerged a visually impaired athlete was told she could not take part because her guide was a man.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0312/686527-womens-mini-marathon/

Sleepy

Meh, who'd take that event seriously anyway? A marathon is a defined distance. There's no such thing as a "mini-marathon", it's a 10k fun-run that's been sexist since it was founded and is just an event for middle aged women to feel good about themselves by having a walk before laying into the wine that evening.

donfers

No

surely the whole concept of a female only marathon is legally questionable in the first place - that I cannot enter because of my gender must be in violation of some kind of discrimination laws not that anyone would bother taking it to the European court of human rights as there are plenty of other marathons to enter and it raises money for charities etc. but it is plain old in your face sexism

I've often wondered about these kind of arguments where a female presence or "character" is used to justify some kind of discriminatory practice yet often it's these very people that scream loudest about sexism in golf clubs etc.

The most vociferous protesters about sexism are often the most blindingly sexist themselves which undermines their entire argument at source

Pawwed Rig

tritium wrote: »

Nice to see the mm seems happy to discriminate against the disabled in order to maintain the sexism.....

They are not discriminating against the disabled. They are discriminating against the man.

newport2

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They are not discriminating against the disabled. They are discriminating against the man.

Both really. If they said no guide dogs were allowed, would they be discriminating against the blind or against dogs?

Carlos Orange

No

newport2 wrote: »

Both really. If they said no guide dogs were allowed, would they be discriminating against the blind or against dogs?

I think discrimination as a concept only really applies to humans.

Pawwed Rig

newport2 wrote: »

Both really. If they said no guide dogs were allowed, would they be discriminating against the blind or against dogs?

But they didn't say that. If they said only bitch guide dogs allowed then the analogy matches. Your analogy would mean no guides at all.

newport2

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But they didn't say that. If they said only butch guide dogs allowed then the analogy matches. Your analogy would mean no guides at all.

Not an exact match, I agree. But If they said only butch guide dogs, I would still argue they were discriminating against the blind, not just the dog

But either way, I think they are directly discriminating against men and indirectly so against those disabled. If a disabled person needs something additional to partake in an event, placing restrictions on that is unfair imo, because it doesn't apply to people who are not disabled.

kunst nugget

maybe

donfers wrote: »

surely the whole concept of a female only marathon is legally questionable in the first place - that I cannot enter because of my gender must be in violation of some kind of discrimination laws not that anyone would bother taking it to the European court of human rights as there are plenty of other marathons to enter and it raises money for charities etc. but it is plain old in your face sexism

I've often wondered about these kind of arguments where a female presence or "character" is used to justify some kind of discriminatory practice yet often it's these very people that scream loudest about sexism in golf clubs etc.

The most vociferous protesters about sexism are often the most blindingly sexist themselves which undermines their entire argument at source

I can't say I've got no issue with one off women only or men only events and I think it is completely different to the notion of institutional sexism such as the example you give of men only golf clubs or on the flip side women only gyms.

There was a complete lack of common sense in relation to the decision of the blind runner and her guide but thankfully that has been overturned.

Seriously?

The fact that they allow men crossdressing to take part really shows how much of a nonsense it is.

Carlos Orange

No

kunst nugget wrote: »

There was a complete lack of common sense in relation to the decision of the blind runner and her guide but thankfully that has been overturned.

It hasn't really been overturned. Any man in a similar position has to apply for a special permit that a woman wouldn't have to. Who knows what the qualifying conditions for the permit will be.

ThunbergsAreGo

They really shouldnt be able to use the word Marathon to describe this.

All for a good cause but this event annoys me for some reason, its accepted sexism

eviltwin

Don't take it so seriously, it's a fun day out, a fundraising event rather than a serious run. I run and I do it every year with my brother and we aren't out to get PB's, we can enter a dedicated running event for that. There should be men allowed enter. I can understand it being a female only event when it first began but not anymore. The more people you can get out raising money for good causes the better.

kunst nugget

maybe

psinno wrote: »

It hasn't really been overturned. Any man in a similar position has to apply for a special permit that a woman wouldn't have to. Who knows what the qualifying conditions for the permit will be.

For a woman to assist without getting the permit, she has to enter the race herself. If she chooses to only assist she has to get the permit as well.

Carlos Orange

No

Seriously? wrote: »

The fact that they allow men crossdressing to take part really shows how much of a nonsense it is.

It is my understanding (open to correction) that they don't let men run. The guys apply claiming to be a woman. When they finish the run they don't get counted or receive a result. Presumably they can't legally stop men running on a public street and security guards rugby tacking them would be terrible PR.

If you are the kind of person cool with ignoring rules I guess it works. John O'Regan could just have run the race. Nobody would have stopped him.

kunst nugget

maybe

eviltwin wrote: »

Don't take it so seriously, it's a fun day out, a fundraising event rather than a serious run. I run and I do it every year with my brother and we aren't out to get PB's, we can enter a dedicated running event for that. There should be men allowed enter. I can understand it being a female only event when it first began but not anymore. The more people you can get out raising money for good causes the better.

Personally, I think they should keep it as a women only event so that if someone decides to stage a men only charity fun day out, they can point to the Women's Mini-Marathon and tell anyone to feck off if they have a problem with it.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Surely limiting such events to those of specific genders is the last thing anyone would want if the aim is to raise funds for worthy causes.

eviltwin

kunst nugget wrote: »

Personally, I think they should keep it as a women only event so that if someone decides to stage a men only charity fun day out, they can point to the Women's Mini-Marathon and tell anyone to feck off if they have a problem with it.

There is a men's only 10k afaik

kunst nugget

maybe

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Surely limiting such events to those of specific genders is the last thing anyone would want if the aim is to raise funds for worthy causes.

It's become such a massive event annually with such a tradition of fundraising, I wonder would a newly branded unisex event have the same appeal and ability to raise money.

Lemming

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They are not discriminating against the disabled. They are discriminating against the man.

Semantics.

What the net effect be on the disabled person?

The man is there solely to facilitate the disabled entrant, not to compete himself. Removing him meant preventing the woman from competing. She may be able to enter without him, but not compete.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's become such a massive event annually with such a tradition of fundraising, I wonder would a newly branded unisex event have the same appeal and ability to raise money.

I don't see the need to change the brand if the money is going to the same causes. Allowing men in represents a potential increase in revenue.

Pawwed Rig

Lemming wrote: »

Semantics.

What the net effect be on the disabled person?

The man is there solely to facilitate the disabled entrant, not to compete himself. Removing him meant preventing the woman from competing. She may be able to enter without him, but not compete.

The disabled lady would be allowed run with a female guide.
A disabled man would not be allowed run regardless of the gender of his guide.
A blind lady would be allowed lead another blind lady.
The only limiting factor is the dangly bit between the guides legs. Even the athlete herself recognised that.

Lemming

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The disabled lady would be allowed run with a female guide.
A disabled man would not be allowed run regardless of the gender of his guide.
A blind lady would be allowed lead another blind lady.
The only limiting factor is the dangly bit between the guides legs. Even the athlete herself recognised that.

Why are you trying to argue a disabled man would not be allowed to run. We're not talking about a disabled man running. We're talking about a disabled woman who wants to compete, not just "run".

If you'd bothered to read the original article, you'd see that the comment about being offered a random woman "partner" was refused and cited as to why refused; being all about needing to build up a level of trust and familiarity between runner & guide.

So again; yes the net effect was to discriminate against the disabled woman wanting to compete, not just say she "participated". She was being denied the ability to compete base on someone else showing a lack of common sense, lack of empathy, and a massive dolloping of sexism. It's very straight-forward and clear-cut.

DoYouEvenLift

"You're a man? Sorry, you can't participate in this event for charity...Oh, you want to donate money to us? Thank you very much!"


Impressive logic.

kunst nugget

maybe

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

"You're a man? Sorry, you can't participate in this event for charity...Oh, you want to donate money to us? Thank you very much!"


Impressive logic.

The Mini-Marathon in and of itself isn't a charity event - someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that score - but people participating just use it is a way of fundraising for their favourite charities through sponsorship.

eviltwin

kunst nugget wrote: »

The Mini-Marathon in and of itself isn't a charity event - someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that score - but people participating just use it is a way of fundraising for their favourite charities through sponsorship.

That's true. The charity aspect is purely up to the participants.

The Black Oil

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They are not discriminating against the disabled. They are discriminating against the man.

Debatable, I reckon. The more overt discrimination is against the man, and whilst they were not taking issue with her impairment, they were initially not flexible enough to facilitate her reasonable accommodation - thus hindering the accessibility of the event. Whether that falls under the Disability Act, I don't know. I'm not well read enough. Possibly. Whether it falls under the Equal Status Act in terms of his participation, possibly not. However, they should have had a gender blind/neutral policy when it comes to personal assistants from the get go.

iptba

If there was a race that didn't let black people take part, and this meant a blind white person couldn't compete because their guide was black (but other blind people could take part once they had a white guide), I think it would be recognised that the bigger problem was that black people weren't allowed take part. That's not to say it wasn't unfair on the individual blind person. But the bigger problem would be racism not disabilism.

Similarly here as I see it.

Pawwed Rig

Lemming wrote: »

Why are you trying to argue a disabled man would not be allowed to run. We're not talking about a disabled man running. We're talking about a disabled woman who wants to compete, not just "run".

To highlight that the issue is sexist in nature rather than discrimination based on disability. It is what the conversation we are having is about

Lemming wrote: »

If you'd bothered to read the original article, you'd see that the comment about being offered a random woman "partner" was refused and cited as to why refused; being all about needing to build up a level of trust and familiarity between runner & guide.

It was me that posted it :pac:

Lemming wrote: »

She was being denied the ability to compete base on someone else showing a lack of common sense, lack of empathy, and a massive dolloping of sexism.

Agreed

Lemming

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

To highlight that the issue is sexist in nature rather than discrimination based on disability. It is what the conversation we are having is about

But it wasn't about a disabled man wanting to run.

The irony and sheer bloody mindedness of the organisers in their strive to refuse a man to participate (i.e. sexist) even when he is only there to assist a disabled woman should not be lost on anyone. They have showed discrimination and total disregard for the woman's disabiliity and directly affected her in their act of sexism against her guide.

So; sexism AND discrimination affecting both genders. Busy life for the organisers so it would seem.

It was me that posted it :pac:

But did you read it? So why keep regurgitating the token half-arsed guff that the organisers tried to pedal to the woman in question as if it was acceptable when she herself has said she considered the offer insulting and condescending (different article on the matter).

tritium

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They are not discriminating against the disabled. They are discriminating against the man.

Youre kind of missing my point I think. The mm is by implication discriminatory against men (hence my sexism comment) however in this case the man isn't looking to participate the woman is, he's technically just there to help here compete effectively. By placing a restriction on how she may be helped which goes over and above what would be permitted in any similar official event as I understand it (based on a quick scan of another forum) then they're placing an additional obstacle in the way of a disabled runner being able to compete and hence discriminating against the disabled.