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

ancapailldorcha

maybe

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/13/feminists-do-not-hate-men

desertcircus

iptba wrote: »

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.

Aaand once again I'm reminded why I so rarely bother with the Gentlemen's Club.

mrkiscool2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/13/feminists-do-not-hate-men

I don't think I've ever hated someone I've never met until I heard of Jessica Valenti. She is literally the worst thing to happen to the Guardian.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

I really should add an opinion rather than just dropping links in. Anyway, I could moan about her until the cows pull a boomerang but I'll just say that she perfectly epitomises why I'm happy to do the Guardian's crosswords, read their sometimes decent pieces and never contribute a red cent.

iptba

desertcircus wrote: »

iptba wrote:

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.

Aaand once again I'm reminded why I so rarely bother with the Gentlemen's Club.

Doesn't seem likely we're missing much with such posts.

mrkiscool2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I really should add an opinion rather than just dropping links in. Anyway, I could moan about her until the cows pull a boomerang but I'll just say that she perfectly epitomises why I'm happy to do the Guardian's crosswords, read their sometimes decent pieces and never contribute a red cent.

To be fair the Guardian has just become the paper for SJW's. They have some good articles on politics but when it comes to do with anything to do with culture and identity it's like reading from a SJW's manifesto to be honest.

py2006

Just to change the subject...

A colleague took it upon herself to put up posters around work from the 2in2u.ie website.

The poster basically lists the ways in which boyfriends abuse girls. It does not say some boyfriends but basically gives girls a list of what constitutes abuse.

These campaigns infuriate me as all they do is send out the message that boys bad and girls pathetic victims. They basically isolate and confuse men and I firmly believe contribute to the serious mental health and suicide problem amongst men.

Why confusion? Some men see these campaigns and think there is something wrong with them because they are men.

Some women read them and have a view on men and or ignore or don't see that men are victims too.

I believe it is wrong and unhealthy to continually
Portray men in this light and not enough is said or done about it.

Abuse in all its forms is a society issue and NOT a male problem.

tritium

Would a short chat with your HR department about the offensive aspects of this campaign and how it may make male employees feel be out of the question?

py2006

Well it's a small organisation. We have no HR, I'm removing the poster on Mon.

I've no problem with the content of the poster once it's gender neutral

Pawwed Rig

It normally just needs someone like yourself to stand up and say No. Most people are afraid to make waves.

py2006

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It normally just needs someone like yourself to stand up and say No. Most people are afraid to make waves.

BTW when I queried it with colleague her response was, "you can get one for men, I'm only interested in women".

iptba

Vojera wrote: »

A website I read (for women-who-like-women, but seems to be leaning increasingly towards Feminism-with-a-capital-F) has released a new t-shirt:


It makes me vastly uncomfortable, and from reading the comments I'm certainly not the only one. I can't imagine a "Misogynist" t-shirt would be viewed as "ironic" or "funny" or "provocative" in the way that this t-shirt is being defended.

E-bay

Not All Men Are Bastards Some Are Dead Car Sign, Bumper Sticker
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Not-All-Men-Are-Bastards-Some-Are-Dead-Car-Sign-Bumper-Sticker-Baby-On-Board-/151340136040

iptba

I always thought it would be interesting if research was done on how men are portrayed in the media. This reports on such research. I'm afraid it's from Australia and from 2006.

http://phys.org/news83863660.html

Women have battled for years against stereotypical and sexist portrayals in the mass media. However research shows that men are increasingly the target for negative press.

The long-term effects of negative portrayals should particularly concern anyone who is raising boys, says the author of the study, Dr Jim Macnamara.

Dr Macnamara, who works as a media researcher, conducted the research for his PhD at the University of Western Sydney. He has recently published his findings in a book, 'Media and Male Identity: The Making and Remaking of Men.'

As part of the study, he undertook an extensive content analysis of mass media portrayals of men and male identity focusing on news, features, current affairs, talk shows and lifestyle media. Over six months, the study involved detailed analysis of over 2,000 media articles and program segments.

Dr Macnamara found that, by volume, 69 per cent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavourable, compared with just 12 per cent favourable and 19 per cent neutral or balanced.

Some of the recurring themes in media content portrayed men as violent, sexually abusive, unable to be trusted with children, 'deadbeat dads', commitment phobic and in need of 're-construction'.

"Men were predominantly reported or portrayed in mass media as villains, aggressors, perverts and philanderers, with more than 75 per cent of all mass media representations of men and male identity showing men in on one of these four ways," Dr Macnamara says.

Further, in somewhat of a back-handed compliment, when positive portrayals of men as sensitive, emotional or caring were presented, these were described as men's and boys' 'feminine side.'

"The idealised image of the metrosexual - largely a creation of the media - only further adds to the confusion being felt particularly by boys trying to find their identity in the modern world," Dr Macnamara says.

Negative stereotyping of men and male identity can contribute to significant problems in society in three key ways, Dr Macnamara warns.

"Highly negative views of men and male identity provide little by way of positive role models for boys to find out what it means to be a man and gives boys little basis for self-esteem.

"In the current environment where there is an identified lack of positive male role models in the physical world through absentee fathers in many families, and a shortage of male teachers, the lack of positive role models in the media and presence of overwhelmingly negative images should be of concern."

This makes the research not only of relevance to men, but also for women, he says.

"Women who are the mothers of sons have equal cause for concern with the trend towards demonising, marginalising and trivialising of men and male identity."

"Ultimately such portrayals could lead to negative social and even financial costs for society in areas such as male health, rising suicide rates and family disintegration," he warns.

'Media and Male Identity: The Making and Re-making of Men' is published by Palgrave Macmillan.

Source: University of Western Sydney

Pawwed Rig

iptba wrote: »

E-bay

I reported it to ebay based on their Offensive material policy.
I am probably a lone voice in the wilderness though. If more people did it they might sit up and take notice

DoYouEvenLift

Mod snip.

mrkiscool2

Wow. About 8 minutes in someone from the telegraph says that we need gender equality as men don't have emotional intelligence. I'm thinking "Yup, can agree there". She then links that to why men are violent!

ancapailldorcha

maybe

“Kill all men”, “F**k men”, “Die cis scum” says Lib Dem executive committe member

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

“Kill all men”, “F**k men”, “Die cis scum” says Lib Dem executive committe member

As a registered voter in Yorkshire I have emailed the libdem party to register both my disgust and refusal to vote for any of their candidates - encouraging friends, family, and colleagues the length fo the Uk to do likewise until she is addressed. In a country where hate-speech is illegal, to have someone who has consistently, and repeatedly made such comments, on no less than four committees (three executive) within a major UK political party is not acceptable.

steddyeddy

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Wow. About 8 minutes in someone from the telegraph says that we need gender equality as men don't have emotional intelligence. I'm thinking "Yup, can agree there". She then links that to why men are violent!

A writer for the Telegraph said that men grow up with no emotional intelligence. I'm glad she was called out as sexist.

steddyeddy

Not only that but what she said isn't a far cry for putting the blame on men for being overrepresented in suicide statistics.

Carlos Orange

No

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not only that but what she said isn't a far cry for putting the blame on men for being overrepresented in suicide statistics.

Suicide is a great example of all kinds of privilege.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/rates01.html

DoYouEvenLift

Second guy is a mindless idiot with absolutely no capacity for logical thought. He seems to have been smiling when watching the girl hitting the guy but as soon as the guy stands up for himself he turns into a typical white knight. Wonder how he would've reacted if it was a 6'4 250lbs guy doing the experiment instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNrWuZV3jjw

Maguined

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-bus-female-drivers-2021163-Apr2015/

Dublin Bus are launching a recruitment drive for women. When interviewing a woman who has worked for Dublin Bus for 15 years she says she has encountered no sexism in the job and from her personal experience she believes it is women choosing not to apply for the job which is why there are so few women bus drivers.

So with no evidence of actual sexism or discrimination in the industry, equality of opportunity is irrelevant as they want equality of result so I can't help but feel cynical that in the recruitment drive men applying will actually be discriminated against on the basis of their gender just so Dublin Bus can get their numbers up.

hots

That's the norm now in a lot of organisations. Bragging about gender ratios in senior management levels and how they are working to 'correct' this. Best person for the job is all that should matter.

Playboy

No

Lemming wrote: »

As a registered voter in Yorkshire I have emailed the libdem party to register both my disgust and refusal to vote for any of their candidates - encouraging friends, family, and colleagues the length fo the Uk to do likewise until she is addressed. In a country where hate-speech is illegal, to have someone who has consistently, and repeatedly made such comments, on no less than four committees (three executive) within a major UK political party is not acceptable.

I'm a UK voter too, let me know if you get a response. I'm going to fire something off today as well.

Lemming

Playboy wrote: »

I'm a UK voter too, let me know if you get a response. I'm going to fire something off today as well.

No response yet but I'll keep you all posted, although I am expecting to either be ignored, or DOX'd by some SJW type who just happens to be tasked with monitoring the info@libdems inbox ....

I also fully intend to run towards any LibDem canvassers or politicians I see on the streets or around the houses to ask them awkward questions about it too :pac:

ancapailldorcha

maybe

I've sent a tweet. They called at my flat when I was on holiday so I've missed my chance there.

FluffyAngel

4.28 in the line is women cant be a rapist ,the more surprising aspect is that nobody challenged this ...

Pawwed Rig

FluffyAngel wrote: »

4.28 in the line is women cant be a rapist ,the more surprising aspect is that nobody challenged this ...

They can't be under Irish law.

mrkiscool2

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They can't be under Irish law.

Well they can, but they would have to use a strap-on or some other toy to be a rapist. It's disgusting that violating consent like that is seen as two different things. If a man penetrates a woman it's rape but if a woman forces herself onto a man it's only sexual assault.

Edit: Just watched the video there. The guy in the red tie does kind of call her out on it by saying that the Sexual Offences act was drawn up by radical feminists (and even if it wasn't it's still almost the ideal legislation for rad fems)

runawaybishop

No

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Well they can, but they would have to use a strap-on or some other toy to be a rapist. It's disgusting that violating consent like that is seen as two different things. If a man penetrates a woman it's rape but if a woman forces herself onto a man it's only sexual assault.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0010/sec0002.html#sec2

Meaning of “rape”.


2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

Women cannot commit rape, only sexual assault.

dogcat

Hopefully that law will be changed soon, but knowing Enda Kenny it won't be.

mrkiscool2

runawaybishop wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0010/sec0002.html#sec2

Meaning of “rape”.


2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

Women cannot commit rape, only sexual assault.

Apologies, I thought it was pretty similar to the FBI definition of rape (which the American law also has) which is that it is only rape if there is penetration involved. Still though, awful that women can't be prosecuted the same for doing the exact same thing.

Panthro

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

They can't be under Irish law.

That really is something that needs addressing.

source

No

There are two rape offences in Ireland. Section 2 Criminal Law (rape) Act 1981 and Section 4 Criminal Law (rape) (amendment) Act 1990.

section 2 rape occurs when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who does not consent, and at the time he either knows that she does not consent or is reckless as to whether or not she consents.

Under the first only a man can commit rape. Under the second a woman can commit rape but only on another woman.

section 4 rape occurs when a sexual assault, which includes penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or penetration (however slight) of the vagina by an object held or manipulated by another person.

So while technically incorrect to say that a woman cannot commit rape in Ireland, it is correct to say there is no provision in Irish law to criminalise rape by a woman with a male victim.

Such offences would be prosecuted under the lesser charge of sexual assault.

tritium

I thought this link was interesting given how often we're asked to accept that patriarchy/ misogyny/ some grand conspiracy work to hold back women in their careers

http://www.independent.ie/life/if-youre-a-woman-with-a-female-boss-dont-expect-to-climb-the-career-ladder-says-research-31131567.html


Based on the research in this article, it looks like maybe there's a bit more going on there. Women in positions of power are actually more likely to reject females for promotion.

(Of course possible reasons for this won't be debated when there's talk of pay gaps etc., the default assumption will be that there's some sort of old boys network at work here and women are being oppressed by it)

ThunbergsAreGo

I thought the point of the article was that it WAS the mens fault e.g one promoted job done

DoYouEvenLift

tritium wrote: »

I thought this link was interesting given how often we're asked to accept that patriarchy/ misogyny/ some grand conspiracy work to hold back women in their careers

http://www.independent.ie/life/if-youre-a-woman-with-a-female-boss-dont-expect-to-climb-the-career-ladder-says-research-31131567.html


Based on the research in this article, it looks like maybe there's a bit more going on there. Women in positions of power are actually more likely to reject females for promotion.

(Of course possible reasons for this won't be debated when there's talk of pay gaps etc.)

Dare we say, systematic oppression of women...by women?

tritium

naughtb4 wrote: »

I thought the point of the article was that it WAS the mens fault e.g one promoted job done

Actually fair point, I'd picked up more heavily on the first part of the article rather than the second where they dismiss the "queen bee" syndrome. A strange one and I'm going to have to root out the research paper later. Very odd that they blame the men for this one (and cite the CEO example to justify). It would seem a given that female managers wouldn't be completely disempowered in hiring and promoting within their teams...

Sleepy

I don't think the article knows what it's point is itself tbh. A typical Indo whinge.

My experiences of female managers would be very mixed. I work quite closely with a company where the female CEO regularly boasts about having reconfigured her board to be 75% female. I've worked for another who played favourites with staff (luckily for me, I think I was one of her favourites) and who I watched promote friends returning from maternity leave on a part-time basis into senior roles that others in the company (both male and female) were better candidates for and more available to put in the hours necessary for the position... Have worked for plenty of others that were perfectly capable in their jobs and didn't discriminate in promotions too.

That said, I don't think I've ever seen a woman in management discriminate against other women though I've definitely heard stories of it.

DoYouEvenLift

tritium wrote: »

Actually fair point, I'd picked up more heavily on the first part of the article rather than the second where they dismiss the "queen bee" syndrome. A strange one and I'm going to have to root out the research paper later. Very odd that they blame the men for this one (and cite the CEO example to justify). It word seem a given that female managers wouldn't be completely disempowered in hiring and promoting within their teams...

Females are also free to take the risk, time and effort required to start a business and grow it into a successful company. The tech industry is an especially good area to venture in. Plenty of women are already able to and are learning to code. So if they (women), in general, want to be CEOs as much as they seem to claim they should be ones we should be seeing a female Zuckerberg any day now.

Maguined

tritium wrote: »

Actually fair point, I'd picked up more heavily on the first part of the article rather than the second where they dismiss the "queen bee" syndrome. A strange one and I'm going to have to root out the research paper later. Very odd that they blame the men for this one (and cite the CEO example to justify). It would seem a given that female managers wouldn't be completely disempowered in hiring and promoting within their teams...

The article is terribly written as it seems to be mashing two separate points together. The first point is the number of women in the top elite positions and the second is promotions for women when their boss is a woman. Conflating the two just muddies the water.

To those that believe in positive discrimination it is a completely valid point that some companies might promote one woman to a top elite positions and then wash their hands of it as they feel the token presence is enough. However blaming men that women are not being promoted to middle management positions under a woman boss is clearly nonsense and makes no sense even if you support positive discrimination.

Its just a terribly messy article.

iptba

April 10 newspaper article:
Title: "Bad news for men - you're so over"
http://i.imgur.com/H0IX25R.jpg

Extract: "Women are not equal to men; they are superior in many ways"

Lemming

iptba wrote: »

April 10 newspaper article:
Title: "Bad news for men - you're so over"
http://i.imgur.com/H0IX25R.jpg

"Women are not equal to men; they are superior in many ways"

Summed up as; "Crazy professor writes book full of sh1t; Daily mail makes sensationalist headlines".

On a more "oh dear" note: Clinton to make gender issue key to presidential bid.

Sleepy

Honestly, that would be one of the reasons I think she's going to lose.

The democrats who can't stand her aren't going to go out and vote Republican, they'll just stay home and in a tight, two party race, that'll be enough.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Sleepy wrote: »

Honestly, that would be one of the reasons I think she's going to lose.

The democrats who can't stand her aren't going to go out and vote Republican, they'll just stay home and in a tight, two party race, that'll be enough.

I'm not too familiar with US politics. Would that be a large proportion of Democrats do you think?

Sleepy

I'm not overly into it myself, most of my education in it is from The West Wing and House of Cards if I'm honest!

I'm just going by what I'm seeing on social media, newspaper articles etc. Hillary Clinton is going to have a hard time getting out the younger voters who helped Obama to victory. While she'll get an inevitable "voting for her purely because she's a woman" vote from some younger women, I can't see how she'll appeal to younger men.

The Republicans have now had 2 terms of a Democrat in the White House so they'll be getting their vote out in serious force. The lunatic fringe will be particularly rabid to make try and make sure they're not replacing the [derogatory term for a black person] in the White House with *THAT* woman (which of course will be how they'll dress up their more sexist reasons for disliking her.

Her best hope, insofar as I can telll, would appear to be the fact she's running against a Bush...

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Why do Republicans hate her so much?

Hilary or a Bush. What a choice...

Pawwed Rig

Because she is female, liberal, the wife of Bill.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Because she is female, liberal, the wife of Bill.

Is that it?