Should this be tolerated?

LadyJ

Ok, so I don't have a link for this but I have heard from several Americans and also from my cousin who lives in New York that there are ads on tv for the presedential elections in the States that basically consist of your "average joe" being asked who they're voting for etc.

One or two of these scenes apparently depict some people saying something to the effect of "Yeah I like Hillary and all but I just don't want a woman with her finger on the button"......

Now, I was thinking, why is this allowed to be shown on tv? Could you imagine if they showed some randomers saying "Yeah Obama's a good guy but I just don't want a black guy with his finger on the button". It would never be aired.

Are people more relaxed with regard to sexual discrimination than with racial discrimination? If so, why?

Why is it ok for women to be made fools of on tv but yet somehow taboo to do the same with regard to race? Seems crazy to me.

Time Magazine

LadyJ wrote: »

Why is it ok for women to be made fools of on tv but yet somehow taboo to do the same with regard to race? Seems crazy to me.

Three irrational days a month.

Ginny

Bucket of tar for Ibid.

Susannahmia

Ibid wrote: »

Three irrational days a month.

:rolleyes: My period certainly doesn't make me irrational. Yes sadly people are more relaxed, sexism is far more acceptable in society. After all we still live in a patriarchy.

blah

LadyJ wrote: »

Ok, so I don't have a link for this...

Well find one, I'd like to see that ad.

DarkJager

Well women feel its okay to constantly talk down to men so its really 50 50. Every single song on the radio nowadays seems to be sung by women, complaining about men, boasting about how men ain't "good" enough for them and all sorts of other assorted wacky ramblings. Why is this sort of **** allowed to be played on the radio??? Is that sexism as well, or does the word sexism not exist when it comes to what women have to say about men??


Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for women, but its about time they got a taste of their own medicine.

LadyJ

I'm more talking about the idea that racism is more unacceptable than sexist attitudes. Not just that sexism is unacceptable.

Ginny

Because no song is ever about putting women down..

Susannahmia

DarkJager wrote: »

Well women feel its okay to constantly talk down to men so its really 50 50. Every single song on the radio nowadays seems to be sung by women, complaining about men, boasting about how men ain't "good" enough for them and all sorts of other assorted wacky ramblings. Why is this sort of **** allowed to be played on the radio??? Is that sexism as well, or does the word sexism not exist when it comes to what women have to say about men??


Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for women, but its about time they got a taste of their own medicine.

I don't believe that men should be discriminated against either but what you just said was ridiculous. Men are still far more powerful in society and have been discriminating against women for centuries. How do women deserve their own medicine? Surely if you were to take that kind of mentality it would be the other way around?:eek:

DarkJager

No song you hear on the radio will ever put women down because as usual, every female in the country would get her Ann Summers panties in a fcuking twist and complain about it.

LadyJ: Looking at your arguement from that perspective, I can see your point in a way.

Aran61

I think American culture is more male dominated which is ok, I don't have a problem with men being in control as long as they treat women right, provide for them and so on. But I don't think it's right that the president should be a woman. It's a really really powerful job. It's too much responsibility for one woman. Women have different brains to men's which makes them better at some things. Politics isn't one of them. So really they should leave it to the men who have more experience in these things. Also it leaves more time for the important things in life.

WindSock

Women probably don't make those ads. I don't agree with them, I think they make us look like smug assholes.

Susannahmia

DarkJager wrote: »

No song you hear on the radio will ever put women down because as usual, every female in the country would get her Ann Summers panties in a fcuking twist and complain about it.

LadyJ: Looking at your arguement from that perspective, I can see your point in a way.

And what about the music videos that come with these songs, depicting half naked women, do you not think that's demeaning?

Ginny

DarkJager wrote: »

No song you hear on the radio will ever put women down because as usual, every female in the country would get her Ann Summers panties in a fcuking twist and complain about it.

LadyJ: Looking at your arguement from that perspective, I can see your point in a way.

So you've never listened to rap then have you?
Jesus whats got you so antsy today?

Dudess

It's probably also due to the fact that so many women wouldn't have a problem with discrimination against women - I've no doubt there is a sizeable number of American women who don't want a woman as their president.

Whereas, while some black people probably have similar feelings of unworthiness, I doubt it's anything like that experienced by females because of their gender.

Susannahmia

Aran61 wrote: »

I think American culture is more male dominated which is ok, I don't have a problem with men being in control as long as they treat women right, provide for them and so on. But I don't think it's right that the president should be a woman. It's a really really powerful job. It's too much responsibility for one woman. Women have different brains to men's which makes them better at some things. Politics isn't one of them. So really they should leave it to the men who have more experience in these things. Also it leaves more time for the important things in life.

I hope you are a troll :rolleyes:

Time Magazine

GinnyJo wrote: »

Bucket of tar for Ibid.

Encouraging violence is never a reasonable answer, especially when somebody is proposing a reason rather than advocating it.

Susannahmia wrote: »

:rolleyes: My period certainly doesn't make me irrational.

I never said it did. But it's scientific FACT that if affects some people.

Yes sadly people are more relaxed, sexism is far more acceptable in society. After all we still live in a patriarchy.

Our President is a woman.

DarkJager wrote: »

Well women feel its okay to constantly talk down to men so its really 50 50.... Is that sexism as well, or does the word sexism not exist when it comes to what women have to say about men??

Too true, Brother DarkJager. Just as sexism is more acceptable than racism, which in turn is more acceptable than rape, women being sexist about beer-bellied men is far more acceptable than men being sexist about lard-filled ladies in this "patriarchal society" of ours. I use rape in the previous sentence to point out that there are levels of unacceptability - and also to point that a man cannot be "raped" under our current laws, in this "patriarchal society".

LadyJ wrote: »

I'm more talking about the idea that racism is more unacceptable than sexist attitudes. Not just that sexism is unacceptable.

I'm not advocating it but rather proposing it as a reason: there is scientific evidence that gender makes a bigger impact on decision-making ability etc. than race. If you think this is a controversial statement, consider the converse: That race has a bigger impact on decision-making ability than gender. Which sounds more perverse to you?

Aran61

Susannahmia wrote: »

I hope you are a troll :rolleyes:

No! Most of my friends would feel the same way too.

WindSock

Dudess wrote: »

It's probably also due to the fact that so many women wouldn't have a problem with discrimination against women - I've no doubt there is a sizeable number of American women who don't want a woman as their president.

Whereas, while some black people probably have similar feelings of unworthiness, I doubt it's anything like that experienced by females because of their gender.

This is true. Oprah is backing Obama (but not because he is black, because he is brilliant)

Also, it's much more popular to shout racist, than sexist today.

kaimera

I guess Hillary is 'lucky' she's not black as well then

WindSock

Ibid wrote: »

Our President is a woman.

Yes, and what does she do? Not much to do with the running of a country.

Susannahmia

Aran61 wrote: »

No! Most of my friends would feel the same way too.

Oh dear lord! Now I'm depressed.

Nevyn

Ginny

Ibid wrote: »

Encouraging violence is never a reasonable answer, especially when somebody is proposing a reason rather than advocating it.

I never said it did. But it's scientific FACT that if affects some people.

Bless, encouraging violence:rolleyes:


As a scientist I'd love to see the FACT you are linking to there, all that links to is your comment on some research that maybe be undergoing, somewhere, at sometime. You can't declare something a scientific fact unless you have the papers and publications to back up the research and findings, any scientist knows that.

Dudess

Aran61 wrote: »

I think American culture is more male dominated which is ok, I don't have a problem with men being in control as long as they treat women right, provide for them and so on. But I don't think it's right that the president should be a woman. It's a really really powerful job. It's too much responsibility for one woman. Women have different brains to men's which makes them better at some things. Politics isn't one of them. So really they should leave it to the men who have more experience in these things. Also it leaves more time for the important things in life.

Like what? Giving lots of blowjobs to please men? You were ranting on about your head-giving skills the other day. I presume you enjoy giving head simply because it means pleasing men...?

Nevyn

Dudess

for you santiy I suggest at you subscribe to these two blogs.

http://feministing.com/
http://thecurvature.com/

Wreck

Dudess wrote: »

Like what? Giving lots of blowjobs to please men? You were ranting on about your head-giving skills the other day. I presume you enjoy giving head simply because it means pleasing men...?

In fairness, the only reason for giving head is to please the other person, be they male or female.

MarkR

*gets popcorn*

Nevyn

Why we need feminism ?

so that we don't see things like this

Men presidents only

I think that having a woman president would be a bad idea for our country. Women are not meant to rule countries and be in charge. They are meant to make decisions but not confirm them.

Our president deals with some countries that don't respect or allow women in leadership positions. I wonder if the United States would have more terrorist attacks because we would be seen as weak with a woman leader. I agree that women can do many things, but leave the ruling of the countries to the men.

BRITTANY BAYLES, 13, Kennewick

Lady J the whole compagin has been totally rife with stuff like that, the feministing blog has been tracking the media's sexim and double standards in the election of the democratic canidate campagain.

An you are right really we should be over this after 90 years of women having the vote.

LadyJ

Ibid wrote: »

I'm not advocating it but rather proposing it as a reason: there is scientific evidence that gender makes a bigger impact on decision-making ability etc. than race. If you think this is a controversial statement, consider the converse: That race has a bigger impact on decision-making ability than gender. Which sounds more perverse to you?

Surely a lot of things affect decision-making ability regardless of gender though?

I mean clearly women think in a different way to men but culture etc. can also change your way of thinking.

I do see what you're getting at though.

Dudess

Wreck wrote: »

In fairness, the only reason for giving head is to please the other person, be they male or female.

Sadly a lot of girls believe this and they still go ahead and do it. It's absolutely not true. Giving head can be highly pleasurable for the giver as well as the receiver.

missmatty

In all fairness, is Hillary not past the pmt stage by now?

Although the menopause is other thing entirely

I don't like the woman whatever way I approach the situation, but I would not at all be against a woman for president. If they were the better candidate :rolleyes:

citytillidie

Neither should be okay but your see more and more ads making men look stupid like the Capital one ad where the woman is jugging and talking to her friend while i man is holding onto her ankle.

LadyJ

citytillidie wrote: »

Neither should be okay but your see more and more ads making men look stupid like the Capital one ad where the woman is jugging and talking to her friend while i man is holding onto her ankle.

That's fair enough but as I said before the point I'm making is with regard to gender discrimination somehow being more acceptable than racial discrimination. I'm not talking about women vs men.

newbusiness

America has a tradition of freedom of speech that we don't have here.

Basically anyone can say anything about anyone else and have very little llikelyhood of being sued for slander/libel. It requires "acute malice".

The problem with that is that you can't believe almost anything anyone says about another person.

TequilaMockingBird

Perhaps we should hand over the reins to women all over the world, the men, if they think so differently to us, have made a right mess of it.

Sexist I guess...

citytillidie

LadyJ wrote: »

That's fair enough but as I said before the point I'm making is with regard to gender discrimination somehow being more acceptable than racial discrimination. I'm not talking about women vs men.

Sorry worded it wrong.

I meant to say raceisem and sexisem should not be tolerated in any kind of shape or form.

LadyJ

citytillidie wrote: »

Sorry worded it wrong.

I meant to say raceisem and sexisem should not be tolerated in any kind of shape or form.

Ah, I see.....and agree! So I guess everything's wrapped up in a neat little package!

St Bill

I have to agree....it's definitely more fashionable to be sexist than racist. An ad saying 'I wouldn't vote for a black person' would not be tolerated, and if an ad like that had been aired, I guarantee we would've heard about it on the radio on the way into work this morning

Wreck

St Bill wrote: »

An ad saying 'I wouldn't vote for a black person' would not be tolerated, and if an ad like that had been aired, I guarantee we would've heard about it on the radio on the way into work this morning

You say that like its a bad thing lol.

St Bill

Yeah 'course it is! I need my Britney/Kylie/Jordan/Brangelina fix in the morning, to hell with the worthy stuff

Time Magazine

WindSock wrote: »

Yes, and what does she do? Not much to do with the running of a country.

I think the power to refuse to sign any law into power is a pretty important act. I also think being the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces is also quite important, seeing as we're now at war.

GinnyJo wrote: »

Bless, encouraging violence:rolleyes:

A bucket of tar for you, then.

As a scientist I'd love to see the FACT you are linking to there, all that links to is your comment on some research that maybe be undergoing, somewhere, at sometime.

I'll look through JSTOR for links, but not now. Just to give you an idea of the amount of literature on this topic though, I point you to the current edition of The Economist which carries a report on whether physical appearance affects management performance. They mentioned controlling for factors such as sexual attraction. They did not need to account for gender: none of the hundreds of prominent business people they used were female. Do you wish to suggest that the r² on patriarchy is +1 and that none of this has to do with ability?

Also I'm concerned a self-proclaimed scientist didn't notice anything with the post I linked to. Have you a link to prove you're a scientist?

You can't declare something a scientific fact unless you have the papers and publications to back up the research and findings, any scientist knows that.

O RLY? The sky is blue. The sun is a star. The earth is approximately spherical. Your response: "pics or it didn't happen" :rolleyes:

LadyJ wrote: »

Surely a lot of things affect decision-making ability regardless of gender though?

Yes. I imagine being clinically insane affects your ability to make rational choices. Just as a response of "but being clinically insane is only one thing that affects choices, regardless of gender" doesn't really cut it, yours doesn't quite either.

Also, I think I walked past you at the junction of Tara Street and Pearse Street today. Were you wearing a purple hat?

Catari Jaguar

Ibid wrote: »

Three irrational days a month.

Hilary Clinton is 60 years of age. Cop yourself one. She's even beyond menopause. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

LadyJ

Ibid wrote: »

Yes. I imagine being clinically insane affects your ability to make rational choices. Just as a response of "but being clinically insane is only one thing that affects choices, regardless of gender" doesn't really cut it, yours doesn't quite either.

I take your point but I'm a little confused as to what we're arguing about tbh. I realise that the difference between the way men and women think is not equivalent to saying that a black man would have different decision-making abilities to a white man, however, I just think that in a political race people should be concerned with policies etc. as imo, it is far more relevant. Of course this is sadly not the case. In reality most people know little more than the names of the candidates and vote anyway.

Sexism and racism are different for sure but it is all discrimination regardless. I know that there are people who don't want a female precsident for whatever reason and there are surely some who don't want a black one too but I think it is just as irrelevant to show people saying they wouldn't vote for a woman as it is to show people saying that they wouldn't vote for a black guy.

My point is just that it is obviously far more contravertial to say on tv that you wouldn't vote for someone who is black than it is for people to come on and say they wouldn't vote for a woman. However, clearly no one seems to mind when it is the latter, which I find kind of annoying tbh.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't quite realise you were talking to me about periods. I was under the impression we were just discussing how the way in which men and women come to decisions is different.Not quite with it today! Good thing I'm not in charge of anything! Firstly, Clinton is surely passed all that and secondly, in what way are women's decision-making abilities affected by their period. Link me to something sciencey because I'm not too up to speed with this theory.

Also, I think I walked past you at the junction of Tara Street and Pearse Street today. Were you wearing a purple hat?

Pink hat! Though that's an argument for another day!

metaoblivia

Some people here do think that Clinton shouldn't be president because she's a woman, just like some people here think that Obama shouldn't be president because he's half black. However, the majority of these people would normally vote for a Republican anyway, considering the liberal stance on social issues taken by the Democratic party. Is it a backwards attitude? Of course. But they're entitled to it, and they're entitled to express it. There's not much the Clinton campaign can do about it, except to call it for what it is - ignorance - and use it to further galvanize her supporters.
Also, Clinton will gain votes on account of her gender. There are many socially liberal, empowered American women who would love to see a female president. I know I would, even thought right now I'm supporting Obama. But if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, I'll be voting for her come election day because she's preferable to the Republican options.

Lil' Smiler

Yeah but that's what a lot of people are just seeing now with Clinton and Obama, that either way if one of them wins it's going to be a historical moment for the US as they'll either have their first woman or first black president

This came up in a lot of the media coverage last week when the two candidates seemed to be making digs at each other and they have tried to keep it away from this now and try to get people to remember it's about their plans for the country to make it a better place etc and show them what they can do for the people rather than making their gender or race the main issue.

ferdi

LadyJ wrote: »

Why is it ok for women to be made fools of on tv but yet somehow taboo to do the same with regard to race? Seems crazy to me.

meh, it has been acceptable for men to be mocked and pilloried in the media and especially advertising for years now. Constantly been made out to be complete gobshites compared to their female conterparts in simple everyday things.

If its good enough for the Goose etc....

Jesus Wept

Give Billary a 3rd term, I like the cut of his jib.
His wife seems grand too.

Susannahmia

Ibid wrote: »

I think the power to refuse to sign any law into power is a pretty important act. I also think being the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces is also quite important, seeing as we're now at war.

?

So Ireland is at war now?

Dudess

ferdi wrote: »

meh, it has been acceptable for men to be mocked and pilloried in the media and especially advertising for years now. Constantly been made out to be complete gobshites compared to their female conterparts in simple everyday things.

Yeah, those ads depict women as complete kunts. There's a bank ad at the moment featuring two bints having a chat (no doubt over a skinny latté with lots of shopping bags - you go girls!) and one of them is talking about how she opened an account with this bank and got €150 for free so she and the fella were able to go to a fancy restaurant. Friend: "Oh great, so you got a free meal!" Money recipient: "Oh no, he still paid but I got to buy a fabulous dress and I was able to show it off in the restaurant!" With that, they both let out a seriously forced giggle and the ad ends.
Gas.

Ginny

Ibid wrote: »

Also I'm concerned a self-proclaimed scientist didn't notice anything with the post I linked to. Have you a link to prove you're a scientist?

Ibid wrote: »

This is an active research topic in the fields of Behavioural Finance and Corporate Leadership, within the Efficient Market framework. The empirical evidence is overwhelming that there is a statistically significant difference between the mean covariance of women's management and their menstrual cycles.

Of course many women get emotional and refuse to accept the cold, hard facts. This just proves the literature's findings.

This is the post you linked to, unless theres some mysterious link to some valid research I'm missing.
Pics or it didn't happen? no I'm looking more for the FACT you claim there was in the post you linked to, and yes there are numerous links to prove I'm a scientist, whats your point?

O RLY? The sky is blue. The sun is a star. The earth is approximately spherical.

Again here you're stating general stuff not stating FACT without backing it up.