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

lazybones32 · 28-02-2015 4:10pm

newport2 wrote: »

You can come up whatever indirect explanations you want to justify it, but why doesn't that work when women are portrayed like this in ads? Because they aren't. The ad's message is "Man stupid, woman clever", rinse and repeat, ad after ad. I get it, the white male is the only group in society that it's acceptable to rip the p1ss out of and ridicule without consequence. It just gets annoying after a while. It also cannot be good for young boys growing up to be consistantly being indirectly told how stupid they are, useless around the house, can't handle children, etc.

Sorry for the late reply...

I neither justified the Ad nor condemned it. I merely pointed out that there are aspects in the Ad that people seemed to miss and these are open to interpretation. The Ad didn't make the man look idiotic or stupid: I thought it made it out that he began acting like a primate, which could be considered more insulting than be called idiotic or stupid. Man evolves from monkey and then regresses...was that the underlying theme?

I don't care how Men are portrayed on TV. I really don't. I don't care how women are portrayed on TV either. If TV paints one good and the other bad, does that make it so? No. Most men aren't stupid; most women aren't stupid. I don't believe everything I see on the box. I don't depend on TV to build my self-esteem, confidence or sense of self.
You fear for the impressionable minds? Don't let them watch TV full-stop! It is bad for their brain and we cannot quantify the subconscious impact it has (watching TV apparently stimulates an area of the brain that is also stimulated while hypnotised and entranced...maybe connected or just coincidence?). Seeing as how psychology is employed in Advertising and Marketing, we are all 'targets' in one way or another.

I would suggest that if the Ad is genuinely offensive to you (I don't mean that in a patronising tone) complain to the Hotels combined business. Tell them that you found the Ad insulting and you cannot see yourself using their services if they deem it appropriate to portray men in such fashion.

iptba · 28-02-2015 5:56pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

You fear for the impressionable minds? Don't let them watch TV full-stop!

That doesn't seem to be particularly realistic.

lazybones32 · 28-02-2015 11:36pm

iptba wrote: »

That doesn't seem to be particularly realistic.

Why not? TV is a choice, not a requirement. Do you think you could accomplish more things if you didn't spend X-hours a day/week watching TV?

iptba · 28-02-2015 11:41pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

iptba wrote:

lazybones32 wrote:

You fear for the impressionable minds? Don't let them watch TV full-stop!

That doesn't seem to be particularly realistic.

Why not? TV is a choice, not a requirement. Do you think you could accomplish more things if you didn't spend X-hours a day/week watching TV?

I have gone many years watching relatively little TV e.g. 5 hours or so a week (although am watching a bit more TV in the last year). However, that is different from being able to not "let" other people watch TV.

lazybones32 · 01-03-2015 12:53am

iptba wrote: »

I have gone many years watching relatively little TV e.g. 5 hours or so a week (although am watching a bit more TV in the last year). However, that is different from being able to not "let" other people watch TV.

Ah come off it! I'm not proposing a State-wide ban on TV but for the poster to take responsibility for the things that are in his control. If he has impressionable youth - as he alluded to - under his care and guidance, restrict or remove TV from the household. People seem to let TV raise their children more than they do and if TV can influence your children more than you do, whose responsibility is that? Who has failed in their role? I'm not advocating an anti-TV crusade either; people can do as they wish with their own lives once they have been given enough information where they can judge for themselves. We've only one Life and a mind is a terrible thing to waste...

mrkiscool2 · 01-03-2015 1:00am

lazybones32 wrote: »

Ah come off it! I'm not proposing a State-wide ban on TV but for the poster to take responsibility for the things that are in his control. If he has impressionable youth - as he alluded to - under his care and guidance, restrict or remove TV from the household. People seem to let TV raise their children more than they do and if TV can influence your children more than you do, whose responsibility is that? Who has failed in their role? I'm not advocating an anti-TV crusade either; people can do as they wish with their own lives once they have been given enough information where they can judge for themselves. We've only one Life and a mind is a terrible thing to waste...

So what your saying is that it isn't the ad agencies to blame, it's the people watching who are to blame? Sounds awfully familiar...

iptba · 01-03-2015 1:03am

lazybones32 wrote: »

Ah come off it! I'm not proposing a State-wide ban on TV but for the poster to take responsibility for the things that are in his control. If he has impressionable youth - as he alluded to - under his care and guidance, restrict or remove TV from the household. People seem to let TV raise their children more than they do and if TV can influence your children more than you do, whose responsibility is that? Who has failed in their role? I'm not advocating an anti-TV crusade either; people can do as they wish with their own lives once they have been given enough information where they can judge for themselves. We've only one Life and a mind is a terrible thing to waste...

I didn't read it that he necessarily had impressionable youth under his care:

newport2 wrote:

It also cannot be good for young boys growing up to be consistantly being indirectly told how stupid they are, useless around the house, can't handle children, etc.

And even if he did, he can be concerned about other young males.

And portraying males in a negative way doesn't just affect males but how females might see them. If ads regularly portrayed black people or Asian people or another group in a negative way, the only possible responsible isn't to tell that particular group to turn off their own TVs.

DoYouEvenLift · 01-03-2015 2:59am

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057389303/1/#post94493223

Carlos Orange · 01-03-2015 3:40am

No

At least they didn't go with free tickets for women which is the suggestion I see on their Twitter.

Seanf999 · 01-03-2015 5:24am

One thing I particularly hate the idea of is, if you get divorced everything gets split even if the man is the sole provider or happens to be financially successful and when the idea of a prenup is introduced women automatically assume you view them as gold diggers (even do they are) they still believe regardless of if they are marrying you for the money you should not do anything to protect what you've worked for.

Not a personal story but I've seen it happen.

ancapailldorcha · 01-03-2015 11:35am

maybe

Seanf999, no more lazy generalisations please.

hots · 02-03-2015 11:42am

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057389303/1/#post94493223

Just saw this myself, very frustrating, I'm all for removing barriers to entry and even promoting the event at women if they are concerned they're not reaching their targets, but to actively make more of barrier for men to attend is ridiculous.

You wouldn't introduce a levy based on race, not sure why sex should be different?

Carlos Orange · 02-03-2015 11:44am

No

hobbit of the shire wrote: »

You wouldn't introduce a levy based on race, not sure why sex should be different?

What makes you think they wouldn't?

hots · 02-03-2015 11:50am

psinno wrote: »

What makes you think they wouldn't?

I would imagine because they would be afraid of being called racists?

Carlos Orange · 02-03-2015 11:59am

No

hobbit of the shire wrote: »

I would imagine because they would be afraid of being called racists?

The sort of people who do this wouldn't think it was racist any more than they would think it was sexist.

ALiasEX · 02-03-2015 12:42pm

hobbit of the shire wrote: »

I would imagine because they would be afraid of being called racists?

They wouldn't be giving a discount to whites so no worry there.

DoYouEvenLift · 02-03-2015 12:49pm

ALiasEX wrote: »

They wouldn't be giving a discount to whites so no worry there.

Probably additional charges for whites if anything, possibly even setup a code to automatically add them on. 'CHECKYOURPRIVILEGE' being a likely choice.

ancapailldorcha · 02-03-2015 1:56pm

maybe

About half of people are women whereas Ireland is predominantly white Caucasian. I don't agree with this sort of incentive to attract women but it's ridiculous to treat attempts at attracting women and people from ethnic and racial minorities as the same.

Maguined · 02-03-2015 4:23pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

About half of people are women whereas Ireland is predominantly white Caucasian. I don't agree with this sort of incentive to attract women but it's ridiculous to treat attempts at attracting women and people from ethnic and racial minorities as the same.

Is it not based on the same principle though? If the argument is current participation levels not reflecting the current gender demographic is bad for society therefore they want to actively change the participation level to match the demographic for gender does that not imply other demographics like religion or ethnicity should also be treated the same?

If not why not?

ancapailldorcha · 02-03-2015 4:29pm

maybe

Maguined wrote: »

Is it not based on the same principle though? If the argument is current participation levels not reflecting the current gender demographic is bad for society therefore they want to actively change the participation level to match the demographic for gender does that not imply other demographics like religion or ethnicity should also be treated the same?

If not why not?

It might be the same theory but it'd be vastly different in practice for the reason I outlined above. I don't have numbers to hand but if you say that 75% of the people employed in IT are male in a country where half the population is female, would that not seem absurd?

Maguined · 02-03-2015 5:27pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It might be the same theory but it'd be vastly different in practice for the reason I outlined above. I don't have numbers to hand but if you say that 75% of the people employed in IT are male in a country where half the population is female, would that not seem absurd.

We all acknowledge that there was social pressures in the past that led to the genders finding different work more appealing than the demographic breakdown. However in todays society people know they are free to pursue whatever career path they want so if people are still following these careers it is out of choice rather than being forced. Similarly religious pressure has lessened though many still choose to believe. I would find tech companies trying to encourage religious participation based on demographics to be the same reasoning and equally flawed. Why would it be any more or less absurd? We have the demographics for gender and religion across the country as well as individual industries so why is gender any more or less applicable than religion or ethnicity?

I would wager building sites and binmen would have a greater gender disparity than tech companies yet this does not seem to be negative for society.

ancapailldorcha · 02-03-2015 5:39pm

maybe

Maguined wrote: »

We all acknowledge that there was social pressures in the past that led to the genders finding different work more appealing than the demographic breakdown. However in todays society people know they are free to pursue whatever career path they want so if people are still following these careers it is out of choice rather than being forced. Similarly religious pressure has lessened though many still choose to believe. I would find tech companies trying to encourage religious participation based on demographics to be the same reasoning and equally flawed. Why would it be any more or less absurd? We have the demographics for gender and religion across the country as well as individual industries so why is gender any more or less applicable than religion or ethnicity?

They might be free but they're likely being put off by a multitude of various factors. IT is still a male dominated field which might be off-putting for a lot of women hence this encouragement. Enforcing quotas for people from ethnic and racial minority backgrounds would involve encouraging immigration while we have some of our best and brightest leaving the country on a daily basis.

Maguined wrote: »

I would wager building sites and binmen would have a greater gender disparity than tech companies yet this does not seem to be negative for society.

How many people do you know who originally aspired to empty bins or become bricklayers?

Pawwed Rig · 02-03-2015 8:00pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How many people do you know who originally aspired to empty bins or become bricklayers?

I wouldn't think that a binman or a bricklayer are lesser jobs than an IT person. Some people are perfectly content with life collecting bins. I think the point is that where the job is seen as desireable gender imbalance is seen as an issue but where it can be viewed as less desireable the noone cares, sure the lads will do them jobs

ancapailldorcha · 02-03-2015 9:53pm

maybe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I wouldn't think that a binman or a bricklayer are lesser jobs than an IT person. Some people are perfectly content with life collecting bins. I think the point is that where the job is seen as desireable gender imbalance is seen as an issue but where it can be viewed as less desireable the noone cares, sure the lads will do them jobs

I never said a thing against collecting bins. Oddly enough, binmen in Brighton are getting paid more than me by the looks of things. My point was that it's not a career that one chooses at an early age.

I agree with the second half of your post though. You don't see women desperate to work on building sites the same as you don't see men fighting for the right to be carers.

mrkiscool2 · 02-03-2015 10:23pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said a thing against collecting bins. Oddly enough, binmen in Brighton are getting paid more than me by the looks of things. My point was that it's not a career that one chooses at an early age.

I agree with the second half of your post though. You don't see women desperate to work on building sites the same as you don't see men fighting for the right to be carers.

And yet if women did fight as hard to work on building sites you can be sure there would be an uproar about how women can't break into the industry because of sexism, misogyny and the fact it's "a boys club". Then the Government would introduce incentives to make sure they got to work on building sites.

Maguined · 04-03-2015 10:11am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They might be free but they're likely being put off by a multitude of various factors. IT is still a male dominated field which might be off-putting for a lot of women hence this encouragement. Enforcing quotas for people from ethnic and racial minority backgrounds would involve encouraging immigration while we have some of our best and brightest leaving the country on a daily basis.

How many people do you know who originally aspired to empty bins or become bricklayers?

Surely aspiration is irrelevant? The entire point of these initiatives is that the current aspiration levels are too low. Not enough women are aspiring to enter IT therefore they want to change this so that more women aspire to IT.

People aspire to be nurses and teachers. Even as children these are considered jobs worthy to aspire to and I would wager that more little kids aspire to be a teacher or a nurse than aspire to be an IT specialist yet these also have massive gender disparities that are not be addressed with similar initiaives to try and encourage more men to enter these jobs dominated by women.

ancapailldorcha · 04-03-2015 10:17am

maybe

Maguined wrote: »

Surely aspiration is irrelevant? The entire point of these initiatives is that the current aspiration levels are too low. Not enough women are aspiring to enter IT therefore they want to change this so that more women aspire to IT.

How is aspiration irrelevant if the point of these initiatives is to increase aspiration levels.

Maguined wrote: »

People aspire to be nurses and teachers. Even as children these are considered jobs worthy to aspire to and I would wager that more little kids aspire to be a teacher or a nurse than aspire to be an IT specialist yet these also have massive gender disparities that are not be addressed with similar initiaives to try and encourage more men to enter these jobs dominated by women.

The problem is that the 2 occupations you've cited involve caring for others, something that society somehow deems men poorly suited to at best, a sign of perversion at worst. The problem there is that men are atrocious when it comes to standing up for themselves. You have these incentives in place for STEM and IT because they're considered to be desirable fields. One could say the same about nursing and teaching but men's issues doesn't figure on the agendas of those with the power to do something about it.

Maguined · 04-03-2015 12:46pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How is aspiration irrelevant if the point of these initiatives is to increase aspiration levels.

The problem is that the 2 occupations you've cited involve caring for others, something that society somehow deems men poorly suited to at best, a sign of perversion at worst. The problem there is that men are atrocious when it comes to standing up for themselves. You have these incentives in place for STEM and IT because they're considered to be desirable fields. One could say the same about nursing and teaching but men's issues doesn't figure on the agendas of those with the power to do something about it.

You brought aspiration into the debate when I mentioned binmen and bricklayers. Women were not aspiring to IT, bricklaying or binmen as determined by the exceedingly low levels of application into these roles. I agree the purpose of these initiatives is to improve aspiration but my point is that why is the same not done for waste collection or bricklaying? If aspiration levels are low across all these industries why is there not similar iniatitives for the less glamourous industries? If the answer is simply becase women do not want to enter these industries does that not undermine the proposed idea that under representation of women in IT is bad for society and so should balanced? If it is bad for society for one industry surely it is bad for society for all industries and all should be attempted to be balanced?

ancapailldorcha · 04-03-2015 12:53pm

maybe

Maguined wrote: »

You brought aspiration into the debate when I mentioned binmen and bricklayers. Women were not aspiring to IT, bricklaying or binmen as determined by the exceedingly low levels of application into these roles. I agree the purpose of these initiatives is to improve aspiration but my point is that why is the same not done for waste collection or bricklaying? If aspiration levels are low across all these industries why is there not similar iniatitives for the less glamourous industries? If the answer is simply becase women do not want to enter these industries does that not undermine the proposed idea that under representation of women in IT is bad for society and so should balanced? If it is bad for society for one industry surely it is bad for society for all industries and all should be attempted to be balanced?

How do you know that they don't want to work in IT? Surely if that were the case then these incentives and programs wouldn't exist as they don't for bricklaying and refuse collection.

ancapailldorcha · 04-03-2015 1:37pm

maybe

1 in 5 victims of stalking in the UK are men:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/one-in-five-victims-of-stalking-are-men-targeted-by-women-530085.html

Maguined · 04-03-2015 2:21pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How do you know that they don't want to work in IT? Surely if that were the case then these incentives and programs wouldn't exist as they don't for bricklaying and refuse collection.

I don't, I am assuming they don't due to the current low levels of women entering the field. How do you know the difference between the low levels of women entering the waste removal industry and the low levels of women entering the IT industry is due to aspirations?

ancapailldorcha · 04-03-2015 2:23pm

maybe

Maguined wrote: »

I don't, I am assuming they don't due to the current low levels of women entering the field. How do you know the difference between the low levels of women entering the waste removal industry and the low levels of women entering the IT industry is due to aspirations?

I never said it was. I'm basing my conclusion on the lack of programs geared towards attracting more women to construction and waste disposal.

tritium · 04-03-2015 4:42pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never said it was. I'm basing my conclusion on the lack of programs geared towards attracting more women to construction and waste disposal.

To flip the position a bit here, why is acceptable that low career prospects and menial jobs like this are seen as men's work. Twenty years ago it was OK to see women and cleaning in this light but not really anymore. The focus now seems to be that women need to have access to progression opportunities (rightly) yet its still acceptable to see roles like binmen as something that its OK for men to do (and often inevitable given the unaddressed gender biases in educational completion) but not women. At times it looks like ambition and aspiration are dirty words for young boys.
(Not a dig at your reply ACD, more a general observation)

ancapailldorcha · 04-03-2015 5:24pm

maybe

tritium wrote: »

To flip the position a bit here, why is acceptable that low career prospects and menial jobs like this are seen as men's work. Twenty years ago it was OK to see women and cleaning in this light but not really anymore. The focus now seems to be that women need to have access to progression opportunities (rightly) yet its still acceptable to see roles like binmen as something that its OK for men to do (and often inevitable given the unaddressed gender biases in educational completion) but not women. At times it looks like ambition and aspiration are dirty words for young boys.
(Not a dig at your reply ACD, more a general observation)

I've never said that this was acceptable. Not once. I'm going to put the root of programs like this down to feminism and the fact that women have had to fight for things like this. Men are pretty terrible at standing up for themselves hence unflattering portrayals in the media, biased family law, The Guardian, etc... I completely disagree with guff like quotas. I just don't think it's the way forward. Indeed, I work in a nearly completely female building and I get to see a poster in our meeting room for the l'Oreal Women in Science programme, ie grants exclusively for women.

As an aside, I think it's a bit unfair to say that there's no career progression for binmen and builders. The former can go on to become management or supervisors while the latter can progress to the same or branch out. A lot of people are content to go day-by-day while others will spend a lot of time planning for the future.

mrkiscool2 · 04-03-2015 11:34pm

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/girls-spared-convictions-after-couple-beaten-defending-gay-son-1.2126229
I gurantee if there were teenage boys involved in this case they would have been sentenced. They would have been sentenced even more if they were taunting a lesbian and her family

Duck Soup · 04-03-2015 11:45pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You don't see women desperate to work on building sites the same as you don't see men fighting for the right to be carers.

I did a healthcare assistant course last year - about 60% men, 40% women. The more noticeable split/disparity was nationality, about 25% Irish, 75% non-Irish. It appears that Irish people do not want to wipe the bottoms of their elderly and sick countryfolk.

From talking to a lot of the guys, it seems a big part of the reason for the move of men into carer roles was the collapse of the construction industry. Quite a few came over here to labour on sites, and with that work gone, they retrained as carers. Irish people might see it as beneath them, but a lot of the non-Irish just saw it as another way to pay the bills and had no problem with the nature of the work.

steddyeddy · 06-03-2015 4:11pm

One that has come to the forefront recently for me is the double standards applied when criticising one's appearance. A few girls I know personally think it's Ok to criticise a guy's appearance to his face E.G you're not tall enough yet the same girl thinks it's appalling if a guy describes a girl as fat. I don't think either criticism is acceptable IMHO but it's certainly not right to say it's worse to criticise a girl. Men can get complexes over their appearance too.

jackofalltrades · 06-03-2015 5:03pm

maybe

steddyeddy wrote: »

One that has come to the forefront recently for me is the double standards applied when criticising one's appearance. A few girls I know personally think it's Ok to criticise a guy's appearance to his face E.G you're not tall enough yet the same girl thinks it's appalling if a guy describes a girl as fat. I don't think either criticism is acceptable IMHO but it's certainly not right to say it's worse to criticise a girl. Men can get complexes over their appearance too.

Completely agree.
Imagine and overweight woman was complaining about something and a man came out with the line "Sounds like you're suffering from fat burd syndrome".
There'd be uproar. But "short man syndrome" comes out at the drop of a hat.

I've also had discussion with male friends where they're convinced that overweight women have it worse than short men.
Even though you can do something about your weight but nothing about your height.

AndonHandon · 06-03-2015 8:01pm

There was an article on BBC.com in the travel section http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20150112-turkeys-most-creative-daring-idea on a museum which is based on a novel but the museum is supposed to be a collection of items from the lives of the people to whom the novel relates. Confusing but it won European Museum of the Year in May 2014 for its uniqueness and artistic merit.

The article is talking about this museum, explaining it and its mirroring of life in 90s Istanbul. Then there was this paragraph;

Still, I found it odd that a museum so focused on everyday individuals – the kind often ignored by history – never gave voice to the most voiceless character or group in the whole novel: women like Füsun. There’s a clear nostalgia that both Kemal and Pamuk have for the old Istanbul that’s conveyed in these objects – black-and-white images of old ships on the Bosphorus, photographs of footballers that used to come with packs of chewing gum, bottles of the briefly-popular Turkish soft drink Meltem. But if the museum were to have been put together not by Kemal but by, let’s say, Füsun, whose life is ruined by that same old Istanbul and its rules, that nostalgia would probably look quite different.

This seems entirely unnecessary and is incredibly subjective, bordering on selfish. The character of Fusun is a fictional creation of the author. The lady who authored the article felt the need to shoehorn some personal agenda into her piece by manipulating information to manifest itself in some sort of misogynistic image. A travel section of the BBC gives this mouthpiece the cloak of immunity from critique of her views but it is not nice to read something like that.

steddyeddy · 08-03-2015 3:53am

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Completely agree.
Imagine and overweight woman was complaining about something and a man came out with the line "Sounds like you're suffering from fat burd syndrome".
There'd be uproar. But "short man syndrome" comes out at the drop of a hat.

I've also had discussion with male friends where they're convinced that overweight women have it worse than short men.
Even though you can do something about your weight but nothing about your height.

I was told by a girl I'd fancy you if you were taller. I'm not short at all but I don't think it was a nice thing to say.

ancapailldorcha · 08-03-2015 10:57am

maybe

11041793_830922963612997_6525443406011144788_n.jpg?oh=4c3af75ad0b47ae74a7e35984129c526&oe=55919815&__gda__=1434767487_fa87189aa2f9627ea3b55a7118dbca93

DoYouEvenLift · 08-03-2015 11:06am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Cannot be real

ancapailldorcha · 08-03-2015 11:25am

maybe

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Cannot be real

Why not?

DoYouEvenLift · 08-03-2015 11:27am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why not?

I hate this world

tritium · 08-03-2015 11:47am

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I hate this world

To be honest its the standard line. Rather than hate it I'd suggest contacting them to try to make them understand why its an issue because I genuinely think many of these organisations have become collectively brainwashed by the spin around this stuff. If enough people raise the issue with them it may cause them to consider more carefully how they present this stuff. (Yes I know this one is half a world away but so what....)

DoYouEvenLift · 08-03-2015 12:00pm

tritium wrote: »

To be honest its the standard line. Rather than hate it I'd suggest contacting them to try to make them understand why its an issue because I genuinely think many of these organisations have become collectively brainwashed by the spin around this stuff. If enough people raise the issue with them it may cause them to consider more carefully how they present this stuff. (Yes I know this one is half a world away but so what....)

That's why I hate it. How do these people even have jobs. They clearly don't think or question anything. Seriously, if it was someone with any bit of common sense typing out that sentence they'd question it and realise how silly it is.

Greenmachine · 08-03-2015 12:03pm

Told that men are not entitled to an opinion on women's issues. If men are the problem, then how are they supposed to change their attitude perspective if they are not permitted to have one.

ancapailldorcha · 08-03-2015 12:45pm

maybe

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

That's why I hate it. How do these people even have jobs. They clearly don't think or question anything. Seriously, if it was someone with any bit of common sense typing out that sentence they'd question it and realise how silly it is.

I was encouraged to do the same with a certain political party I got involved with. If these people don't realise that treating people different based on gender isn't sexism then I don't know what I can do to convince them.

ancapailldorcha · 08-03-2015 12:48pm

maybe

Have men become the new educational underclass? It's the Torygraph but seems to be a fairly decent article.

tritium · 08-03-2015 3:06pm

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

That's why I hate it. How do these people even have jobs. They clearly don't think or question anything. Seriously, if it was someone with any bit of common sense typing out that sentence they'd question it and realise how silly it is.

Yes but no! I get its frustrating but the reality is more people go with the herd mentality and basically believe what they're told with very little critical analysis. If you want to change that you kind of have to put the alternative on the table. This is especially true when there are a large number of groups with vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I guess its probably not that different to the challenge faced by the first women's rights activists, except the establishment looked a bit different. Regardless, bitching (and I'm not saying you're doing that) about how blind people were wouldn't have gotten them anywhere, instead they had to make the alternative visible

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

Comments

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