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

silverharp

why do they make it so easy

Carlos Orange

No

silverharp wrote: »

why do they make it so easy

These days a foundation stone belief of how equality works is that you can not just treat people equally.

smash

The nude photos that appeared of Orlando Bloom seem to be causing upset online as some women have rushed to comment on his appendage after they previously went full retard about the fappening photos. I believe this happened with the Justin Beiber papped nude photos too.

Outlaw Pete

The female equivalent of '36 Summer Olympic Bulges that deserve Gold!' would cause serious outrage, that's for damn sure. Can you imagine the response to GQ tweeting: '36 Summer Olympic Clitorises that deserve Gold!' or '36 Summer Olympic Camel Toes that deserve Gold!' at the moment. Sure the usual suspects would be screaming from the rooftops before the ink was dry and high browing us about how it was yet another example of how misogynistic society was and how it just further contributes to a culture where the female body is seen as public property, free to be objectified, where women's value is correlated with their physical appearance.

Sadly, when you point out the clear hypocrisy, citing examples like the above, and the Chippendales etc etc, you will either be met with a 'Ah sure it's just a laugh' or 'Well for years men behaved this way and now you are all getting a taste of how we were treated'. The latter of course nonsensically implying that butter used not to melt in women's mouths at one time and only is now as they were left with no choice but to start objectifying men given that they hadn't been successful in their endeavors at stopping men objectifying them. 24 carat baloney of course.

One of their journos has responded to the criticisms of the 'Olympic bulges' article with what basically amounts to what I just spoke about. The defense is pretty much 'Well it happens women and you like it, so shut up' which would of course be an apt response if the person that was actually complaining was someone who celebrated similar articles about women, of which this "journo" has no idea. It also seems to go over her head that Cosmo is a publication that has spoken out against the objectification of women. Anyway, here is the laughable (but yet not at all surprising) retort from her:

Why It's Okay To Objectify Men's Bulges

Objectifying women, reducing them to nothing but body parts, has been de rigeur in our celeb culture for as long as I can remember — but every time in recent memory that a famous man has received the same treatment, his team immediately demands that we Respect The Craft of This Very Serious Man.

Take the Great Jon Hamm Commando Episode of 2012 – 2013. Homeboy was walking around New York City without underwear on, there was a line-drawing of his junk in those sweatpants, and the Internet reacted accordingly. I made a slideshow. You're welcome.

So what happened? AMC became greatly concerned that Jon Hamm's visible scrote was detracting from his Very Serious Acting on Mad Men and told him to put at least a thin layer of cloth between Little Hamm and the rest of society. And Hamm himself was pretty disgruntled by all the press: "They're called 'privates' for a reason. I'm wearing pants, for ****'s sake. Lay off. I mean, it's not like I'm a ****ing lead miner. There are harder jobs in the world. But when people feel the freedom to create Tumblr accounts about my cock, I feel like that wasn't part of the deal."

Boo hoo, Jon Hamm. Here's an idea: Google Image search "actress cameltoe." Think about all the times you've seen upskirt paparazzi shots of Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton or Britney Spears or Anne Hathaway or any number of other actresses. It doesn't stop at crotches, either: Try "Sarah Jessica Parker hands." Anyone ever seen a post about Harrison Ford's "old-looking" hands? Or a roundup of Christian Bale's swollen feet and footwear faux pas? No.

Even in the 1950s, Marilyn Monroe's measurements meant more to studios and audiences than her talent. Americans been slicing, dicing and scrutinizing actresses' bodies since before the first talkie. There are entire fetish databases that show photos of just famous womens' feet. And these are serious actresses and athletes I'm talking about — Lolo Jones, Dame Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep. The FIRST thing you get when you type Meryl Streep into Google is "meryl streep feet."

To malign male objectification as condescending and unfair while embracing the objectification of women is a problem. Athletes and performers' bodies are their tools, so I'm not calling for everyone to suddenly stop judging them on their looks or physique. But it's only fair that both sexes are objectified equally. Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to go Google "Michael Fassbender penis."

Double standards how are ya.

smash

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The female equivalent of '36 Summer Olympic Bulges that deserve Gold!' would cause serious outrage, that's for damn sure. Can you imagine the response to GQ tweeting: '36 Summer Olympic Clitorises that deserve Gold!' or '36 Summer Olympic Camel Toes that deserve Gold!' at the moment.

It might make me watch the Olympics :pac:

um7y1h83ge06nx

As many say I have no problem with women objectifying men that way as long as they understand the pendulum swings both ways. Double standards all the way.

Are some women sexist to themselves these days? These double standards imply that women needs extra protections where men are just fine, they can take it. Women the weaker sex or is this just the ways of modern feminism?

Outlaw Pete

Pita Taufatofua, a Tongan Taekwondo Olympian, appeared on the Today Show and was totally respected by the female hosts of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0mytsYtnm8

mzungu

Hmmm, where should this feature on the oppression barometer? :pac::pac::pac:

py2006

I think they would have had to be working for Sky Sports to be done for sexism...

py2006

Interestingly, if the internet rumours are true, the latest all female Ghostbusters movie didn't pay all the cast equally. (rightly so as far as I am concerned). Melissa McCarthy is rumoured to have secured/negotiated $14m with Feig around $10 and the others slightly less. (not confirmed)

You would think with all the fuss over Hollywood being sexist and not paying female actresses actors the same as male actors and the whole 'girl power' thing behind this movie they would have made a statement and paid all actors the same. But no...

As we all know the entertainment industry is a business and its all about making money. If your name has been attached to movies in the past that make a lot of money you will be paid more, assuming you have a good agent who can negotiate that for you?

Hence we have twats who can't act but have a good six-pack earning more than DeNiro etc

mzungu

py2006 wrote: »

Interestingly, if the internet rumours are true, the latest all female Ghostbusters movie didn't pay all the cast equally. (rightly so as far as I am concerned). Melissa McCarthy is rumoured to have secured/negotiated $14m with Feig around $10 and the others slightly less. (not confirmed)

You would think with all the fuss over Hollywood being sexist and not paying female actresses actors the same as male actors and the whole 'girl power' thing behind this movie they would have made a statement and paid all actors the same. But no...

As we all know the entertainment industry is a business and its all about making money. If your name has been attached to movies in the past that make a lot of money you will be paid more, assuming you have a good agent who can negotiate that for you?

Hence we have twats who can't act but have a good six-pack earning more than DeNiro etc

Given some of the utter howlers De Niro has put his name to of late, the twats with a six-pack most likely deserve it!

ancapailldorcha

maybe

The issue with Ghostbusters is that not all of the 4 women are equal in terms of profile. I'd never heard of Leslie Jones before but McCarthy has starred in leading roles in a few big films. It follows that she would earn more. It'll be interesting to see if this plays out that way.

py2006

mzungu wrote: »

Given some of the utter howlers De Niro has put his name to of late, the twats with a six-pack most likely deserve it!

Well yes, but I don't believe in his glory days he got paid as high as the blockbuster actors. Talent doesn't necessarily bring in the bucks.

py2006

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The issue with Ghostbusters is that not all of the 4 women are equal in terms of profile.

Yes, that is the whole argument against equal pay for female actors in America. I think Jennifer Lawrence did a bit of a rant about unequal pay even though she earned more than every male and female actor (beside Downey Jr) last year with something like $50m.

py2006

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Pita Taufatofua, a Tongan Taekwondo Olympian, appeared on the Today Show and was totally respected by the female hosts of course.

In fairness, I'd say he agreed to this beforehand.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

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.

I don't quite get this. Ever since people started suggesting that these things are so complex, very little gets changed. Couldn't we break it down to some personal responsibility and better focus on responsibility by parents?

If you look at the actual differences in fashion, women/girls can wear anything that a man/boy can wear. All colours are available to then. All hairstyles are available to them. Whereas for boys/men its different. If a man wears his hair long, eyebrows are raised. If a man wears pink theres still a certain attitude that he's being more feminine.

I recently went to a job interview where the board of interviewers were two women and one man. They said that my qualifications were great but I would need to cut my hair since parents wouldn't like it. (My hair is shoulder length and I'm a teacher). One of the female interviewers had very tight short hair and the other had long hair to her waist. The male interview had short hair.

I can certainly see how fashion styles must be considered... but a simple answer is to make it all available. After a few years of people being uncomfortable with men in dresses, they'd soon get over it. After all its not really that long ago that women in trousers was taboo in polite society.

But then, women seem to have a pass for doing anything they wish to their appearance, but men don't. If we wish to tackle these problems effectively, then we need to see true equality between the genders and looking for complex answers will just confuse the issue.. because it'll get sidelined.

Just look at mens rights in divorce proceedings.. in spite of campaigns to equalise rights, there is still the common perception that children should remain with the mother regardless to contrary evidence. there's plenty of other examples of how public perception views women to be more suitable in something than men, whereas to sugges the same for men is sexist. IF We want actual changes to occur, then we must seek sweeping and strong changes that require both genders to accept. and then wait a decade for the ripples to dissipiate.

silverharp

py2006 wrote: »

Interestingly, if the internet rumours are true, the latest all female Ghostbusters movie didn't pay all the cast equally. (rightly so as far as I am concerned). Melissa McCarthy is rumoured to have secured/negotiated $14m with Feig around $10 and the others slightly less. (not confirmed)

is that an argument feminists make? they do in terms of men versus women where they seem to "want" to see women earn the same as men in movies because reasons but I wouldn't have thought they cared if actresses were paid different amounts in the same movie?

ampleforth

cantdecide wrote: »

http://corkindependent.com/20130207/news/girls-weekend-away-S58921.html

Had a right rant about this in AH recently. Reverse the genders and you can be sure it wouldn't have been published...

I am wondering how much happens in Cork if such a unimportant story even gets considered for distribution. I am offended by journalism. Could it be more boring?

ampleforth

silverharp wrote: »

is that an argument feminists make? they do in terms of men versus women where they seem to "want" to see women earn the same as men in movies because reasons but I wouldn't have thought they cared if actresses were paid different amounts in the same movie?

Pay them the same as the original movie actors were payed 30 years ago, would that make it fair? This is a funny thread indeed...

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

I can certainly see how fashion styles must be considered... but a simple answer is to make it all available. After a few years of people being uncomfortable with men in dresses, they'd soon get over it. After all its not really that long ago that women in trousers was taboo in polite society.

But then, women seem to have a pass for doing anything they wish to their appearance, but men don't. If we wish to tackle these problems effectively, then we need to see true equality between the genders and looking for complex answers will just confuse the issue.. because it'll get sidelined.

there are the tram drivers in Denmark or Holland that started wearing skirts because they weren't allowed wear shorts and it was too hot in the cab. I cant see people in general running with this logic though. There are images for men and women that signal success or failure or who knows, but unless you are an entertainment idol the average guy deciding to plough their own furrow by wearing a dress is going to be ridiculed.

ampleforth

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't quite get this. Ever since people started suggesting that these things are so complex, very little gets changed. Couldn't we break it down to some personal responsibility and better focus on responsibility by parents?

Do you really want to work in such a place?

silverharp

ampleforth wrote: »

Pay them the same as the original movie actors were payed 30 years ago, would that make it fair? This is a funny thread indeed...

I don't understand your point?

Outlaw Pete

py2006 wrote: »

In fairness, I'd say he agreed to this beforehand.

Maybe, but I highly doubt they'd be asking a female Olympian guest would it be okay if the male Today Show hosts oiled them down.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't quite get this. Ever since people started suggesting that these things are so complex, very little gets changed. Couldn't we break it down to some personal responsibility and better focus on responsibility by parents?

When I mentioned complex, I was referring to domestic violence and how that article linked it to gender roles in children. The journalist stated that scrapping these roles will solve these problems. Tritium correctly pointed out that domestic violence statistics show a good percentage of women do it to, alongside violence in lesbian relationships being the highest out of all. Therefore, painting male traits as the problem that needed to be solved by trying to enforce gender neutrality was flawed. The solution to trying to combat domestic violence is complex, and cannot be solved by gender neutral clothing. That was my point.

whiterob81

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.

I read Asking For It a couple of months ago and didn't think that was the case. The 2 most sympathetic characters in the book were male (her brother and an old childhood friend). There's very few sympathetic or likable female characters in the book. The main character in particular is deeply unlikable but I think that's one of the book's strengths, it forces the reader to examine what their own reactions in a case like this would be. The ending of the book is also quite powerful. It's not an easy read at all. I actually think it's one of those books that should nearly be on the junior cert syllabus as it has a lot of relevance for people growing up at present.

And I say this as someone who's not a fan of her examiner column.

ampleforth

ampleforth wrote: »

Do you really want to work in such a place?

I already have in Australia, They have certain laws which prevent employers from objecting to many (not all, admittedly) fashion styles in the workplace.

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm a very conservative person especially when it comes to my sense of dress... but I do find it annoying that there is often one rule for women and another for men. My long hair being a simple example but a common enough problem from what I've heard from male friends in a variety of industries..

deaddonkey15

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/when-someone-describes-me-as-ladylike-i-am-always-deeply-offended-415689.html

Louise O'Neill strikes again. Using a seemingly fabricated situation to redefine the term "ladylike" and describe it as a tool of oppression for the patriarchal society we live in which she desires to burn to the ground. It's ironic that her definition of what it means to be "ladylike" also pretty much describes what it is to be a gentleman. A fact she conveniently ignores as it doesn't suit this week's agenda.

py2006

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/when-someone-describes-me-as-ladylike-i-am-always-deeply-offended-415689.html

Louise O'Neill strikes again. Using a seemingly fabricated situation to redefine the term "ladylike" and describe it as a tool of oppression for the patriarchal society we live in which she desires to burn to the ground. It's ironic that her definition of what it means to be "ladylike" also pretty much describes what it is to be a gentleman. A fact she conveniently ignores as it doesn't suit this week's agenda.

Have you noticed her writing style consists of one line paragraphs some of which are only 3 words long.

Wibbs

maybe

She's a) a clickbait troll or b) insane in the membrane, or c) stuck in a closed loop of late adolescent philosophy. a) being far and away the most likely, with pinches of c) for flavour.

"Deeply offended". Jaysis. Great little middle class protected life she must lead. IIRC previously she felt a deep visceral scream while on a writers retreat in the Whest. No doubt while on a yoga mat. "Healing" crystals optional.

I found her statement ironic;

"And while I think chivalry is also an outdated term that seems to imply that women are helpless and in need of protection and puts pressure on the men in their lives to provide that protection" .

That in a nutshell is a huge chunk of what modern feminism actually wants, just switch out "society/law/government" for "men", though the daddy figure is almost always in the background.

Cliona99

She needs more punctuation for a start. And some actual problems.

I must be doing something wrong, I'm always quite pleased when I'm described as ladylike. I think her definition is what's outdated here, to me a lady is a considerate, dignified and measured person. As is a gentlemen.


If she had any nous she be trying to reclaim the term from a world where women are more likely to be casually called bitches, ironically often by other women, as a term of what I suppose is endearment.

Outlaw Pete

She makes me laugh. Last week she had an article about gender roles in relationships and said three times at the start of the article that she doesn't speak for all women:

I would never attempt to speak for all women, because there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ woman.

Contrary to some of the lovely emails and online comments I receive (I think you’re a talentless, attention seeking cliché too, random man on the internet), I have never claimed to speak for all women.

I would never attempt to speak for all women, because despite what some would have us believe, there is no such thing as a ‘typical’ woman.

But yet then writes:

So We play games. We wait for him to text first. We screenshot those messages, sending them to our friends, analysing them, what do you think he means by that, there was no x and usually he puts two, do you think he cares about me?

We do a deep dive on Facebook or Instagram, shocked when we suddenly realise we’re looking at his second cousin’s best friend’s wedding album from 2010.

We become obsessed, consumed. We expend so much energy wondering what the man is thinking about, what he’s doing, who he’s with.

We wonder how he feels about us, barely giving a cursory thought to how we feel about him.

We think and we think and we think and We believe that this drama is romantic, that it indicates the depth of our emotions, and in doing so, we lose the most important thing of all — ourselves.

I've said previously why I feel she expresses the paper thin views she does and so I won't bother doing so again but I think this article which she wrote certainly puts the rest of her articles, and books, in much needed context and, indeed, perspective. She's not an easy person to dislike, or at least she isn't for me. In fact I find her quite likable when she's not trying to score points in her battle against the ever elusive patriarchy or obnoxiously trying provoke a reaction from those that she imagines want her (and all women for that matter) to be subservient and docile. Will she change? I highly doubt it as she is literately coining it in right now and with both her books set to hit the small and large screen, there is no sign of that stopping anytime soon and so I suspect, neither will she.

I think the attention she gets and the alleged influence she has is grossly out of proportion to the reality of a poor journalist and, at best, mediocre writer. The fewer conversations there are around her and others like her in all spheres of life, the sooner the impression of relevance will dissipate.

These guys simply aren't worth talking about, especially when it's the talking about them that keeps them in the public consciousness.

Wibbs

maybe

Candie wrote: »

I think the attention she gets and the alleged influence she has is grossly out of proportion to the reality of a poor journalist and, at best, mediocre writer.

It was always thus, only to a lesser degree in newspapers and on radio/tv. These days of the interwebs and the din of numbers both private and paid for, crazy gets clicks, being measured doesn't. This stuff sells basically. Una Dulally another producer of clickbait. And it's not even close to just the "feminists". Who was that eejit who was Sinead O'Conners ex? The god botherer? He was one. That Milo Yopalopalopalopopuss muppet is another example. He's so popular for his guff that he requires a team of interns to create outrage copy for him. They're the written equivalent of shock jocks on the radio. The mob seem to get off on it.

All those internet irritants need a chat with my Granny. She'd set them straight. They'd be too embarrassed to ever air another opinion ever again. I can only assume they have no figurative Grannies of their own to take them aside and tell them to get over themselves.

I'm only 29, and even I can't find the world I grew up in. I love the internet, but it's darker side is starting to make me wonder if we weren't all better off back when we booted up Encarta and hoped it had our information instead of typing in keywords. It honestly never occurred to me until recently that there really can be too much information - if you call the bilge that makes up so much of modern journalism information.

Wibbs

maybe

Candie wrote: »

All those internet irritants need a chat with my Granny. She'd set them straight. They'd be too embarrassed to ever air another opinion ever again. I can only assume they have no figurative Grannies of their own to take them aside and tell them to get over themselves.

Apparently they don't C. I have found actual grown women like your gran throw the type for a loop. Women who have their shít together, women who lived lives and well. Lived through hard times too, not my croissant is slightly stale hard times either. They do have daddies they ring crying and bawling at how nasty the world is. When they're thirty years of age. Yet at the same time want to be treated and considered as independent adults? The hell? *mind boggled* The Irish Mammy(™) gets an awful lot of stick at times and often unfairly with it, but the Irish Daddy(™) a lesser noticed creature has a lot to answer for. I'd had a couple of exes who had them and good jesus the stories I could tell and the similar hysterics and histrionics…

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Apparently they don't C. I have found actual grown women like your gran throw the type for a loop. Women who have their shít together, women who lived lives and well. Lived through hard times too, not my croissant is slightly stale hard times either. They do have daddies they ring crying and bawling at how nasty the world is. When they're thirty years of age. Yet at the same time want to be treated and considered as independent adults? The hell? *mind boggled* The Irish Mammy(™) gets an awful lot of stick at times and often unfairly with it, but the Irish Daddy(™) a lesser noticed creature has a lot to answer for. I'd had a couple of exes who had them and good jesus the stories I could tell and the similar hysterics and histrionics…

Both my parents worked abroad for long periods, and myself and my siblings all went to boarding schools by 12. It has it's disadvantages, but one thing we all have in common is a staunch self reliance from learning to deal with all our own stuff from a young age. Praise was earned, not expected, and you learned to co-operate in a way that only people living together in great numbers can appreciate.

Back in the day of big families, the investment of time, attention and money was so diluted between children that no one was a little prince or princess. Today with one or two child families, that focus is narrowed into each child with lazer precision. No wonder they think they're the centre of the world, they have been all their lives.

A good dose of boarding school with a course of thinking about how your actions will affect the other 30 people in your house floor would sort out much of the issues of the next generation.

That said, my parents would do anything for me. They also know I'd have explored every avenue of sorting my problems myself before I'd ever burden them.

Just as a princess getting her daddy to service her car should ring bells, so too should men bringing their laundry home to mummy when they have the means to sort it themselves.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

Candie wrote: »

I'm only 29, and even I can't find the world I grew up in. I love the internet, but it's darker side is starting to make me wonder if we weren't all better off back when we booted up Encarta and hoped it had our information instead of typing in keywords. It honestly never occurred to me until recently that there really can be too much information - if you call the bilge that makes up so much of modern journalism information.

The internet is a tool like any other save for one difference. It can be used for good or ill depending on who's using it. It's been like this with anything else be it fire, gunpowder, motor vehicles, etc.... The difference is scale. It enables people to reach audiences across the world which is largely a good thing. However, it also carries huge potential for misuse and abuse. Say, for example I believed the earth is flat. Were I to mention that down the local pub, I'd be laughed out of the place and rightly so. The internet removes that critical faculty and it therefore becomes much easier to brainwash oneself or convince oneself that anything is true. There are multiple sites pushing the flat earth theory and any sort of dissent can be ignored on Facebook, Twitter, etc....

Candie wrote: »

Just as a princess getting her daddy to service her car should ring bells, so too should men bringing their laundry home to mummy when they have the means to sort it themselves.

Interesting point there... I was one of four but I was the eldest. I was pushed to work hard as my Da is a fanatical Anglican type. Very proud of his young fella heading off to Trinity he was but I was pushed to study and work hard at various things. Got me out of farm work though so can't complain too much...

But regarding the bit I highlighted, I lived with a fella in Manchester who had his Mum cook his dinner every single day. He'd go for takeaway the odd time but I never saw him cook anything. He'd leave the house with a binbag full of clothes for her to wash as well. Lovely guy and everything but, well...

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But regarding the bit I highlighted, I lived with a fella in Manchester who had his Mum cook his dinner every single day. He'd go for takeaway the odd time but I never saw him cook anything. He'd leave the house with a binbag full of clothes for her to wash as well. Lovely guy and everything but, well...

Yes, But how much of that is down to how he was raised? Most of my generation were raised by their mothers... and at that time, many were full-time mothers.. and they encourged the dependency on them. Gave them that nice warm feeling of being needed, I guess.

My own mother was a principal of a primary school.. and encouraged us to do things ourselves. But I can definitely see how they were raised depending on other people forr things.

Maguined

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, But how much of that is down to how he was raised? Most of my generation were raised by their mothers... and at that time, many were full-time mothers.. and they encourged the dependency on them. Gave them that nice warm feeling of being needed, I guess.

My own mother was a principal of a primary school.. and encouraged us to do things ourselves. But I can definitely see how they were raised depending on other people forr things.

It doesn't matter how you were raised, when you become an adult you put aside how you were raised and decide things for yourself as that is what an adult is. There can be some leeway shown in the early twenties but a grown man above the age of 25 having his washing or cooking done by his mother is not an independent adult.

Maguined

Maguined wrote: »

It doesn't matter how you were raised, when you become an adult you put aside how you were raised and decide things for yourself as that is what an adult is.

Do you understand how conditioning works? If all you have known is encouraged, then you will believe it to be "normal". Just because other people live differently doesn't mean that you should have to change.

Most peoples morals and beliefs come in part from their family, school, general education, religion (if applicable), etc. Yes, as Adults, we create our own selves (although this starts as late teens), but for many people, the values and norms that they have come from their family, and are extended through personal experience.

In my own family, my parents gave us the freedom to decide while demanding that we respect them. Thats helped me to shape my beliefs about respect, freedom, self-determination etc. However, other families have different viewpoints and goals in developing their children.

And as for what an adult is.... that comes down to the individual. I'm not going to tell you how to live your life. Just as I wouldn't want you to try tell me how to live my life. We make choices (conscious/subconscious), and those choices shape us as Adults.

There can be some leeway shown in the early twenties but a grown man above the age of 25 having his washing or cooking done by his mother is not an independent adult.

Agreed... Not an independent adult... but many people don't want to be independent, and their monthers don't want them to be self-reliant. Responsibility rests on both the person themselves and the family. But they're still adults IMO. But then I just consider being an adult as being related to age. 18 or above..? You're an adult. What kind of adult? That's up to you.

Maguined

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you understand how conditioning works? If all you have known is encouraged, then you will believe it to be "normal". Just because other people live differently doesn't mean that you should have to change.

Most peoples morals and beliefs come in part from their family, school, general education, religion (if applicable), etc. Yes, as Adults, we create our own selves (although this starts as late teens), but for many people, the values and norms that they have come from their family, and are extended through personal experience.

In my own family, my parents gave us the freedom to decide while demanding that we respect them. Thats helped me to shape my beliefs about respect, freedom, self-determination etc. However, other families have different viewpoints and goals in developing their children.

And as for what an adult is.... that comes down to the individual. I'm not going to tell you how to live your life. Just as I wouldn't want you to try tell me how to live my life. We make choices (conscious/subconscious), and those choices shape us as Adults.



Agreed... Not an independent adult... but many people don't want to be independent, and their monthers don't want them to be self-reliant. Responsibility rests on both the person themselves and the family. But they're still adults IMO. But then I just consider being an adult as being related to age. 18 or above..? You're an adult. What kind of adult? That's up to you.

Yes I understand conditioning which I why I said there is a leeway in their early twenties when you have to realise the difference between the big bad world out there and what you have learned at home. There comes a point and a time when an individual has to take responbility for their own actions and it is no longer the responsibility for how they were raised. If a teenager says something racist I feel sorry for them because chances are their family taught them to be racist. When a 30 year old man says something racist I think they are a pr*ck because they are passed the age of blaming it on how they were raised and they are old enough to take responsibility for their actions now.

If a 30 year old man is still dependent on his mother to cook and clean for him it is no longer the mothers responsibility for enabling his dependency. He is old enough to realise what is going on and he is willfully engaging in that dependency so it is his choice and responsibility for that choice.

Wibbs

maybe

Maguined wrote: »

Yes I understand conditioning which I why I said there is a leeway in their early twenties when you have to realise the difference between the big bad world out there and what you have learned at home.

Agreed, however I would feel that the "conditioning" has become stronger and that period of figuring out WTF has become longer. Why? Smaller families, more social stress because of the rise of social media, a general sense of fractured community in the West as a low level general thing. Middle class white folks are cosseted more and for longer. Men and women, but I would say women are more cosseted. IMHO the Western white middle class woman is damn near a protected species in society. Though at the same time are under more pressure to conform to something, especially in the physical.

Look at the mad rise in anxiety disorders, anorexia, depression, suicide(much more an issue for young men) over the last two decades. It's relatively gender bias free in levels of suffering, but there is a big gender difference in levels of support. Take this O'Neill writer. She a grown woman throws a wobbler and is on the phone to daddy crying like a child woman. And in day to day life will get away with that. If she was a thirty year old man she wouldn't, or would be really pilloried for it. The latter has far less societal support and provably so.

Knowing someone very similar to her - and loath though I would be to put words in mouths - but I would suspect she would be the usual neo hippie notions in favour of more acceptance of a thrifty year old man's "right" to cry, rather than women and men actually, y'know growing the fcuk up and coping the fcuk on.

Oh and before "oh what about the mentally ill?". What about them? Those folks are ill. The clue is in the name and they need and should get all the help and support. It's completely different to some spoiled muppet or muppetess permanently stuck as a teen in grown up pants with imagined demons under their bed and a quack counsellor on speed dial.

Maguined

Maguined wrote: »

Yes I understand conditioning which I why I said there is a leeway in their early twenties when you have to realise the difference between the big bad world out there and what you have learned at home.

And if you never leave the home? There is a growing group of people in their 20's-mid 30's who continue to live at home, because they can't afford to buy their own homes. Now, personally, I'd advocate getting out and renting an apartment because I value my personal freedoms, but they don't believe in paying someone else for a place to live.

ANd Ireland is not alone in this. Many countries have a culture where people are staying longer at home for various reasons. If your parents are the type to smother or mother you, then the conditioning would encourage them to accept such behavior, and to believe it to be acceptable.

There comes a point and a time when an individual has to take responbility for their own actions and it is no longer the responsibility for how they were raised.

Taking responsibility for their life? Hmm... TBH I've found very few people living at home or living beyond their home, actually doing that. They make excuses for just about everything. Self-examination and judging their choices in life.. is not a terribly popular activity.

If a teenager says something racist I feel sorry for them because chances are their family taught them to be racist. When a 30 year old man says something racist I think they are a pr*ck because they are passed the age of blaming it on how they were raised and they are old enough to take responsibility for their actions now.

I honestly don't care about the age. Racism is something that you believe in. Some will come from family or personal experience. ALOT though comes from the media, and the internet. And some people are just stupid or gullible.

If a 30 year old man is still dependent on his mother to cook and clean for him it is no longer the mothers responsibility for enabling his dependency. He is old enough to realise what is going on and he is willfully engaging in that dependency so it is his choice and responsibility for that choice.

Agreed. He is responsible. Did i say otherwise? I just said that the parents are responsible too.

mzungu

Briefly returning to the article, I think if one finds the term 'ladylike' to be offensive, then it might be a sign of having too much free time.

Wibbs

maybe

mzungu wrote: »

Briefly returning to the article, I think if one finds the term 'ladylike' to be offensive, then it might be a sign of having too much free time.

Aye, though to be fair she is paid to write pure shíte and it does get the attention. Sure she's playing to the mob, consciously or no(I pray the former, though have my doubts..) but it says much about the mob. One bunch flick their bean to victim porn, another to outrage porn.

kunst nugget

maybe

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye, though to be fair she is paid to write pure shíte and it does get the attention. Sure she's playing to the mob, consciously or no(I pray the former, though have my doubts..) but it says much about the mob. One bunch flick their bean to victim porn, another to outrage porn.

I only get a small glimpse into the outrage mobs on both sides and it's enough to convince me not to bother looking anymore into it. I'd imagine it's very easy to slip into echo-chamber rabbit holes without learning or achieving anything of importance but attaching huge significance to arguments on twitter between a handful of people that nobody in the real world gives two shíts about.

Lemming

“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”

- Aldous Huxley

silverharp

the bbc trying to out Guardian the Guardian

py2006

London-based author Sunny Singh tweeted that the proposal revealed a sense of male entitlement.

She described it to the BBC as "a dick move, and definitely not romantic".
"It's a control mechanism, a way of saying 'You may just have won an Olympic medal, or be a CEO or have designed a spacecraft, but really the most important thing is you're my wife'," she said.

"Imagine if it was someone like Michael Phelps receiving a medal and a woman came up and proposed - people would laugh at her. When men experience success, women are expected to stand aside and cheer from the background."

:rolleyes: