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

DEFTLEFTHAND

Maguined wrote: »

That is generally countered by saying the police/fire fighters/army are all institutionally sexist against women which is why there are proportionately few women as first responders.

You cannot suggest that men might be brave for doing these jobs far more often the only answer has to be sexism holding women back.

It's a biological reality that men are more suited to these roles. Men in general are bigger, stronger, faster.

Nature doesn't seem to register with some of the loony third wave type feminist. They live in a dangerous state of denial where they believe that the sexes are 100% the same in every way.

It's just not true.

Not quite sure where to put this but if the quotes published are the worst of it then it's a bit on the scary side.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36935362

Wibbs

maybe

Scary indeed. He pretty much said feck all. More than that he tried to be painfully right on by equating men with "dinosaur thinking". Yep, but clearly wasn't reflecting the approved Gospel of the Holy Hysteric and he got excommunicated for it.

This is another example of the feminist witchhunt nonsense that was fired at professor Hunt and the Pinup Shirt guy. It's dangerous nonsense. I suspect because advertising is more aimed at women they're looking to the bottom line and responding in this kneejerk fashion. Scary stuff indeed though.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Doesn't seem like he said anything particularly bad and now his whole career and future, not just his job are on the chopping block. Scarily Orwellian stuff going on.

mzungu

Jesus that's pretty shocking. Although a scary sign of where things are headed. The last tweet seems to have a preoccupation with 'white men'.

Lemming

What I find alarming is the inability to look at what he said beyond simply passing (or failing) a simple box-ticking exercise in "right-on" things to say. What he tried to say was that trying to apply metrics of gender to senior managerial/board positions is an antiquated way of looking at changing attitudes to employment; a lot more people now give more weight to notions of job satisfaction than in the past where it was perhaps simply de rigeur to be seen to "climb a ladder" as a status of your self worth (in itself a very adversarial view).

And they're castigating him for it. So who is the dinosaur exactly?

Calahonda52

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Doesn't seem like he said anything particularly bad and now his whole career and future, not just his job are on the chopping block. Scarily Orwellian stuff going on.

However don't ever forgot that they just might want to get rid of him for some other reason and this is the perfect opportunity.

The J Stands for Jay

mzungu wrote: »

Jesus that's pretty shocking. Although a scary sign of where things are headed. The last tweet seems to have a preoccupation with 'white men'.

Why shouldn't white men talk to white men about white men?

Pawwed Rig

McGaggs wrote: »

Why shouldn't white men talk to white men about white men?

Check your priviledge/the patriarchy duh

DEFTLEFTHAND

mzungu wrote: »

Jesus that's pretty shocking. Although a scary sign of where things are headed. The last tweet seems to have a preoccupation with 'white men'.

It's open season on straight white men, you can literally say anything you want about them. They don't have a place on the victim pyramid.

Everything these pampered muppets have in the modern world is because of the white man.

deaddonkey15

mzungu wrote: »

Jesus that's pretty shocking. Although a scary sign of where things are headed. The last tweet seems to have a preoccupation with 'white men'.

Came across this on Facebook (it was liked by a person I'm considering unfriending). Somewhat sexist, but also relevant to this "white privilege" nonsense that seems to have gained a lot of momentum recently. As always, the comments make for grim reading.

https://www.facebook.com/beingliberal.org/photos/a.180479986274.135777.177486166274/10153860798891275/?type=3&theater

um7y1h83ge06nx

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Came across this on Facebook (it was liked by a person I'm considering unfriending). Somewhat sexist, but also relevant to this "white privilege" nonsense that seems to have gained a lot of momentum recently. As always, the comments make for grim reading.

https://www.facebook.com/beingliberal.org/photos/a.180479986274.135777.177486166274/10153860798891275/?type=3&theater

In fairness there is a good bit of push-back in the comments but it is a little messy.

In reality I can't understand why people think Hilary is such a great thing for women. Absolutely right for her to capitalise and corner any section of voters she can but this is the woman that was humiliated so publicly by her husband's messing around with Lewinsky and stayed with him!

This quote from her is particularly brilliant -

EDIT: Quote source

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.

Facepalm time.

Pepe LeFrits

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

In reality I can't understand why people think Hilary is such a great thing for women.

The same reason some people support quotas I guess – role models.

The most exciting thing for me about a Clinton presidency is that it’d mean we wouldn’t have a Trump one.

eviltwin

Hilary at least is a supporter of women's reproductive rights. Trump is pro life. That alone would make her a more attractive candidate to a lot of women.

um7y1h83ge06nx

True, I definitely agree she is the lesser of two evils but neither of them are exactly lighting up the world.

mzungu

eviltwin wrote: »

Hilary at least is a supporter of women's reproductive rights. Trump is pro life. That alone would make her a more attractive candidate to a lot of women.

Today he is. Tomorrow...well who knows. His views seem to change drastically from one day to the next. If ever there was a man who stands everywhere and nowhere all at the same time, it's Trump!

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

True, I definitely agree she is the lesser of two evils but neither of them are exactly lighting up the world.

I'd agree. Hilary has her faults by christ Trump is a out and out sociopath. Republicans must be kicking themselves, with anybody else but Trump and they could be in the driving seat November.

Pawwed Rig

eviltwin wrote: »

Hilary at least is a supporter of women's reproductive rights. Trump is pro life. That alone would make her a more attractive candidate to a lot of women.

I dunno about that. I would say it is an even enough split between pro life and choice amongst women.
Hillary is not perhaps the ideal candidate as she is deeply unpopular in some circles. I have a real fear that Trump could do it although I would hope our American cousins are not so retarded to vote him in.

mrkiscool2

I hate that facebook post. Both candidates genuinely do have some terrible policies and are just awful choices, against anyone mildly competent (Bernie vs Trump or Cruz vs Hilton), they get destroyed. I'd actually lean more towards Trump though, as he is the biggest flip-flopper and could be more easily manipulated by people who have more political savvy than him (like his Vice-President who actually was a really smart choice) which would actually lead to more bi-partianship. Hillary is a proven liar and manipulator so yeah, rant over. But either way, America is fcuked.

LostinBlanch

maybe

A plague on both their houses.

Woden

I had complained to London's field Lido about their women's only hour at 8pm-9pm on Tuesday's a year or two ago without success.

However now it's an 'outrage' the other way around. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/03/outrage-as-olympic-swimming-pool-bans-women-from-men-only-sessio/

Not that I particularly agree with the men's only sessions either

um7y1h83ge06nx

This is becoming a bigger things these days in areas like gyms and pool. Sometime it appears to be driven by religious beliefs, but I reckon in many cases it is driven by people having hang-ups about their bodies (don't want the opposite sex seeing them) or afraid that the opposite sex will be staring at them.

Women's only gyms too like to push cardio and fitness fads with little or no focus on weights which is stupid IMO.

The double standard above is strange alright if they have been having women's only session for quite a while.

That particular gym advertises women's only classes - link

Solution - get rid of both. :rolleyes:

Woden

Yeah in this case it is not the same pool I guess i'm just pointing out the difference in reporting or lack of when its men who are effected. Saying that there is also the telepgraph/daily mail pushing their agendas

um7y1h83ge06nx

Woden wrote: »

Yeah in this case it is not the same pool I guess i'm just pointing out the difference in reporting or lack of when its men who are effected. Saying that there is also the telepgraph/daily mail pushing their agendas

I do wonder as you say if there were any complaints about their women only classes.

The modern world of precious snowflakes and safe spaces can be crazy sometimes, with stories that are hard to believe.

This article about a safe space got wrong seems almost like a p*ss take

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/

Student accused of violating university 'safe space' by raising her hand

Ms Wilson, 22, was subject to a “safe space complaint” over her supposedly “inappropriate hand gestures” during a student council meeting.

she was later threatened with another complaint after shaking her head while someone was speaking.

I don't know whether :rolleyes: , , :eek: or is most appropriate, world gone mad

Woden

Aye. I did make an email complaint to the London Fields Lido after it happened. Don't have the response anymore but it said it was being reviewed but there has been no change.

Outlaw Pete

Clothes store can't even have a little boy's t-shirt with Einstein on it now...

https://twitter.com/LetToysBeToys/status/759704003642961921


Warning: the following article may cause serious eye rolling.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/02/gap-advert-sexist-t-shirt-harms-us-all-boys-girls-distorted-reality

um7y1h83ge06nx

Could you not just twist that and say it's sexist against boys - boys are socially inept nerds while girls are portrayed as confident socially well adjusted young people. ;-)

Both sides of the coin are ridiculous though course, offended for the sake of being offended.

Pawwed Rig

I would have a problem with that ad tbh. No problem with the Einstein one but the girls one is pretty bad.

Outlaw Pete

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would have a problem with that ad tbh. No problem with the Einstein one but the girls one is pretty bad.

I know it's stereotypical and all that, but is that 'really bad' now?

There are lots of t-shirts in the Gap's toddler boy section that are blue and have motorbikes etc. I just don't see the big deal tbh.

In any case, something that doesn't seem to have been picked up on is that they deliberately hacked off half the advert, as beside the toddler boy's Little Scholar outfit there is actually a toddler girl's outfit called The Adventurer. The Social Butterfly outfit for girls is actually offered up as an alternative to a boy's Comedian outfit, not the Einstein outfit at all.



Now why would anyone go to that much trouble if they were not looking to indulge in a little victimhood. Then you have the Guardian weighing in, as I posted above, and not only sanctimoniously suggesting that the advert was saying boys were destined for higher education and girls to be social butterflies, but also unbelievably saying that things like this are connected in some way to the men murdering women.

I need a drink.

mzungu

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I know it's stereotypical and all that, but is that 'really bad' now?

There are lots of t-shirts in the Gap's toddler boy section that are blue and have motorbikes etc. I just don't see the big deal tbh.

In any case, something that doesn't seem to have been picked up on is that they deliberately hacked off half the advert, as beside the toddler boy's Little Scholar outfit there is actually a toddler girl's outfit called The Adventurer. The Social Butterfly outfit for girls is actually offered up as an alternative to a boy's Comedian outfit, not the Einstein outfit at all.



Now why would anyone go to that much trouble if they were not looking to indulge in a little victimhood. Then you have the Guardian weighing in, as I posted above, and not only sanctimoniously suggesting that the advert was saying boys were destined for higher education and girls to be social butterflies, but also unbelievably saying that things like this are connected in some way to the men murdering women.

I need a drink.

Up until that point I thought the article was not too bad, then I took a double take when I came across that alright. I think throwing in the domestic violence 'link' was proper facepalm stuff and really the article could have done without it. Personally, I think when one has to resort to that kind of sensationalism to get their point across, then the argument can't have been all that watertight to begin with.

There very well could be an argument for gender neutral clothing, or for removing Einstein/Fireman Sam/Whomever as labels...but sticking in that 'link' was a mistake.

For some, concern about the impact of gender stereotyping on children is middle class over-reaction to the point of caricature. You know the argument: when two women are killed every week in England and Wales by a current or former partner, who cares if little Sylvie is wearing a fair-trade gender-neutral top covered with yellow cars? (Yellow, in clothes-speak, is a leading gender-neutral colour.)

The point is that all of it matters, and all of it is connected. Whether gender stereotyping takes place in an email, on a T-shirt, in a toy shop or at a school, the effects are serious for all of us. And they are far-reaching, with an impact on everything from the gender pay gap and women being under-represented in Stem sectors to widespread sexual bullying in schools.

I guess my question would be, is there any independent research that links domestic violence/bullying to gender roles? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that!!!

tritium

mzungu wrote: »

Up until that point I thought the article was not too bad, then I took a double take when I came across that alright. I think throwing in the domestic violence 'link' was proper facepalm stuff and really the article could have done without it. Personally, I think when one has to resort to that kind of sensationalism to get their point across, then the argument can't have been all that watertight to begin with.

There very well could be an argument for gender neutral clothing, or for removing Einstein/Fireman Sam/Whomever as labels...but sticking in that 'link' was a mistake.



I guess my question would be, is there any independent research that links domestic violence/bullying to gender roles? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that!!!

Youd also have to wonder how that would explain away the uncomfortable truth of the high levels of domestic violence perpetrated by women

mzungu

tritium wrote: »

Youd also have to wonder how that would explain away the uncomfortable truth of the high levels of domestic violence perpetrated by women

With big societal issues like these, the real solutions are always going to be quite complex and multi-faceted. Somehow, I don't think gender neutral clothing is the solution to that particular problem.

silverharp

a lot of this is just about flogging an image to parents, I'd imagine the effect on kids is not even measurable. there was some small Irish outfit trying to maket clothes to girls that would help them get into STEM. its just nonsense marketing aimed at parents

The Black Oil

There was a report out earlier this week on Irish women and drinking - Irish Independent. Let's see what Una or Louise have to say about it. Oh wait...

Wibbs

maybe

mzungu wrote: »

I guess my question would be, is there any independent research that links domestic violence/bullying to gender roles? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that!!!

Given that just under half of domestic violence is perpetrated by women and the majority where it's one sided domestic violence are women. That's before we get to non violent abuse, or the same sex couples that are women have double the rate of abuse of same sex couples that are men. Yeah you'd kinda wonder which gender the more violent in relationships.

The Guardian piece, left wing, gay, non White woman writer. Before a word was read could one find a better stereotype from central casting for a Guardian writer?

"My son is almost three, and I can think of many times in his young life when he has encountered the kind of sexism in the Gap ad. Sometimes I’m the one dishing it out, such as when I find myself saying he is “such a boy” because he loves trains, hates arts and crafts, and can’t sit still for a second. All of which is true, as is the fact that he has two mothers and no masculine role model. None of it makes him “such a boy”: we have society to thank for that."

Of course one can ask what is wrong with being "such a boy"? Or maybe, big shock here, there may be an inbuilt reason why even with "two mothers and no masculine role model" he is "such a boy". In the wild if human toys are left out male monkeys will play with different toys compared to female monkeys(they prefer wheels for a start). That would be the patriarchy of course…

You could not make these muppets up. Well someone did in that comic Viz back in the 90's. Milly Tant. Back then it was a joke, a joke based on a tiny number of university students and fear of PC rabble rousing articles in the Daily Mail. Fast forward to today and a large chunk of what was fringe nuttiness is front and centre and can even become government policy.

Those eejits who take offence, think on this; so what if Einstein is on the boys shirt? As it stands, now, today, there is a fast growing education gap and it's not the little girls who are suffering. Though apparently that doesn't matter.

py2006

Wibbs wrote: »

Those eejits who take offence, think on this; so what if Einstein is on the boys shirt? As it stands, now, today, there is a fast growing education gap and it's not the little girls who are suffering. Though apparently that doesn't matter.

That is a very good point. The silence from the feminists is deafening.

Carlos Orange

No

py2006 wrote: »

That is a very good point. The silence from the feminists is deafening.

Not really. It fits in with the definition of feminism

"the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

py2006

A very good article here on the issue of female aggressors in domestic violence. The reality is an eye opener yet (all) most domestic violence campaigns portray only women as victims.

In relation to the feminist reaction:

For the most part, feminists’ reactions to reports of female violence toward men have ranged from dismissal to outright hostility. Straus chronicles a troubling history of attempts to suppress research on the subject, including intimidation of heretical scholars of both sexes and tendentious interpretation of the data to portray women’s violence as defensive. In the early 1990s, when laws mandating arrest in domestic violence resulted in a spike of dual arrests and arrests of women, battered women’s advocates complained that the laws were “backfiring on victims,” claiming that women were being punished for lashing back at their abusers. Several years ago in Maryland, the director and several staffers of a local domestic violence crisis center walked out of a meeting in protest of the showing of a news segment about male victims of family violence. Women who have written about female violence, such as Patricia Pearson, author of the 1997 book When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence, have often been accused of colluding with an anti-female backlash.

But this woman-as-victim bias is at odds with the feminist emphasis on equality of the sexes. If we want our culture to recognize women’s capacity for leadership and competition, it is hypocritical to deny or downplay women’s capacity for aggression and even evil. We cannot argue that biology should not keep women from being soldiers while treating women as fragile and harmless in domestic battles. Traditional stereotypes both of female weakness and female innocence have led to double standards that often cause women’s violence—especially against men—to be trivialized, excused, or even (like Solange’s assault on Jay Z) treated as humorous. Today, simplistic feminist assumptions about male power and female oppression effectively perpetuate those stereotypes. It is time to see women as fully human—which includes the dark side of humanity.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

"My son is almost three, and I can think of many times in his young life when he has encountered the kind of sexism in the Gap ad. Sometimes I’m the one dishing it out, such as when I find myself saying he is “such a boy” because he loves trains, hates arts and crafts, and can’t sit still for a second. All of which is true, as is the fact that he has two mothers and no masculine role model. None of it makes him “such a boy”: we have society to thank for that."

Of course one can ask what is wrong with being "such a boy"? Or maybe, big shock here, there may be an inbuilt reason why even with "two mothers and no masculine role model" he is "such a boy". In the wild if human toys are left out male monkeys will play with different toys compared to female monkeys(they prefer wheels for a start). That would be the patriarchy of course…

Interesting. The child was displaying what most would call a natural tendency towards masculine traits. Now, on the one hand, when we hear of a child that identifies as another gender, it is lauded in certain circles. Nothing wrong with that IMO. If folks are happy then more power to them. However, any attempt at suppressing this is seen as 'cruelty' and an attempt at denying them their identity by the same crowd. Here is the problem, in these same circles, when the child displays typical traits of their gender they were born with (funnily enough it is usually boys...pattern emerging much?), it does not seem to to cause the same hysteria when people are open about deliberately trying to suppress that. It is basically the same thing IMO, except one is not given the RightOn battle shield.

Is the idea behind this that basically all masculine traits are inherently bad*? If so, is this not forcing an worldview (a deeply flawed one at that) upon a child, and is it really all that healthy?

Something is a bit 'off' here, and it is not that some kid hates arts and prefers trains.

Like I said above, there might very well be a case to be made for gender neutral clothing. If a good case can be made backed up by sound evidence, well and good. However, the article lets itself down by adding in spurious links to domestic violence. I do think the author could have made a valid point minus the hyperbole, but given that no studies appear to back up these assertions it is safe to assume there aren't any.

TL;DR trying to suppress harmless traits that come naturally in children is a dodgy path to thread down, especially when it is not backed up any robust evidence.

* A rhetorical question!:)

py2006

Back in 2003 in the US:

The coordinator of the Domestic Violence Rape Crisis Center (DVRCC) and four staff members walked out of a meeting Monday before a video presentation about women who abuse men. (The video was a program called 20/20 which airs in ABC)

The protest was staged as they knew in advance of the video and prepared a statement for walking out:

"(The DVRCC) does not use or support the use of melodramatic materials ... no matter what victim group is emphasized. The use of skewered, sensationalist materials, often based on misleading statistics, myths, and non-scientific research, is non-productive to our mission and provides a disservice to all victims of violence,"

In her response to the criticism of the walkout/protest she dismissed their gender bias:

"Proponents for (male victims) want to see equal services, but that just can't happen when 85 to 90 percent (of the victims), and maybe even higher, are women," Dunne said

It says it all really. The reality is that approx. 40% of victims are male. I would say it is actually far higher if men had the same services available to them and it was socially acceptable for men to speak and come forward without idiots telling them it can't happen.

deaddonkey15

py2006 wrote: »

Back in 2003 in the US:

The coordinator of the Domestic Violence Rape Crisis Center (DVRCC) and four staff members walked out of a meeting Monday before a video presentation about women who abuse men. (The video was a program called 20/20 which airs in ABC)

The protest was staged as they knew in advance of the video and prepared a statement for walking out:



In her response to the criticism of the walkout/protest she dismissed their gender bias:


It says it all really. The reality is that approx. 40% of victims are male. I would say it is actually far higher if men had the same services available to them and it was socially acceptable for men to speak and come forward without idiots telling them it can't happen.

But that's all the patriarchy's fault apparently.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I mistakenly thought Examiner writer Louise O'Neill wrote non-fiction books but were surprised to see they're actually fiction.

Her first one seems particularly strange - Only Ever Yours - link

In a world in which baby girls are no longer born naturally, women are bred in schools, trained in the arts of pleasing men until they are ready for the outside world. At graduation, the most highly rated girls become “companions”, permitted to live with their husbands and breed sons until they are no longer useful.

For the girls left behind, the future – as a concubine or a teacher – is grim.

Best friends Freida and Isabel are sure they’ll be chosen as companions – they are among the most highly rated girls in their year.

But as the intensity of final year takes hold, Isabel does the unthinkable and starts to put on weight. ..
And then, into this sealed female environment, the boys arrive, eager to choose a bride.

Freida must fight for her future – even if it means betraying the only friend, the only love, she has ever known. . .

Even in her fiction writing she has serious issues around patriarchy, body issues, self-esteem etc.

Her new novel Asking For It also paints men as the villains.

She's a fascinating character, would love to come across someone that knew her growing up to see what she was like and if she had some major events in her life. She's seems to have a serious issue with men throughout all her writing.

kunst nugget

maybe

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

I mistakenly thought Examiner writer Louise O'Neill wrote non-fiction books but were surprised to see they're actually fiction.

Her first one seems particularly strange - Only Ever Yours - link

Even in her fiction writing she has serious issues around patriarchy, body issues, self-esteem etc.

Her new novel Asking For It also paints men as the villains.

She's a fascinating character, would love to come across someone that knew her growing up to see what she was like and if she had some major events in her life. She's seems to have a serious issue with men throughout all her writing.

The brother read Asking For It. He'd be of the opinion that her articles are absolute piffle but he said the book was very good. The female protagonist is a deeply flawed and unsympathetic character in the book from what he said and what I've read elsewhere. Based on his recommendation I'd be interested in reading it even though I think her articles are terrible.

That first book sounds like a more contrived version of the Handmaid's Tale.

Outlaw Pete

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

She's a fascinating character, would love to come across someone that knew her growing up to see what she was like and if she had some major events in her life. She's seems to have a serious issue with men throughout all her writing.

There was a thread about her in AH recently which I had intended to post in again but it went wildly off-topic and so I didn't bother. Tbh, I didn't really know all that much about her (other than that she writes awful articles portraying women as perpetual victims) and so I decided to read and watch as many interviews with her as I could find and after doing so, what I came away with was (and this is just my opinion of course) that Louise is someone who carries a lot of resentment towards men and she does so because throughout her teens and early 20's she suffered quite badly with anorexia and bulimia. She without question blames men for it as she has pretty much said that the patriarchy is responsible for the pressure girls are under to adhere to a certain ideal.

It's cool that she seems to be "80% better" now and I certainly wouldn't begrudge her the success she has had with her first novel (Only Ever Yours.. to own forever) I'm sure it was cathartic, but it absolutely also is total and utter trash. Not saying that based on how entertaining it was or wasn't, nor even a reflection on how well written it was or wasn't, as I have no idea given that I never read it. I have however read lots and lots of reviews of the book and solely on the exaggerated premise at the heart of the book (which is without question a reflection on how she sees men / "the patriarchy") it is undoubtedly trash. Trash I might add that is currently being turned in a film. I can only hope they make a good film by accident.

Which is not beyond the bounds of possibility as that is exactly what happened with American Psycho. A film which as basically made to satirize men's shallowness and the immature ways in which they compete with one another. But, feminists didn't go to see it and men loved it (women too of course, but not for the reasons they were supposed to like it) and the rest as they say is history. Asking For It (a book I do begrudge her success with) is also being made for the screen, the smaller one at least and is due to air some time next year and so she isn't going away any time soon.

For me the flashing light though, that she is more wilfully ignorant than actually so, is her interactions on Facebook and certain remarks she makes in her interviews. She has spoken out against objectification (on one occasion she cited this advert in Dublin as an example of it) but yet objectifies women and men herself, or at least jokes about doing so. Says her heart and mind are feminist but her 'vagina is not' (she has the ability to be honest sometimes at least - can't be all bad so). The purchasing power of the gay community and the exploitation of it is referred to as going after the pink pound, has anyone coined a term yet for those pandering to third wave feminists / generation snowflake? Well, whenever they do, Louise O'Neill surely has it down pat. But you know what, I don't believe her. I don't think anyone as bright as she is (and she is in fairness to her) could believe that there's no such thing as sexism towards men, which is something she said (often) around the time of UCDgate):




Also, in many of her interviews regarding Asking For It she has spoken about how women are shamed and abused online and how it's all indicative of just how misogynistic society is today. Surely then the following FB post (which she herself 'liked') is therefore indicative of misandry:



Something tells me Louise would disagree with me on that but sure it's her inherent privilege as a white woman to.. no wait, I got confused.

FortySeven

Nobody objectified women more than women. Feminists are the first to say they don't dress for men.

silverharp

FortySeven wrote: »

Nobody objectified women more than women. Feminists are the first to say they don't dress for men.

in total most of the effort women put in their look and the clothes they wear is aimed at other women. their hive mind should get together and call a truce to their own makey uppy arms race

mzungu

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

For me the flashing light though, that she is more wilfully ignorant than actually so, is her interactions on Facebook and certain remarks she makes in her interviews. She has spoken out against objectification (on one occasion she cited this advert in Dublin as an example of it) but yet objectifies women and men herself, or at least jokes about doing so. Says her heart and mind are feminist but her 'vagina is not' (she has the ability to be honest sometimes at least - can't be all bad so). The purchasing power of the gay community and the exploitation of it is referred to as going after the pink pound, has anyone coined a term yet for those pandering to third wave feminists / generation snowflake? Well, whenever they do, Louise O'Neill surely has it down pat. But you know what, I don't believe her. I don't think anyone as bright as she is (and she is in fairness to her) could believe that there's no such thing as sexism towards men, which is something she said (often) around the time of UCDgate):

There may very well be an element of branding there. Keeping the trademark alive and well if you will. I have no doubt she is intelligent, that was never up for debate, rather the ideas that were/are under scrutiny. However, if she believes there is no sexism towards men, then, in that light she would not be sexist (using her logic). This allows a get-out clause, for if you do not believe that it is possible to be sexist towards men, then you can make what might be deemed sexist comments and engage in objectification of the male form, and still (in ones own mind) claim to not be sexist.

This may explain the cognitive dissonance involved when decrying sexism on one hand, and then engaging in it on the other.

Also, in many of her interviews regarding Asking For It she has spoken about how women are shamed and abused online and how it's all indicative of just how misogynistic society is today. Surely then the following FB post (which she herself 'liked') is therefore indicative of misandry:

Recent studies suggest it is 50/50 regarding online misogynistic tweets: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36380247

Also, take into account the figures for women who engage in domestic violence in heterosexual unions and the high amount in homosexual unions, a much different , and more complex picture begins to emerge.

Like I said in the other thread, on some points regarding body issues I would agree with her. There does need to be something done about mass media and the ideals they are selling*. Although, for me, you can't decry body shaming one minute and then engage in the same activity the next. So, I am puzzled as to her true intentions. Hence my explanation above, I do think there is an element of dehumanisation going on that allows this cognitive dissonance to take place. I would be concerned about the message this gives to impressionable young adults. I have the exact same qualms about those on the so called 'alt-right', who use pretty much the same tactics, and I find both abhorrent. In my view, neither side appreciates the privilege they have, of having a platform to sound off on their worldview to a large audience.

In returning to the point in hand, using the patriarchy as a catch-all for every single world ill is deeply flawed and takes no heed of the complexities of human relationships. This is a real problem because snappy buzzwords and discredited theories dreamed up in 70s ivory tower academia, are not a solution. The irony is, by blaming the patriarchy, then it removes agency from those who she claims to be trying to help. I think encouraging people to see themselves as victims does just as much damage to self esteem and personal development, as the the very things she speaks out against.

*Most studies suggest a way to counteract this is by literacy training in media tactics in schools as part of a curriculum. The solutions are there, it just seems they are not trendy enough yet!:D

steddyeddy

Sexist article in the Guardian regarding parenting. Has to be seen to be believed. Article titled "The mother of all worries: why do women fret about their children more than men do?".

I am the mother of two young people, one still a teenager, who work hard and
play hard. Living in London, this means they often end up in a club in Brixton,
at a party in Peckham or a rave in Hackney. “Pre-drinks” at someone’s house or
the pub happens at around the time I’m brushing my teeth, and the serious
partying doesn’t get going until midnight and they are unlikely to be home until
the small hours.


Generally, they are good at keeping in touch and I usually head for bed in
receipt of a brief text message, certainly from the younger one: “probs back
around 3, love you”. These days, 3am counts as an early night.


So far, so good. Except it isn’t. Not for me. It never is. However many times
I tell myself that they are sensible and need their independence, that London
is, basically, a safe city and that lone rapists or marauding cab drivers are
rare, I find it hard to fall asleep. Until I hear the click – or, more
likely, the bang – of that front door, I am gripped by a rumbling worry,
drifting in and out of sleep, tortured in the hours before dawn by details
of the worst-case scenario.


Meanwhile, my husband slumbers deeply beside me and often shares a jolly
morning breakfast with weary returning revellers while I spend too many Sundays
in a furious sleep-deprived fug.


Welcome to the uncomfortable world that is maternal anxiety. I am not talking
about the kind of stress about which clinicians write learned papers, that can
lead to insecure attachment or severe childhood disturbance, or even of those
moments of crisis that infect all parents with rightful concern: night-long
vigils over a whimpering toddler with a soaring temperature or dry-mouthed
tension before an all- important exam result.


No, I mean that run-of-the-mill, day in, day out, low-level worry about
everything from the risks of everyday living to an entire life trajectory that
can all too easily feel as if it is taking over your life.


One friend was asked by a doctor if she had already lost a child, so great
was her concern about her son’s peanut allergy. Another told me, “My daughter,
now in her early 20s, got hold of her medical notes from the GP going back to
when she was a baby. She kept asking, ‘What was this for, what was this for?’ I
couldn’t remember. I just knew it was me being the over-anxious
parent.”

Recently, a young mother said to me, with passion, “I get so angry with
myself. Always worrying! My husband says, just stop it – but I can’t.”

In my experience, these furrow-browed conversations take place almost
entirely between women. It can feel like a universal, if covert, language that
stretches across age, class and national barriers, a highly addictive,
semi-satisfying trade-off for all those troubled days and disturbed nights.


It also feels rather old fashioned. Here we are in the early 21st century
questioning everything sex- and gender-related, including the physical body
itself, yet women still appear to carry so much of the petty emotional burden of
family life and then beat themselves up about it. One single-parent friend
describes the division of emotional labour in her now defunct marriage
as follows: “I fell into that classic trap of worrying about the
children while I was at work and worrying about work when I was with the
children, while he managed to detach from worries over the children to such an
extent that his colleagues didn’t even know he was a father!”

Another mother, who also worries endlessly about adolescents out late at
night, says, “Most Friday and Saturday nights, I have this hysterical and
unresolved conversation with myself about whether I am neurotic or my husband is
selfish, or it’s a bit of both.He is probably right to say everything will be
fine and sometimes I find his lack of concern calming, a balance to my
worst-case scenario fantasies. But, secretly, I still believe he can switch off
so completely because I am always on fret duty.”


So can we change any of this? It is not so easy, according to psychotherapist
and writer Graham Music. who, while “not wanting to go down the path of
biological determinism”, says, “There is some evidence from a research
perspective of a link between the kind of hormones that mothers in particular
release when they are breastfeeding – oxytocin – and obsessional symptoms.”


Motherhood as a form of OCD? Hardly reassuring. According to Music, “It’s
true that, in our culture, females hold more worry / anxiety and males can
protect themselves, be protected, by being strong and ‘problem solving’.
Testosterone inures against worry and can act as an antidepressant in its
way.”


There are worried fathers, of course, but if most dads are dosing
themselves up with their own natural tranquillisers, surely they are not doing
much problem-solving? Shouldn’t we reverse the proposition and accept that it
might be largely anxious mothers who are tackling the thorny, practical issues
of family life?


After all, children and teens need caregivers who are alert to the difference
between flu and meningitis, think ahead sufficiently to make sure they have
everything they need for a journey or an exam, or scan the playground for
those potentially toxic friends who can bring so much misery during the school
years?


Of course, we all know mothers who tip into hysterical martyrdom for the
“good of the children”. According to Music, “A lot of women complain but they do
not want their position of prime worriers challenged by sensitive men either.
And many quite like strong men, so I don’t think it’s straightforward.”


But even if we could all agree that a more equal sharing of worry was a
good thing, it’s surprisingly hard to change ingrained habits, as we know from
long years of debate about how to share housework more evenly.


In the meantime, then, let’s stick up for anxious parents and respect their
concerns for what they are: an emotionally charged way of paying necessary
attention. Frequently exhausting and depleting? Yes. Surplus to requirements on
most occasions? Almost certainly. But let’s also recognise that worry is
probably an inevitable and integral part of the process by which we produce
independent-enough, happy-enough children.


I remember how touched I was to hear my mother, then well into her 70s, say
that every night before she went to sleep she turned her mind to each of her
middle-aged children “like a lighthouse beam searching out different parts
of the dark sea”. During this nightly ritual, she was making her own assessment
of how life was going for each of us.


Late in the day, I realised that she had, of course, spent a lot of her life
fretting about us all over the years. Yet she did not let it cloud her, or
our, apparent enjoyment of family life. What I remember from my childhood is not
dark emotional clouds and panicked phone calls, but conversation, laughter,
shared trips and adventures. That now seems the most momentous achievement of
all.

Lizzie Sharp is a
pseudonym

ancapailldorcha

maybe

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sexist article in the Guardian regarding parenting. Has to be seen to be believed. Article titled "The mother of all worries: why do women fret about their children more than men do?".

It's a wonder that such a bastion of cutting-edge journalism has just posted record losses.

py2006

Makes some good points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLP9bFee4sI

smash

Jenna Marbles has been stirring it up again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwFg3l29RgM