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

tsiehta

Wompa1 wrote: »

That's a little disingenuous. Daniel Tosh does not do it on his show a lot. Also he caused an uproar when he did. It started a debate amongst comedians about whether he crossed the line and the consensus was he clearly spoke in jest. Tosh.O is kind of a sh!tty show, he makes purposely controversial remarks about videos online. It's crappy tv.

It is a ****ty show, but so is TC's example, The Talk, which also provoked enough of a reaction to get an apology on air (albeit a ****ty one).

RainyDay

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

3 tests, one numerical, one comprehension and the final one is decision making. So 300 marks available. The top 10% get interviews.
It was thought men were better at the numerical test so the total result is actually out of 200 marks (comprehension/decision making) and the numerical test is just a pass/fail. This was to give women a better chance of success.

source please?

The Corinthian

While I agree that there are a lot of areas where men are discriminated against, I would have to say that what you've put forward here does not constitute this - at the very least, you've not shown sufficient evidence to demonstrate it.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

For the entry exam for the civil service there are three tests (apptitude type). The best results get you an interview. One of them is a numerical test. The opinion (rightly or wrongly) is that men are better at Maths. For that reason the numerical test is excluded from the overall result.

Presuming that men are indeed better at maths, which is arguable, there's no evidence that these scores are omitted specifically to give female candidates an edge in the entry requirements.

Correlation does not imply causation, and there remain numerous other reasons why the scoring system has been designed in this way - unless you can demonstrate this intent, then you can't assume that it is based on sexism.

Secondly and this is anecdotal from family members who work in CS. If there is say 10 jobs advertised at a particular grade it can be the case where they will only hire women where there is seen to be a lack of women in the relevant grade. So if there are 50 applicants with 10 of them women then they may put all women through for balance.

Presuming such quotas exist, you've only given, at best, an example of where there is a shortage of women. To demonstrate that such a policy is sexist, you'd also have to show that they are not applied in favour of men where there is a shortage of men. Without that, you can speculate that the policy is sexist, but you've not actually demonstrated it.

As I said, men and women are discriminated against, but just because something appears to be, on a superficial level, so doesn't mean it is. It is sometimes easy to see discrimination around every corner. Certainly plenty of it is, but both men and women can also get carried away, finding it in places where it actually doesn't exist.

The Corinthian

tsiehta wrote: »

Well, originally the point raised was about private conversation, not public jokes. I've heard enough "I'd rape her", "She deserves to be raped" etc. in certain social circles to know that that's not true.

What's not true?

You also have Meg on Family Guy, who's entire point on the show is to be constantly verbally and physically abused.

But is that because she's female or because she's the 'runt' of the family? If you look at, especially slap-stick, comedy you'll find examples of these sort of characters (Neil from the Young Ones is one that pops into my head), and they can be of either gender as this is immaterial to their role. Indeed, there is actually no suggestion that Meg is picked on in Family guy because of her gender; never has been.

Secondly, Family Guy as a show has gone out of it's way to break taboos, so if it depicts violence against women in humour, then this is actually part of what the show is about. Remember, it has been accused of anti-Semitism too in the past, as well as of poor taste where it comes to the disabled, conservatives, liberals, blacks, Asians and pretty much everyone else.

If it is specifically seeking to portray violence against women in the shape of Meg, it's just being consistent with all these other challenges to accepted norms. Indeed, the entire Meg character is far more complex than just being a gender as she's often portrayed as being a little too male biologically and part of the irony being that she is voiced by Mila Kunis who is as different to Meg as one can get.

Also, while not jokes, you have the Steubenville case, with a disturbing amount media coverage sympathizing with the rapists, and hardly mentioning the victim, along with plenty of awful, public tweets, facebook messages etc. .

Welcome to the World of reporting of crimes against men, as this is the sort of coverage that will typically take place when the man is a victim. I've already cited the difference in language that is commonplace where a male minor is abused sexually by a female adult, for example, and there is no shortage of similar reporting in especially domestic cases (e.g. Lorena Bobbitt) that seek to sympathize with the perpetrator. When was the last time you heard any report that sought to sympathize with the father who killed his daughter in an honour killing, because he was 'driven to it'?

Now, this is not to suggest that the reporting of the Steubenville case is justified, but the reason that this has been highlighted is that such coverage is actually rare. Where a man is the victim, it's commonplace.

The idea that violence against women is universally condemned in public and never joked about compared to violence against men is just false.

It's not though - even the example you gave was subsequently universally condemned.

tsiehta wrote: »

It is a ****ty show, but so is TC's example, The Talk, which also provoked enough of a reaction to get an apology on air (albeit a ****ty one).

Eventually it did, but one critical difference between Sharon Osbourne misandrist diatribe and all of the examples you've given is that she actually meant it, and even when she delivered her apology, it was clear that she still did. None of the examples you gave can be said to reflect a genuine misogynistic belief from their writers or performers; instead they're designed to elicit shock, black humour or have nothing to do with genders to begin with. Osbourne, on the other hand, truly believed the misandrist offal she was saying and, given the mooted or even supportive reaction from her co-guests (only one made any attempt to challenge her), that is the most chilling thing about it.

clairefontaine

I don't understand why on an Irish message board people are bringing in examples from American television as demonstrating across the board discrimination. It is an entirely different culture with different permissions and taboos, and there is no way you would hear anything of the sort on Irish television. There is no point employing imported examples to talk about Ireland.

American culture is saturated with violence, from its every day speech to cartoons to you name it.

When Europeans pick up on it, it sounds amplified to their ears, but you really cannot take a couple of American examples from tv and make a selectively abstract universal claim.

When was the last time you could watch an American tv show without seeing an autopsy?

Does anyone truly believe they would hear any of this kind of stuff on British or Irish television?

The Pheasant

clairefontaine wrote: »

As for women not being so good at math, don't worry when the Chinese start applying for the civil service jobs, the civil service will very quickly have to drop any concessions they have made.

What because Chinese people or just Asians in general are always good at maths? Yeah and maybe all the black people in the country will win medals for Ireland in sprinting at the next olympics? Can't believe you're trying to cite a stereotypical characteristic of a race of people in order to back up your point

clairefontaine

The Pheasant wrote: »

What because Chinese people or just Asians in general are always good at maths? Yeah and maybe all the black people in the country will win medals for Ireland in sprinting at the next olympics? Can't believe you're trying to cite a stereotypical characteristic of a race of people in order to back up your point

Ok I'll delete that part. I was joking in response the ridiculousness of the original assertion.

Daveysil15

clairefontaine wrote: »

Does anyone truly believe they would hear any of this kind of stuff on British or Irish television?

Absolutely, there is definitely misandry in the British media. It may not be as extreme as America, but its certainly there. Andy Gray was sacked from Sky Sports for making a sexist remark about a female official. He said women don't understand the offside rule.

The difference in his case was that he didn't realise he was on air when he said it. Yet a woman openly joking about a man having his penis chopped off ended in no repercussions except for a half arsed apology.

clairefontaine

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Absolutely, there is definitely misandry in the British media. It may not be as extreme as America, but its certainly there. Andy Gray was sacked from Sky Sports for making a sexist remark about a female official. He said women don't understand the offside rule.

The difference in his case was that he didn't realise he was on air when he said it. Yet a woman openly joking about a man having his penis chopped off ended in no repercussions except for a half arsed apology.

I guess both medias have their protected species list.

I do wonder if she would have gotten fired if the man she was joking about was not white.

shoos

The Corinthian wrote: »

You've actually, in those two lines, demonstrated why such sexism actually exits.

Southpark actually did a satire on this topic a few years ago, on the back the infamous Debra Lafave case. As was popularly seen with the Lafave case, the attitude of an attractive female adult teacher having sex with an under-age male student was that somehow he was 'lucky'.

This despite the reason for why sex with minors is illegal; because they are too young to give informed consent to an act that can lead to serious repercussions. Less said about how the media or the courts treat the same thing when the genders are reversed, the better.

Now I'm not blaming you for coming out with this same attitude here, if anything it goes to show the extent to which this prejudice is ingrained in our society - that even the victim of such an act can consider himself (almost) 'lucky' to be (almost) abused.

I just came across this article and it reminded me of this post.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/nfl-cheerleader-charged-offering-sex-pre-teen-article-1.1295895

42 year old woman sexually assaults 12 year old boy. Maybe would have been considered a horrible crime, except for the fact she used to be a hot NFL cheerleader. Apparently that makes it ok.

I've looked at comments under articles from a few different websites, and here's what some people think:

"Where was she when I was 12?"

"Read my mind! Even at 12 I would've been smart enough to keepmy mouth shut. Geeeze, you would think she tried to make him eat brussell sprouts!"

"this kid must be a homo .."

"This is not a big deal,there are much more serious matters to deal with in this world,I had sex with an older woman when I was 12,it was great,..this kid is a loser."

"Some kids have all the luck."

"Wut i take from this is the kid is gay, i know when i was 12 i would have helped her pull off my pants."

and so on...

The Corinthian

shoos wrote: »

I just came across this article and it reminded me of this post.

I think you may have linked to the wrong article.

shoos

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you may have linked to the wrong article.

Whoops, so I did.

Fixed it there!

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Pawned Rig wrote:

Secondly and this is anecdotal from family members who work in CS. If there is say 10 jobs advertised at a particular grade it can be the case where they will only hire women where there is seen to be a lack of women in the relevant grade. So if there are 50 applicants with 10 of them women then they may put all women through for balance.

Presuming such quotas exist, you've only given, at best, an example of where there is a shortage of women. To demonstrate that such a policy is sexist, you'd also have to show that they are not applied in favour of men where there is a shortage of men. Without that, you can speculate that the policy is sexist, but you've not actually demonstrated it.

I've heard Ministers talk in media interviews about all-female shortlists.

Can anyone mention hearing of any equivalent for men in the civil service? If not, then the point seems valid.

iptba

On the issue of possible differences in abilities between the sexes, here are A1s results from L. Cert 2012 (Higher Level) http://examinations.ie/index.php?l=en&mc=st&sc=r12:

English: Girls: 820 Boys: 538 (Girls get 52.4% more A1s)

Irish: Girls: 841 Boys: 318 (Girls get 164.5% more A1s)

French: Girls: 593: Boys: 313 (Girls get 89.5% more A1s)

Mathematics: Girls: 83: Boys: 267 (Boys get 221.7% more A1s)

These are the extremes - the average difference between them isn't this big.

But currently, either due to nature and/or nurture, there are differences.

So if the Civil service doesn't count mathematical ability, when choosing the top candidates (it is only choosing the top 10% according to the poster) it may be due to discrimination.

The Corinthian

I'm not saying that these accusations are false, only that they're not proven. And I'm pointing this out because:

1. They may be untrue.
2. They may be true, but the argument that demonstrating that they are is so flaky that you'd be torn apart in a balanced debate.

And I'm sure you'll agree that we don't want to fall into either of those scenarios.

iptba wrote: »

I've heard Ministers talk in media interviews about all-female shortlists.

Can anyone mention hearing of any equivalent for men in the civil service? If not, then the point seems valid.

If not, the point may be valid; or we may simply not have anyone here who's come across it - it's just not reasonable proof.

Not only are we relying on anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that female only shortlists exist, but now we're relying on lack of anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that male only shortlists don't. Very dodgy ground, TBH.

iptba wrote: »

So if the Civil service doesn't count mathematical ability, when choosing the top candidates (it is only choosing the top 10% according to the poster) it may be due to discrimination.

Yes - they may be due to discrimination, not they are due to discrimination. Very important distinction.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I've heard Ministers talk in media interviews about all-female shortlists.

Can anyone mention hearing of any equivalent for men in the civil service? If not, then the point seems valid.

And I'm sure you'll agree that we don't want to fall into either of those scenarios.

If not, the point may be valid; or we may simply not have anyone here who's come across it - it's just not reasonable proof.

Not only are we relying on anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that female only shortlists exist, but now we're relying on lack of anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that male only shortlists don't. Very dodgy ground, TBH.

Perhaps not reasonable proof, but I'm still interested in hearing has anyone heard of gender quotas and all-male or all-female shortlists being used in the Irish civil service, and in what context. There may be opportunities in the future to ask others.

I was actually shocked when I heard ministers talking about what might be called positive discrimination measures for women (or negative discrimination measures against men) (and the interviewers not particularly challenging them). This was a good few years ago - I listen to Irish radio a lot less now.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Perhaps not reasonable proof, but I'm still interested in hearing has anyone heard of gender quotas and all-male or all-female shortlists being used in the Irish civil service, and in what context. There may be opportunities in the future to ask others.

The way I view it is that both of these incidences are hypotheses that may merit further investigation to find proof that:

1. Discrimination exists.
2. Discrimination is intentional.

Bare in mind that just because discrimination exists, it does not mean that it's intentional - or can be proven as such. For example, the Cohabitation Act does de facto discriminate against men, but only because the legal system is already weighted against men in cases of separations. In itself it cannot be said to be designed to do so (even though I suspect some of it's authors were more than aware that it would).

So before you can say either of these incidences are discriminatory, de facto and/or de jure, you'd need to definitively discover if shortlists for women exist, that they don't for men, contact the relevant minister to seek an explanation why maths is not taken into account in the civil service exams and also get figures on both men and women who apply for the civil service and their success rate on the exams.

Personally, I suspect the shortlist one may turn out to be so, while the exam criteria one will likely turn out to be unrelated; but I stress, that's just my feeling on it.

I was actually shocked when I heard ministers talking about what might be called positive discrimination measures for women (or negative discrimination measures against men) (and the interviewers not particularly challenging them). This was a good few years ago - I listen to Irish radio a lot less now.

That's because there's no real opposition to this agenda in Ireland. Way too busy posting on the Interweb instead.

Kintarō Hattori

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH8c6vJUvpk

Just saw this on the TV here in Ireland- I'm confident it'd be pulled if the genders were reversed.

The advertising standards authority can and do remove ads with complaints - why don't you complain about that one?
http://www.asai.ie/

RainyDay

bluewolf wrote: »

The advertising standards authority can and do remove ads with complaints - why don't you complain about that one?
http://www.asai.ie/

ASAI have no statutory power. They are just a talking shop. Try bai.ie.

leggo

I do retail security for the day job, with one of our clients that I work with mostly being a women's clothes shop.

Sometimes this requires me to cover the fitting rooms when it's busy, which basically means standing in the waiting area (where husbands, boyfriends etc would also be) and giving out tags to match how many items people are bringing in. It's here that I encounter some severe reverse sexism almost every day. Now it's water off a duck's back at this stage, I just find the attitudes that people secretly have interesting.

First off there's those who get indignant and have a problem with a man working there. I doubt those same people have similar views on women who work on men-only fitting rooms. But, because I'm a man, it's automatically assumed by some that I MUST be a peeping Tom.

That's where it gets funny. You see, some women hate the idea of being peeped at, but also hate the idea that they're not worth being peeped at. I have stock responses to deal with certain situations at this stage. For example,

"Are you allowed work here?"
"Yep, I'm not allowed inside the changing rooms while people are getting changed, but this is where husbands and so on stand."
"You're not going to look at me are you?" (For people thinking that nobody would have the balls to flat out ask this...you'd be wrong)
"Nope wouldn't dream of it."
"WHAT'S THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN?!?"

It's literally a can't-win situation. On the sole basis that I'm a man, I'm now automatically a pervert, and I should want to perv on these women, but at the same time shouldn't actually do it.

Look, I'm happy that the society my little sister (and any future daughters I may have) grows up in are more sexually aware and know to suss out situations like this, but this extension of 'Stay safe' (i.e. 'Until proven otherwise, assume all men are creeps') awareness is borderline slander.

Zulu

No

bluewolf wrote: »

The advertising standards authority can and do remove ads with complaints - why don't you complain about that one?
http://www.asai.ie/

"Can but don't" would be more accurate. They have proven themselves blind to 50% of gender discrimination.

Zulu

No

On the sexism I've experienced, it's the refusal to entertain the topic that bothers me the most. Discussing sexism faced my men or mens rights, inevitably, at some stage, will have certain people attempt to shut down the conversation/topic. Be it thread derailment, or petty "women have it worse" type belittlement.

Kintarō Hattori

RainyDay wrote: »

ASAI have no statutory power. They are just a talking shop. Try bai.ie.

I'll certainly give it a shot- the thing is though I have UPC and don't know what station it was being broadcast on. I'm guessing I'd need to know this?

Galwayguy35

leggo wrote: »

I do retail security for the day job, with one of our clients that I work with mostly being a women's clothes shop.

Sometimes this requires me to cover the fitting rooms when it's busy, which basically means standing in the waiting area (where husbands, boyfriends etc would also be) and giving out tags to match how many items people are bringing in. It's here that I encounter some severe reverse sexism almost every day. Now it's water off a duck's back at this stage, I just find the attitudes that people secretly have interesting.

First off there's those who get indignant and have a problem with a man working there. I doubt those same people have similar views on women who work on men-only fitting rooms. But, because I'm a man, it's automatically assumed by some that I MUST be a peeping Tom.

That's where it gets funny. You see, some women hate the idea of being peeped at, but also hate the idea that they're not worth being peeped at. I have stock responses to deal with certain situations at this stage. For example,

"Are you allowed work here?"
"Yep, I'm not allowed inside the changing rooms while people are getting changed, but this is where husbands and so on stand."
"You're not going to look at me are you?" (For people thinking that nobody would have the balls to flat out ask this...you'd be wrong)
"Nope wouldn't dream of it."
"WHAT'S THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN?!?"

It's literally a can't-win situation. On the sole basis that I'm a man, I'm now automatically a pervert, and I should want to perv on these women, but at the same time shouldn't actually do it.

Look, I'm happy that the society my little sister (and any future daughters I may have) grows up in are more sexually aware and know to suss out situations like this, but this extension of 'Stay safe' (i.e. 'Until proven otherwise, assume all men are creeps') awareness is borderline slander.

Christ that's unreal to have to put up with that kind of stuff being said to you.

And you are right, if the situation was reversed and those things were said to a woman there would be blue murder.

Pawwed Rig

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I'll certainly give it a shot- the thing is though I have UPC and don't know what station it was being broadcast on. I'm guessing I'd need to know this?

That ad is in a Northern European language (maybe Swedish??) I doubt it would be covered by the Irish body.

the_syco

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That ad is in a Northern European language (maybe Swedish??) I doubt it would be covered by the Irish body.

This has been shown on the Irish TV, but probably on Sky.

RainyDay

the_syco wrote: »

This has been shown on the Irish TV, but probably on Sky.

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I'll certainly give it a shot- the thing is though I have UPC and don't know what station it was being broadcast on. I'm guessing I'd need to know this?

Yes, you'd want to know that it was on an Irish channel before going to BAI

Daveysil15

Zulu wrote: »

On the sexism I've experienced, it's the refusal to entertain the topic that bothers me the most. Discussing sexism faced my men or mens rights, inevitably, at some stage, will have certain people attempt to shut down the conversation/topic. Be it thread derailment, or petty "women have it worse" type belittlement.

This is absolutely true. While women are usually commended for highlighting sexism against them, men are often accused of been whingebags for tryng to discuss it when they're on the receiving end of it. You're not allowed to complain about it basically. You have to grow a pair and stop your whinging.

Standman

No

When I did event security we were told if we ever come across a lost child we must get a female member of staff immediately and under no circumstances be alone with the child.