Double Standards

DarkJager

I know this is a topic visited many times here, but todays sacking of Andy Gray for comments he made has got my blood boiling again.

His comments (which by the way weren't even broadcast on air) have resulted in him losing his job. However, just watching TV this afternoon, I have seen 2 different "womens" chat shows making derogatory comments about men. This was on air, not some recorded conversation leaked afterwards. I just can't understand this and to me it shows what a complete and utter farce this anti-sexism **** is.

The TV shows were debating about current issues. One of them managed to turn a topic which had nothing to do with genders into a 5 minute male bashing fest, with the cretinous hosts bawking at their own jokes about male stupidity. The other, decided to rip on males about "fashion choices" - something I'm sure none of us really give a **** about because we aren't as vain or clothes obsessed as the opposite sex.

However, it got me thinking how pointless the sacking of Andy Gray actually is. Why was it done? To appease female viewers of Sky Sports? (which I'd be interested to know what majority they make up of its viewership). Already countless forums are being filled with pissed off sky subscription customers saying they will cancel because of this. Meanwhile, these ****ing self obsessed idiots are making a joke out of our gender for entertainment on afternoon tv shows.

When do we say enough is enough? When do we start lodging complaints about dopey bints making snide remarks ON AIR, about our gender and then having a great old guffaw about it? It makes me worry that we, as men, are simply satisified to sit back and watch and allow this to happen, while someone like Andy Gray gets fired from his job over comments he didn't even make while the programme was being broadcast. We can't even have a ****ing advert for Hunky Dorys with female models because its sexist, yet we are treated to the sexist **** that is the RSA "He Drives, She Dies" advert year after year and are supposed to ****ing take it all in our stride?

Are we ever to going to find the balls to call a halt to this sexist nonsense, or does society see us as having to be acceptant of taking this on the chin and going on with life? Are we now supposed to suffer humilation as a gender now because people who aren't even breathing anymore, gave women a hard time before we were even born? I find myself getting more and more infuriated with these double standards we allow to happen. I am sick to my teeth of watching this absolute bull**** carry on, without even a second glance from my gender.

When does it stop lads? When do we start taking back our pride? I don't want to sound completely anti-female but the more I see this happen the more I can't hating their arrogance and societys blind eyes for allowing to them carry on with it.

Wolfe Tone

Gray is suing a Murdoch paper...... guess who owns sky?

Galvasean

The RSA recieved numerous complaints re: the "He Drives, She Dies" ads IIRC. However, they were dismissed on the grounds that statistically* more male drivers crash cars than female ones.

*I say 'statistically' as this is the statistic provided by the RSA. As far as I know this statistic does not take into account of how much time particular genders spend on the roads. - Just thought I'd say that, not meaning to go off topic.

As far as those afternoon chat shows go; does anyone ever lodge complaints? Out of curiosity have you done so OP? I suppose it takes someone to start... Although I would imagine they'd be excused under 'harmless light-hearted banter' or something, which I personally think it is exactly like the Sky sports presenters' bit.
Dismissing the linesman (that's the term, I'd rather not get bogged down by semantics) for being female is potentially damaging to Sky Sports (and indeed football in general) as it potentially scares off female viewers who are an increasingly high market share.
However, in the case of afternoon shows where slagging men is commonplace, they probably don't care as much since men make up such a small viewing figure and will dismiss complaints more readily.
Let's make no mistake here. This is not about sparing people's feelings or standing for what is right. This is about a TV network (Sky) looking after it's market share.

Red Hand

If you are watching stupid television shows, then that is part of the problem imo.

Rubik.

What actually got him the sack was this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cS8OkAiXCI

and rightly so.

Galvasean

Rubik. wrote: »

What actually got him the sack was this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cS8OkAiXCI

and rightly so.

Reallly? i better sack half the office so...

Wolfe Tone

Galvasean wrote: »

Reallly? i better sack half the office so...

That was just a bit of bant

parker kent

Galvasean wrote: »

TDismissing the linesman (that's the term, I'd rather not get bogged down by semantics) for being female is potentially damaging to Sky Sports (and indeed football in general) as it potentially scares off female viewers who are an increasingly high market share.

This is pedantic, but the term is not linesman. It is assistant referee and has been for a long time.

Rubik.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

That was just a bit of bant

That's not banter, its someone acting like a complete dickhead.

fatmammycat

http://www.talksport.co.uk/radio/drivetime/blog/2011-01-25/matterface-andy-gray-wasnt-very-popular-among-people-he-worked

More perspective on it.

Pherekydes

DarkJager wrote: »

However, it got me thinking how pointless the sacking of Andy Gray actually is.

[...]

Are we ever to going to find the balls to call a halt to this sexist nonsense...

What double standards are you referring to?

citytillidie

Loose woman have always been very sexist show against men how is it still on air?

Otis Driftwood

While I believe the sacking is an excessive sanction how is this different to Ron Atkinson calling Marcel Desailly a "big f**king ni**er"?The FA has spent millions on their "respect" campaign,the Premiership has made billions for Murdoch so obviously it has as much to do with commercial reasons as any else.As for day time TV slating men,Im sick of hearing this arguement,if blokes are so offended by it then why dont they report it to Ofcom or whatever the Irish equivalent is?IMO its because the overwhelming majority couldnt care less,myself include,about what some muppet on TV3 says on a Tuesday afternon.

stupidusername

What pisses me off about all this stuff, is that if it hadn't been leaked to the public nothing would've happened! I mean they either have a problem with him making remarks like this, or they don't, you can't just say oh we better please the general public :rolleyes: have some standards, and stick to them!

I've noticed remarks being made in the Midday program on tv3, if anyone ever watches it. there was a discussion on it one day similar to this, probably about a sexist (against women) comment made by someone, and they discussed it. and then the next day there was some frivolous comments made all over the place about men, and how useless they are around the house. or something. and it was made a joke about them being stupid and having to be told every thing. no complaints about that though. (the panels are generally all female).

Just saying. To be honest I don't really know where I stand on this. I mean I wouldn't like women feeling uncomfortable in a job that is usually done by men, but at the same time where does the PCness stop? :rolleyes:

citytillidie

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

While I believe the sacking is an excessive sanction how is this different to Ron Atkinson calling Marcel Desailly a "big f**king ni**er"?The FA has spent millions on their "respect" campaign,the Premiership has made billions for Murdoch so obviously it has as much to do with commercial reasons as any else.As for day time TV slating men,Im sick of hearing this arguement,if blokes are so offended by it then why dont they report it to Ofcom or whatever the Irish equivalent is?IMO its because the overwhelming majority couldnt care less,myself include,about what some muppet on TV3 says on a Tuesday afternon.

Because when they do complain told there will be no investigation such as the recent boots ad that received 96 complaints but they will not investigate it

http://www.malehealth.co.uk/21836-boots-ad-should-not-have-been-made

liah

Men get called out on sexist remarks because women care enough to report them. I see no reason why men can't do the same. If you see a problem, fix it.

citytillidie

liah wrote: »

Men get called out on sexist remarks because women care enough to report them. I see no reason why men can't do the same. If you see a problem, fix it.

Only works if the complaints by men are followed up and investigated. I shall refer to you my post before yours

liah

citytillidie wrote: »

Only works if the complaints by men are followed up and investigated. I shall refer to you my post before yours

And why is there no male effort to chase them down to follow up and investigate?

If you harass them enough, things will change.

Otis Driftwood

citytillidie wrote: »

Because when they do complain told there will be no investigation such as the recent boots ad that received 96 complaints but they will not investigate it

http://www.malehealth.co.uk/21836-boots-ad-should-not-have-been-made

How many complaints does it take for an ad to be investigated I wonder?TBH,96 isnt that many considering the likely millons of men that saw the ad.And in fairness,if a bloke avoids going to the doctors for fear of getting laughed at then he has more to worry about than a flu.:)

douglashyde

I think most of us can understand that in certain situations things are allowed be said in banter about both males and females and common sense needs to be applied about when to say these things. Football is a lads game, which involves lad banter and opinions. So in this context my opinion of what Andy said is acceptable.

The clip that Andy Gray was fired over showed him making joking gestures about Charlotte Jackson - now a quick image search of Charlotte Jackson will find plenty of raunchy photoshoots of her - and it is quite clear why Sky hired her; to appease the male testosterone driven masses - so I have no sympathy for Charlotte or Sky.

However, by firing Andy over making these gestures suggests Sky is sending the message "You can think it BUT you can’t say it!"

citytillidie

douglashyde wrote: »

I think most of us can understand that in certain situations things are allowed be said in banter about both males and females and common sense needs to be applied about when to say these things. Football is a lads game, which involves lad banter and opinions. So in this context my opinion of what Andy said is acceptable.

The clip that Andy Gray was fired over showed him making joking gestures about Charlotte Jackson - now a quick image search of Charlotte Jackson will find plenty of raunchy photoshoots of her - and it is quite clear why Sky hired her; to appease the male testosterone driven masses - so I have no sympathy for Charlotte or Sky.

However, by firing Andy over making these gestures suggests Sky is sending the message "You can think it BUT you can’t say it!"

If he was fired for that clip then why was he not fired when in happened in December and not 1 month later?

SugarHigh

People are way too sensitive and just love the chance of getting offended even if it's on behalf of someone else.

People get taken the piss out off for loads of reasons I don't think making a sexist banter is any worse than slagging someone for being ginger.

Before someone jumps in with"Buh buh what if it was about race" my opinion would be the same.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

And why is there no male effort to chase them down to follow up and investigate?

If you harass them enough, things will change.

Maybe the solution isn't to try and match their over the top sensitiveness but instead maybe they should just get on with it and stop finding crap to be offended about.

citytillidie

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

How many complaints does it take for an ad to be investigated I wonder?TBH,96 isnt that many considering the likely millons of men that saw the ad.And in fairness,if a bloke avoids going to the doctors for fear of getting laughed at then he has more to worry about than a flu.:)

What about 673 complaints like the ovenpride

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8057792.stm

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

Maybe the solution isn't to try and match their over the top sensitiveness but instead maybe they should just get on with it and stop finding crap to be offended about.

Largely I agree, though I don't think those sorts of comments (to either gender, for the record) belong in a work environment. Same as I think taking the piss out of someone who's gay or black or anything else doesn't belong in the work environment. And regardless of whether or not it was on or off air, it was still at their workplace. They can say whatever the hell they like outside of it and should never be penalized for it if it is outside of the building, but it wasn't.

If it pisses people off, and it clearly does by the OP, it's not really anyone's responsibility to tell them how they feel is invalid, and if it bothers them they should do something to fix it.

iptba

Rubik. wrote: »

What actually got him the sack was this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cS8OkAiXCI

and rightly so.

Can somebody transcribe what he said? It shouldn't be much work - not many words. I can't make out what he said - guessing others may have same problem.

Sounds like a slightly different situation (maybe some form of sexual harrassment?) to talking about an individual (assistant referee) amongst a few individuals.

Rubik.

iptba wrote: »

Can somebody transcribe that for me? It shouldn't be much work. I can't make out what he said.

Charlotte can you tuck this in here for me luv...Charlotte?

fatmammycat

SugarHigh wrote: »

Maybe the solution isn't to try and match their over the top sensitiveness but instead maybe they should just get on with it and stop finding crap to be offended about.

Who is this 'they' business? I know plenty of men who don't appreciate Andy Gray's kind of boorish carry on, indeed a lot of the footballing sites today were happy to call him on it. He was sacked by SKY, do you really think women are the power behind this decision? He was stupid enough to display his crass behaviour on film and gave SKY all the ammunition they needed to get rid of him. 'They' doesn't really come into it.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

Largely I agree, though I don't think those sorts of comments (to either gender, for the record) belong in a work environment. Same as I think taking the piss out of someone who's gay or black or anything else doesn't belong in the work environment. And regardless of whether or not it was on or off air, it was still at their workplace. They can say whatever the hell they like outside of it and should never be penalized for it if it is outside of the building, but it wasn't.

If it pisses people off, and it clearly does by the OP, it's not really anyone's responsibility to tell them how they feel is invalid, and if it bothers them they should do something to fix it.

It's interesting you say this because the actual girl involved accepted the apology and doesn't seem to care less. If she was worried about idiots she probably wouldn't be doing the job she is. It's other people who pretty much demanded they get the sack and sky gave in because they wanted rid of these two anyway.

I don't like how people can just get offended by something and then demand it's changed, like everyone else in the world has to fit around them.

I disagree about not allowing sexist jokes in the workplace. It's obviously done to make it more comfortable for people who are easily offended but the consequence is it creates a stiff atmosphere where a slip of the tongue gets you the sack. There are certain environments where people who are easily offended shouldn't work in and a football stadium is one of them.

fatmammycat

SugarHigh wrote: »

It's interesting you say this because the actual girl involved accepted the apology and doesn't seem to care less. If she was worried about idiots she probably wouldn't be doing the job she is. It's other people who pretty much demanded they get the sack and sky gave in because they wanted rid of these two anyway.

I don't like how people can just get offended by something and then demand it's changed, like everyone else in the world has to fit around them.

I disagree about not allowing sexist jokes in the workplace. It's obviously done to make it more comfortable for people who are easily offended but the consequence is it creates a stiff atmosphere where a slip of the tongue gets you the sack. There are certain environments where people who are easily offended shouldn't work in and a football stadium is one of them.

You know it's not actually that difficult to go around NOT offending people. Having a bit of tact, manners and civility makes a working environment pleasant for MOST people.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

It's interesting you say this because the actual girl involved accepted the apology and doesn't seem to care less. If she was worried about idiots she probably wouldn't be doing the job she is. It's other people who pretty much demanded they get the sack and sky gave in because they wanted rid of these two anyway.

I don't like how people can just get offended by something and then demand it's changed, like everyone else in the world has to fit around them.

I disagree about not allowing sexist jokes in the workplace. It's obviously done to make it more comfortable for people who are easily offended but the consequence is it creates a stiff atmosphere where a slip of the tongue gets you the sack. There are certain environments where people who are easily offended shouldn't work in and a football stadium is one of them.

Personally, I think banning things like that in the workplace are fairly useful measures that cause people to look at things a bit differently. Based on the old cliche, 'if you hear something enough times, you start to believe it'. I don't think the workplace is a necessary outlet for things like that, there's a time and a place and work isn't one of them.

If sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. epithets are allowed (even casually) it gives grounds to breed hate. Nip it in the bud and there's less to worry about or moderate; it can be incredibly tricky to define what's genuinely meant to offend and what's a casual comment sometimes, so it's easier to just ban it all while in the work environment to cause less hassle for everyone involved.

Your work environment is meant to be a place where you work and are professional, it's not your back yard where you can say what you like.

SugarHigh

fatmammycat wrote: »

You know it's not actually that difficult to go around NOT offending people. Having a bit of tact, manners and civility makes a working environment pleasant for MOST people.

There is someone to get offended about literally everything so yes it would be difficult.

fatmammycat

Yet people manage to do it daily and with no great trouble at all,.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

Your work environment is meant to be a place where you work and are professional, it's not your back yard where you can say what you like.

The work environment should be decided by the person who owns the company. If the owner decides their should be no racism I'm fine with that it's completely their choice and anyone who doesn't like it shouldn't work their. I don't have a problem with sky for sacking them but I do have a problem with the government for making sexist comments illegal in the workplace. If someone wants to be sexist I think I should be allowed to and they will suffer the consequence of that but the consequence should not be dished out by the government. I am aware in this case it wasn't the government, I'm just talking about equality laws in general.

Personally, I think banning things like that in the workplace are fairly useful measures that cause people to look at things a bit differently. Based on the old cliche, 'if you hear something enough times, you start to believe it'. I don't think the workplace is a necessary outlet for things like that, there's a time and a place and work isn't one of them.

I'm completely against this form of government that thinks it has the right to manipulate peoples views. It's not what I believe a government is for. I don't like parent-child relationships between people and their government.

If sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. epithets are allowed (even casually) it gives grounds to breed hate. Nip it in the bud and there's less to worry about or moderate; it can be incredibly tricky to define what's genuinely meant to offend and what's a casual comment sometimes, so it's easier to just ban it all while in the work environment to cause less hassle for everyone involved.

Agressive language gives breed to violence I guess we try and remove a few of those words from the dictionary as well. In fact maybe it would be easier to have a white list dictionary decided by the government.

Otis Driftwood

citytillidie wrote: »

What about 673 complaints like the ovenpride

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8057792.stm

Interesting that it was deemed to be tongue in cheek.Personally Id see it as being exactly that but maybe thats just me.Are there any ads that painted women in a bad light but were ruled to be harmless?Im using mobile so cant search.

SugarHigh

fatmammycat wrote: »

Yet people manage to do it daily and with no great trouble at all,.

If a girl wears a short skirt there is a good chance someone might get offended. I guess women should cover up just in case.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

The work environment should be decided by the person who owns the company. If the owner decides their should be no racism I'm fine with that it's completely their choice and anyone who doesn't like it shouldn't work their. I don't have a problem with sky for sacking them but I do have a problem with the government for making sexist comments illegal in the workplace. If someone wants to be sexist I think I should be allowed to and they will suffer the consequence of that but the consequence should not be dished out by the government. I am aware in this case it wasn't the government, I'm just talking about equality laws in general.

Would you agree with people deciding who to hire based on their race, sex, or creed? I mean, where exactly do you draw the line? And why would anyone want to enter an environment where there's the potential for their identity to be attacked because there's no moderation on comments?

I wasn't aware the government had anything to do with it, for the record I'm talking about private companies.

I'm completely against this form of government that thinks it has the right to manipulate peoples views. It's not what I believe a government is for. I don't like parent-child relationships between people and their government.

See above.

Agressive language gives breed to violence I guess we try and remove a few of those words from the dictionary as well. In fact maybe it would be easier to have a white list dictionary decided by the government.

Now you're just being disingenuous. I don't believe aggressive language belongs in the workplace but it in no way means I want it removed from the language, and I have no clue how you jumped to that conclusion.

There is a clear separation between the workplace and average life; I will defend to the death anyone's right to say literally anything they want outside of work, but in work you don't choose who your workmates are and have to go into it with a certain degree of tact, empathy and professionalism. At work, you don't live life by your rules, you operate under their rules. I don't understand how commenting negatively on someone is professional and therefore don't understand why you believe it belongs in the workplace.

fatmammycat

SugarHigh wrote: »

If a girl wears a short skirt there is a good chance someone might get offended. I guess women should cover up just in case.

You guess? Most offices I know have a standard of dress in place. Most women won't need to reach for the smelling salts if an employer suggests their clothing is not in keeping with the job either.

citytillidie

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Interesting that it was deemed to be tongue in cheek.Personally Id see it as being exactly that but maybe thats just me.Are there any ads that painted women in a bad light but were ruled to be harmless?Im using mobile so cant search.

Only one i have found so far is Virgin Atlantic that had 24 complaints

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/business/article5702163.ece

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

Would you agree with people deciding who to hire based on their race, sex, or creed? I mean, where exactly do you draw the line? And why would anyone want to enter an environment where there's the potential for their identity to be attacked because there's no moderation on comments?

I don't agree that you should hire based on race unlike Canada, but I do think you should be legally allowed to. There should be no line drawn. If I want to set up a company that only hires mixed race midgets I think I should be allowed to.

Now you're just being disingenuous. I don't believe aggressive language belongs in the workplace but it in no way means I want it removed from the language, and I have no clue how you jumped to that conclusion.

I never said you wanted it removed I was just making a similar claim to yours. Just because certain language has negative consequences does not mean it should be banned. The only exception being slander and liable situations. Which this case may fall into since they are saying she isn't capable of doing her job.

There is a clear separation between the workplace and average life; I will defend to the death anyone's right to say literally anything they want outside of work, but in work you don't choose who your workmates are and have to go into it with a certain degree of tact, empathy and professionalism. At work, you don't live life by your rules, you operate under their rules. I don't understand how commenting negatively on someone is professional and therefore don't understand why you believe it belongs in the workplace.

First you wouldn't defend it to death so stop being so over dramatic.:D

You say you don't choose your workmates, well I disagree. It wouldn't be a good idea to quite your job because you don't like your workmates but it is possible. If you aren't going to get along with them I don't see why the government should make it look like you do. If a boss decides he doesn't care if his employees are racists then I don't see why you should get a say and tell them they can't be racist in their own business. Anyone who isn't ok with that should not work their.

. I don't understand how commenting negatively on someone is professional and therefore don't understand why you believe it belongs in the workplace

I never said it was professional but what is considered professional should be up to the owner and not you. I never claimed it did belong in the work place that doesn't mean I think it should be banned. I don't think SUV's being in cities but I don't think people in cities should be banned form buying them.

SugarHigh

fatmammycat wrote: »

You guess? Most offices I know have a standard of dress in place. Most women won't need to reach for the smelling salts if an employer suggests their clothing is not in keeping with the job either.

That doesn't stop people getting offended if their standards differ from the dress policy. Your point about it being easy not to offend people is bollóx.

Some people will get offended that I eat meat on good Friday? It isn't easy at all not to offend people. If you go out with a girl of a different race some people will people offended and then others will be offended that they are offended.:D

citytillidie

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

How many complaints does it take for an ad to be investigated I wonder?TBH,96 isnt that many considering the likely millons of men that saw the ad.And in fairness,if a bloke avoids going to the doctors for fear of getting laughed at then he has more to worry about than a flu.:)

It should not mater how many complaints there is. Look at last years hunky dorys adverts that were banned after a media out cry

fatmammycat

SugarHigh wrote: »

That doesn't stop people getting offended if their standards differ from the dress policy. Your point about it being easy not to offend people is bollóx.

Some people will get offended that I eat meat on good Friday? It isn't easy at all not to offend people. If you go out with a girl of a different race some people will people offended and then others will be offended that they are offended.:D

Really? People are going to get offended if you eat meat on a Friday? Now who is being over dramatic.
I think you alredy know that that most people can and do work with all manner of individuals without making people's lives around them a misery. You need to rein in your special victim status and comprehend that the world is not all about you and what you feel is fair. Society decides that. You may not like every decision, hell who does, but to make the world run that little bit smoother certain mores are in structure.

This is all academic anyway, as I said earlier, Andy Gray was sacked more for being stupid than for being sexist. He loaded the gun for SKY and they shot him with it.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't agree that you should hire based on race unlike Canada, but I do think you should be legally allowed to. There should be no line drawn. If I want to set up a company that only hires mixed race midgets I think I should be allowed to.

I don't believe in positive or negative discrimination; my country of origin in no way defines my beliefs. I believe the right person should be hired for the job based on merit.

I don't think you really understand business or societal implications that would have.

1) Business; automatically, you alienate people as people don't want to buy from or work at a business in which there is the possibility for them to be verbally attacked or discriminated against. It is not professional behaviour at all and is simply very bad for business.

2) Societal; 'you hear something long enough, you start to believe it'-- less exposure in the workplace to sexist, racist, homophobic etc. epithets means less people starting to believe what they're saying. If there's any tolerance, people toe the line and I don't think that's wise or healthy to perpetuate in a professional environment, at all. There is absolutely no valid reason to allow it in the professional workplace. Again, people should have the freedom to do or say whatever the hell they like on their own time, but in a work environment it's simply not practical and only serves to alienate.

I never said you wanted it removed I was just making a similar claim to yours. Just because certain language has negative consequences does not mean it should be banned.

It wasn't even remotely similar; what you stated was banning it completely. I'm arguing about banning things in the workplace and the workplace only. Outside of that I think people should be free to do whatever the hell they please.

The only exception being slander and liable situations. Which this case may fall into since they are saying she isn't capable of doing her job.

And how do people know where the line is drawn between banter and slander/libel? There is no one limit of offensiveness, literally everyone is different and anything anyone says can be interpreted a hundred different ways. If you allow that kind of thing on a casual level, it makes it harder to figure out where exactly that line is.

First you wouldn't defend it to death so stop being so over dramatic.:D

It's paraphrasing for a quote, but I certainly would fight for the right to freedom of speech.

You say you don't choose your workmates, well I disagree. It wouldn't be a good idea to quite your job because you don't like your workmates but it is possible. If you aren't going to get along with them I don't see why the government should make it look like you do. If a boss decides he doesn't care if his employees are racists then I don't see why you should get a say and tell them they can't be racist in their own business. Anyone who isn't ok with that should not work their.

Is that honestly practical, though? Especially in these times? Most people at the moment are lucky to have a job at all, when it comes to work it's hard to be that picky.

I see no reason why people can't make an extra effort in the workplace to try to make work itself as harmonious as possible. And again, this is not smart business on any level.

I never said it was professional but what is considered professional should be up to the owner and not you. I never claimed it did belong in the work place that doesn't mean I think it should be banned. I don't think SUV's being in cities but I don't think people in cities should be banned form buying them.

I think it's the most rational decision to differentiate between the work environment in order to give people equal opportunities. I don't see why discrimination should be encouraged on any level.

Galvasean

citytillidie wrote: »

Because when they do complain told there will be no investigation such as the recent boots ad that received 96 complaints but they will not investigate it

http://www.malehealth.co.uk/21836-boots-ad-should-not-have-been-made

citytillidie wrote: »

What about 673 complaints like the ovenpride

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8057792.stm

While I personally find both ads unworthy of a banning (it feels like light hearted craic to me) I can't imagine an ad openly stating that women are inferior to men lasting very long in this day and age (even if it was presented in such a zany cartoonish manner as the second one there).
IMO such ads are too silly to get worked up over and 'offended' by. Like this:

So stupid. I don't want to meet the person who campaigns for something as silly as that to be banned.

edit: picture changed to intended ad. ie: not a picture of a young Christian Bale in Empire of the Sun

SugarHigh

I don't think you really understand business or societal implications that would have.

1) Business; automatically, you alienate people as people don't want to buy from or work at a business in which there is the possibility for them to be verbally attacked or discriminated against. It is not professional behaviour at all and is simply very bad for business.

2) Societal; 'you hear something long enough, you start to believe it'-- less exposure in the workplace to sexist, racist, homophobic etc. epithets means less people starting to believe what they're saying. If there's any tolerance, people toe the line and I don't think that's wise or healthy to perpetuate in a professional environment, at all. There is absolutely no valid reason to allow it in the professional workplace. Again, people should have the freedom to do or say whatever the hell they like on their own time, but in a work environment it's simply not practical and only serves to alienate.

I think you're missing the point that I never said a business should be racist. It would be a pretty dumb move from them to be so. I'm just saying they should have the choice.

Your second point is just you deciding your beliefs are more important than the sexist or racist persons so you should have the law back you up and make them come around to your way of thinking. I don't care what your argument is as to why you side is better if you think it's an important factor then you aren't getting what I am saying.

I don't care what either sides argument I just don't think the government should be picking a side. I don't think it was right that the government used to back the racists and I don't think it's right that they now back the other side.

It wasn't even remotely similar; what you stated was banning it completely. I'm arguing about banning things in the workplace and the workplace only. Outside of that I think people should be free to do whatever the hell they please.

So people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it falls withing your limits of not being in the workplace. Why should you decide what goes on in a workplace that you have no involvement in. If someone wants to badly run a company it should really be up to them.

It's paraphrasing for a quote, but I certainly would fight for the right to freedom of speech.

Just like every other teenage intellectual.:D

Strangely enough they don't occupy many battlefields.

Is that honestly practical, though? Especially in these times? Most people at the moment are lucky to have a job at all, when it comes to work it's hard to be that picky.

I see no reason why people can't make an extra effort in the workplace to try to make work itself as harmonious as possible. And again, this is not smart business on any level.

I never said it was practical. If you are so easily offended you will suffer consequences just like if you offended people you will suffer consequences. These consequences should not be decided or enforced by the government. No **** it isn't smart business. Where did anyone claim it was?
If someone wants to run their company into the ground because they hate black people I think they should allowed to. But people like you just can't handle people with different viewpoints so you run to the government to back you up like a child runs to their parent.

I think it's the most rational decision to differentiate between the work environment in order to give people equal opportunities. I don't see why discrimination should be encouraged on any level.

Who is claiming discrimination should be encouraged? I just don't think it's my right to enforce my views on others just because we share the same country. If someone sets up a company they should have every right to decide what behavior is acceptable and if you don't like then tough ****, just don't work there. Don't even start with "If you don't like the laws then move" It's not even on the same level.

You have decided it isn't appropriate to be racist and work and then you decide everyone else should follow it. My point is that it's none of your business how someone runs their company. They aren't enforcing their opinions onto you(Change job) but you are forcing your opinions onto them(Not so easy to just change country. more sacrifices).

Dudess

I hate the implication that just because anti-male crap is so prevalent, women are ok with it.

SugarHigh

Galvasean wrote: »

While I personally find both ads unworthy of a banning (it feels like light hearted craic to me) I can't imagine an ad openly stating that women are inferior to men lasting very long in this day and age (even if it was presented in such a zany cartoonish manner as the second one there).
IMO such ads are too silly to get worked up over and 'offended' by. Like this:

So stupid. I don't want to meet the person who campaigns for something as silly as that to be banned.

edit: picture changed to intended ad. ie: not a picture of a young Christian Bale in Empire of the Sun

I agree with Liah that it's because women kicked up a fuss and that's why we have this double standard. It really pisses me off that just because people get offended about something they get to make the decision that it's not ok for anyone else either. Just like those hunky dory ads "I don't want to see them so neither can you".

I actually feel embarrassed for anyone who makes those complaints.

SugarHigh

Dudess wrote: »

I hate the implication that just because anti-male crap is so prevalent, women are ok with it.

Did someone imply this?

I can't actually remember. If feminist groups are really so against sexism for both genders equally then why don't they kick up an equal fuss over the anti-men ads?

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

Your second point is just you deciding your beliefs are more important than the sexist or racist persons so you should have the law back you up and make them come around to your way of thinking. I don't care what your argument is as to why you side is better if you think it's an important factor then you aren't getting what I am saying.

Erm, you realize that's exactly what you're doing, too? I'm simply explaining reasons as to why this is the case. You're the one who thinks everything should change to fit your worldview without taking into account that people think differently to you and that needs to be compensated for.

I don't care what either sides argument I just don't think the government should be picking a side. I don't think it was right that the government used to back the racists and I don't think it's right that they now back the other side.

Again, my argument wasn't anything to do with the government. Just explaining why your way seems irrational.

So people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it falls withing your limits of not being in the workplace. Why should you decide what goes on in a workplace that you have no involvement in. If someone wants to badly run a company it should really be up to them.

It. Is. A workplace. A professional environment. Would you tolerate this kind of behaviour in educational fields? Medical? Basically anything public service where tact is required?

Look, I get the crux of your argument but I just do not see it as rational from any point of view at all. Standards need to be set if you truly believe in equality.

Just like every other teenage intellectual.:D

Yes, I'm clearly a teenager. Can you maybe, I don't know, keep to the actual argument instead of personal digs? That'd be nice, thanks.

I never said it was practical. If you are so easily offended you will suffer consequences just like if you offended people you will suffer consequences. These consequences should not be decided or enforced by the government. No **** it isn't smart business. Where did anyone claim it was?
If someone wants to run their company into the ground because they hate black people I think they should allowed to. But people like you just can't handle people with different viewpoints so you run to the government to back you up like a child runs to their parent.

If you actually believe what you just wrote about my viewpoints there's really no point in continuing the discussion. I am a big believer in personal freedom, but the workplace is not a personal environment and therefore the policies apply whether you personally agree with them or not.

I am incredibly open to different viewpoints, which is what my argument is about; people should be welcomed no matter what their sex, race, or creed. Why do you believe the business owners' rights and freedoms take priority over potential employees' rights and freedoms? Do you believe in equality or don't you?

Who is claiming discrimination should be encouraged? I just don't think it's my right to enforce my views on others just because we share the same country. If someone sets up a company they should have every right to decide what behavior is acceptable and if you don't like then tough ****, just don't work there. Don't even start with "If you don't like the laws then move" It's not even on the same level.

I wasn't going to say anything remotely like that. I don't appreciate the assumptions and digs, they're doing nothing but derailing.

Anyway, I would imagine that it's wise to have it government enforced as business decides the economy of the nation. Therefore it is in the government's best interests to make sure business goes as smoothly as possible. If that means making sure a professional environment is 100% equal to literally everyone involved I see no problem with that, tbh. If that means monitoring your speech and having basic respect for everyone in your workplace, so be it-- it's a very small price to pay.

You have decided it isn't appropriate to be racist and work and then you decide everyone else should follow it. My point is that it's none of your business how someone runs their company. They aren't enforcing their opinions onto you(Change job) but you are forcing your opinions onto them(Not so easy to just change country. more sacrifices).

I am not forcing my opinions on anyone, I'm explaining reasons as to why these laws may be in place but stating my opinion on boards.ie in a random discussion I was bored enough to participate in doesn't equate to forcing my opinion on everyone.

Why are you so eager to try to paint me in a bad light?

Dudess

It's always being implied in these discussions. And "women" isn't just = "feminist groups".