Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Millicent

Dudess wrote: »

Jesus Millicent, anyone who would view you as aggressive and confrontational has led a sheltered life!

Ha! My family used to say I was so laid back, I was almost horizontal. I know I'm really not aggressive or confrontational so let them say it. It's not me such accusations reflect badly on.

Willing to lay odds he wont post his little checklist .

Millicent

Roy Yummy Grenade wrote: »

Willing to lay odds he wont post his little checklist .

I was kind of wondering that myself.

derfderf

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

.....This is what it comes down to for me personally. I teach English in companies all around Madrid and we've had numerous discussions on sexism in the work place and my female students have basically given up trying to get promoted to the top positions...in all the companies I work in (very big multinational), not one female CEO exists. That's not very encouraging......

I think one of the reasons men get worked up about sexism is because of the point you made here. Everyone knows this type of thing goes on and i don't know one man that would agree with it. It's a problem with attitude towards women, and it's the attitude that has to change.

But, if you can prove that you were overlooked based entirely on your gender, you'd have the law on your side. In the situations men feel discriminated against (paternity leave, custody cases, etc) it's the actual law that's against them.

Millicent

derfderf wrote: »

I think one of the reasons men get worked up about sexism is because of the point you made here. Everyone knows this type of thing goes on and i don't know one man that would agree with it. It's a problem with attitude towards women, and it's the attitude that has to change.

But, if you can prove that you were overlooked based entirely on your gender, you'd have the law on your side. In the situations men feel discriminated against (paternity leave, custody cases, etc) it's the actual law that's against them.

That's a good point and it's true but as I've said before, what's needed is greater agitation of the state for those rights. They don't tend to give rights easily and campaigning enough to be a pain in their bum helps matters a lot.

Chuck Stone

Sharrow wrote: »

Oh it's the usual one about women who are feminists are 'damaged' and cos 1 or 2 men 'damaged' them they are out to get revenge on all men.
Pure and utter clap trap.

Probably. Anyway what exactly does 'damaged' mean? Aren't we all damaged in one way or another?

If someone has previous life experiences that 'damaged' them does that negate what they have to say on an issue? Does it fuck.

If anything past tribulations that have been worked through will help someone talk from experience and an empathic viewpoint rather than speaking in the abstract.

As someone else said face it we are all a little broken dont let that limit you

Bannasidhe

derfderf wrote: »

I think one of the reasons men get worked up about sexism is because of the point you made here. Everyone knows this type of thing goes on and i don't know one man that would agree with it. It's a problem with attitude towards women, and it's the attitude that has to change.

But, if you can prove that you were overlooked based entirely on your gender, you'd have the law on your side. In the situations men feel discriminated against (paternity leave, custody cases, etc) it's the actual law that's against them.

I agree there are instances where the law favours women - my own son is an unmarried father who is made jump through hoops to see his kids, as he lives with me it means hassle every two weeks with 'will we/won't we have them', 'do we have the 4 hour round trip to collect them or not?'

But the fact is that this discrimination exists is often blamed on feminism and PC 'madness' taken too far. I have seen those comments on more threads then I can count on Boards. The fact is these laws were written by men long before there was even the inkling of a women's liberation movement in the States, never mind Ireland. Nearly 48 years ago the Act which gives unmarried mothers sole custody was enacted - how can that possibly be women's fault?

Then the charge is feminists don't campaign for father's rights. Most feminists absolutely support unmarried fathers. When my son had to go to court his phone rang all day with messages from feminists offering support. No, they do not lead a campaign directly calling for unmarried father's rights. I think unmarried fathers are more then capable of campaigning on their own behalf and I will offer any help I can.

When one says actually feminists do support the rights of unmarried fathers proof is demanded. When evidence is produced - it's not good enough for various reasons and still the fact that feminists are not seen to be openly campaigning for unmarried fathers rights is used as a stick to beat all feminists and class them as the discriminators. So, people get a bit PO'd as THB it looks to many of us who call ourselves feminists like we are expected to campaign for men when we believe men are quite capable of doing this themselves and if they need our help it will be gladly and freely given.

Feisar

Millicent,

Thank you for sharing, your post has given me a deeper understanding of a different perspective.

TheZohanS

Sharrow wrote: »

Oh it's the usual one about women who are feminists are 'damaged' and cos 1 or 2 men 'damaged' them they are out to get revenge on all men.
Pure and utter clap trap.

I agree, it's a bit like saying that any man who doesn't agree with the feminist point of view is some way damaged. But we get that one trotted out too.

Millicent

Feisar wrote: »

Millicent,

Thank you for sharing, your post has given me a deeper understanding of a different perspective.

I'm glad.

Eve_Dublin

derfderf wrote: »

I think one of the reasons men get worked up about sexism is because of the point you made here. Everyone knows this type of thing goes on and i don't know one man that would agree with it. It's a problem with attitude towards women, and it's the attitude that has to change.

But, if you can prove that you were overlooked based entirely on your gender, you'd have the law on your side. In the situations men feel discriminated against (paternity leave, custody cases, etc) it's the actual law that's against them.

Agreed. The situation is this in Spain: in most companies, workers stay at work 'till the boss leaves....that's about 8pm on average but it could be 9 or 10 or....Spain has the longest work day in Europe (I get home at 10pm almost every evening). As Spain is still quite traditional, women would go home early and pick up the kids, feed them etc. Workers that leave early are frowned upon. The workers that stay late in the office are the ones who have the chance of promotion (Spain also has the lowest production output of any country in Europe)...they have to be "seen" to be working, it doesn't matter if they're on Facebook as long as they're in the offuce. The men stay, the men get promoted, the women don't but the men don't get to spend time with their kids.


Also "enchufe" or getting anything based on who you know and not what you know. They don't check references in Spain...you can basically write any auld ****e on your CV and they won't check it and that's for professional positions. There's very much an "old boys" club mentality in the companies I teach in and that mentality is hard to break.

Who's fault is this? Men or womens? No. It's the bonkers, nonsensical work culture they have in place here. Both genders could claim sexism is at play here but to me it's discrimination against the worker and worker solidarity is needed.

I'm going to bed now. Night!

derfderf

Millicent wrote: »

That's a good point and it's true but as I've said before, what's needed is greater agitation of the state for those rights. They don't tend to give rights easily and campaigning enough to be a pain in their bum helps matters a lot.

You've mentioned it whenever something similar is mentioned, I think most women on boards agree with you from what I've seen. I didn't mean to repeat an old point. I was more getting at one side saying society discriminates against them and the other saying the law discriminates against them. There's never going to be a consensus between them on who has it worse, they're both right from their own point of view.

I don't see any campaigning for change happening though. I think if women had always had the rights they have now there never would have been such a widespread feminist movement either. I think you need something along the lines of the intolerable situation that women and black people were in at stages during the last century to kick start any type of movement that would have enough support to make any kind of changes.

I knows things could be better for both sides now but i don't think either sex (the vast majority anyway) have it so bad that a million people will take to the streets or somebody throws themselves under a horse.

Millicent

derfderf wrote: »

You've mentioned it whenever something similar is mentioned, I think most women on boards agree with you from what I've seen. I didn't mean to repeat an old point. I was more getting at one side saying society discriminates against them and the other saying the law discriminates against them. There's never going to be a consensus between them on who has it worse, they're both right from their own point of view.

I don't see any campaigning for change happening though. I think if women had always had the rights they have now there never would have been such a widespread feminist movement either. I think you need something along the lines of the intolerable situation that women and black people were in at stages during the last century to kick start any type of movement that would have enough support to make any kind of changes.

I knows things could be better for both sides now but i don't think either sex (the vast majority anyway) have it so bad that a million people will take to the streets or somebody throws themselves under a horse.

But to me, for example, the situation of fathers' rights in this country is intolerable. It affects the fathers and children of those situations. I have seen what happens when fathers are on the wrong end of a spiteful ex and it's horrible.

I wonder if maybe, and this is something I'm beginning to believe since the recession began, the country has just become too apathetic to injustices and the causes of others?

Dudess

TheZohan wrote: »

Sharrow wrote: »

Oh it's the usual one about women who are feminists are 'damaged' and cos 1 or 2 men 'damaged' them they are out to get revenge on all men.
Pure and utter clap trap.

I agree, it's a bit like saying that any man who doesn't agree with the feminist point of view is some way damaged. But we get that one trotted out too.

No we don't get anyone saying a man merely "disagreeing with" a feminist point of view is in some way damaged. Speculating that men who harbour irrational anger towards moderate feminists and pretend they're radicals, and just anger towards women in general, and blaming them for injustices experienced by men, may be projecting as a result of bad experiences with women - and therefore all women should pay - is not exactly a stretch.
There's obviously a huge difference between that and merely disagreeing with feminism (although it's weird to disagree with ALL of it) and I'm sure you'll agree it's not that difficult to spot.

For that guy who's always trolling (deliberately riling, not just saying stuff people "disagree with") to claim feminist views can only be shaped by negative experiences of men, disregards all those women with feminist views who haven't had negative experiences with men, and it, again, implies feminist views can't be rational, reasonable ones, which anyone with the faintest understanding of feminism will know is quite simply untrue.

Millicent

Dudess wrote: »

No we don't get anyone saying a man merely "disagreeing with" a feminist point of view is in some way damaged. Speculating that men who harbour irrational anger towards moderate feminists and pretend they're radicals, and just anger towards women in general, and blaming them for injustices experienced by men, may be projecting as a result of bad experiences with women - and therefore all women should pay - is not exactly a stretch.
There's obviously a huge difference between that and merely disagreeing with feminism (although it's weird to disagree with ALL of it) and I'm sure you'll agree it's not that difficult to spot.

For that guy who's always trolling (deliberately riling, not just saying stuff people "disagree with") to claim feminist views can only be shaped by negative experiences of men, disregards all those women with feminist views who haven't had negative experiences with men, and it, again, implies feminist views can't be rational, reasonable ones, which anyone with the faintest understanding of feminism will know is quite simply untrue.

And to add to that, so what if a feminist's views have been shaped by ill treatment or some "damage" that was done to her because of her gender? It doesn't make her perception or ideology incorrect. It may strengthen the resonance she finds in feminist ideology but it doesn't mean it comes from some bias. I am not damaged. I had some major injustices done to me that I would have been extremely less likely to experience if I was a man. That's not bias, that's a sad fact of reality. Wondering and studying how to change the factors and influences in society that caused those crimes to be committed against me is not the behaviour of a damaged person.

Now I can't say I have never met any purported feminist who didn't have an issue with men. I have met the odd one or two who used feminism as a cloak for some deep seated problems or basic misandry. But those very, very few (I think maybe 2 in all my interactions with hundreds of feminists) were not held in particularly high esteem by other feminists and any man bashing was not tolerated by other feminists in the group.

derfderf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree there are instances where the law favours women - my own son is an unmarried father who is made jump through hoops to see his kids, as he lives with me it means hassle every two weeks with 'will we/won't we have them', 'do we have the 4 hour round trip to collect them or not?'

But the fact is that this discrimination exists is often blamed on feminism and PC 'madness' taken too far. I have seen those comments on more threads then I can count on Boards. The fact is these laws were written by men long before there was even the inkling of a women's liberation movement in the States, never mind Ireland. Nearly 48 years ago the Act which gives unmarried mothers sole custody was enacted - how can that possibly be women's fault?

Then the charge is feminists don't campaign for father's rights. Most feminists absolutely support unmarried fathers. When my son had to go to court his phone rang all day with messages from feminists offering support. No, they do not lead a campaign directly calling for unmarried father's rights. I think unmarried fathers are more then capable of campaigning on their own behalf and I will offer any help I can.

When one says actually feminists do support the rights of unmarried fathers proof is demanded. When evidence is produced - it's not good enough for various reasons and still the fact that feminists are not seen to be openly campaigning for unmarried fathers rights is used as a stick to beat all feminists and class them as the discriminators. So, people get a bit PO'd as THB it looks to many of us who call ourselves feminists like we are expected to campaign for men when we believe men are quite capable of doing this themselves and if they need our help it will be gladly and freely given.

I completely agree with what you're saying, I expanded a bit on it in my reply to millicent. It's a 48 year old law that discriminates against men. If it was a 48 year old law discriminating against women there would have (rightly) been a feiminist campaign against it. But there's never really been enough of a need for wide spread movement for mens rights, i don't think there ever will be.

The reason women still have people fighting their corner is because all these groups were already in place from when women had it really bad. I can't think of any laws still in action that discriminate against women today. And personally I don't think in this day and age men should have to start their own sufferage group to change laws that ,I hope, any sane person thinks should be changed.

Mens issues can be sorted by changing the law, it's that simple really. Womens issues here need an overall change in parts of societies attitude. I think the only way to fix that is for the attitude to die out with the people that have them now.

derfderf

Millicent wrote: »

But to me, for example, the situation of fathers' rights in this country is intolerable. It affects the fathers and children of those situations. I have seen what happens when fathers are on the wrong end of a spiteful ex and it's horrible.

I wonder if maybe, and this is something I'm beginning to believe since the recession began, the country has just become too apathetic to injustices and the causes of others?

But that's an issue that only really affects people that it's happening to. I understand exactly what you're saying, I just think it doesn't affect enough people to start anything like the feminist movement. I wasn't saying one was worse than the other, I meant it wasn't as widespread.

Millicent

derfderf wrote: »

I completely agree with what you're saying, I expanded a bit on it in my reply to millicent. It's a 48 year old law that discriminates against men. If it was a 48 year old law discriminating against women there would have (rightly) been a feiminist campaign against it. But there's never really been enough of a need for wide spread movement for mens rights, i don't think there every will be.

The reason women still have people fighting their corner is because all these groups were already in place from when women had it really bad. I can't think of any laws still in action that discriminate against women today. And personally I don't think in this day and age men should have to start their own sufferage group to change laws that ,I hope, any sane person thinks should be changed.

Mens issues can be sorted by changing the law, it's that simple really. Womens issues here need an overall change in parts of societies attitude. I think the only way to fix that is for the attitude to die out with the people that have them now.

I was actually thinking that perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the women's movement still has the momentum to sustain it, while a similar men's movement hasn't taken place so has nowhere to gain momentum from. I still say campaigning, letter writing and being a general pain in the government's arse will do the trick there.

Really good post, btw. Plenty of food for thought in there.

K-9

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Sexism is a difficult topic because of varying definitions of terms such as equality and the difficulty in opening a dialogue about male and female roles and characteristics in an evolving society. Equal but different etc.
And while quarter is being perceived as being lost and gained on all sides everyone begins to feel like they're losing out. In a situation where they're under fire people tend to lack the vocabulary to eloquently portray their stance and learn something from the grievances of the other side.
Hence you see how generalisations about sides. X are sexists. Y are man hating feminazis.
A discussion about race in here would have similar results. Gay marriage, abortion, England, many hot topics which share the common ground of lacking the language to effectively discuss topics without being seen as part of X clan or Y group.

I do think you probably are pretty close to describing AH threads about, well, any contentious often politically related threads. I don't think Feminism are that different to Racism threads or say threads about left or right wing politics.

People with strong views wading in with both feet and ant moderate, reasoned, argued posts just get ignored. It's the internet, where trolls revel.

Huge respect for Millicent. As I said on the previous thread, always a consistent poster on other liberal threads arguing for Fathers' Rights, issues effecting men, social injustice etc.

Millicent

derfderf wrote: »

But that's an issue that only really affects people that it's happening to. I understand exactly what you're saying, I just think it doesn't affect enough people to start anything like the feminist movement. I wasn't saying one was worse than the other, I meant it wasn't as widespread.

Ah no, I got what you were saying there. I think it's only really majorly come into focus since divorce became legal in the country. As the traditional family unit continues to change to include unmarried, cohabiting couples, different family types and less traditional family types, I can see it gaining momentum.

K-9

derfderf wrote: »

I completely agree with what you're saying, I expanded a bit on it in my reply to millicent. It's a 48 year old law that discriminates against men. If it was a 48 year old law discriminating against women there would have (rightly) been a feiminist campaign against it. But there's never really been enough of a need for wide spread movement for mens rights, i don't think there every will be.

The reason women still have people fighting their corner is because all these groups were already in place from when women had it really bad. I can't think of any laws still in action that discriminate against women today. And personally I don't think in this day and age men should have to start their own sufferage group to change laws that ,I hope, any sane person thinks should be changed.

Mens issues can be sorted by changing the law, it's that simple really. Womens issues here need an overall change in parts of societies attitude. I think the only way to fix that is for the attitude to die out with the people that have them now.

AS I said in the last thread, these debates remind me of family law courts, the "they have it so better than us" attitudes which leads to warfare, while the independent party, children in that case, equality in this gets forgotten.

I do think the family law is a symtom of the usual dysfunctional Government departments. What I would find telling was how civil partnerships recognising same sex relationships and co-habitation was prioritised by the the last Governement, and the Law Reform Commission said Fathers's Rights would be the next issue dealt, nothing since.

As you've pointed at, there is a certain inertia about the issue. Men usually don't notice that unmarried Fathers don't have automatic Guardianship until it confronts them. This is an area the State should step in and do the right thing. Bit like Sweden, they introduced 12 months Parental leave and not much changed, made 2 months of it mandatory on the Father and things did.

Millicent

Derfderf, I cackled at your reason for editing a few posts back!

Bannasidhe

Millicent wrote: »

Ah no, I got what you were saying there. I think it's only really majorly come into focus since divorce became legal in the country. As the traditional family unit continues to change to include unmarried, cohabiting couples, different family types and less traditional family types, I can see it gaining momentum.

It was actually raised at all of the Marriage Equality thingies I was at. Every time the question of children in lesbian and gay relationships was mentioned it was always directly linked to the lack of unmarried father's legal rights to their children and it was seen as very much being a similar issue - that of a child being legally denied two parents.
One would expect some amount of well, lesbians who use sperm donors are denying the biological father's their rights argument - and that is something which does need to be discussed yet I have never heard that argument made.

Although most people in Ireland concerned that there may be an issue with this now get 'Danish' sperm due to their liberal laws and the fact the the donor signs away his parental rights prior to donation, plus the donor contacts the bank and his 'deposit' is made before a recipient is ever 'chosen'.

Eoin

opinion guy wrote: »

No I believe this falls out from our sexist parental leave laws.

Sexist against women AND sexist against men.

Women get months of maternity leave, men get only 3 days. Therefore in situations where both person work it makes long term financial sense for men to stay at work and women to stay at home. This is ONLY because the law is biased this way. It should be left up to the couple as to who takes the leave (like Norway where the couple can split the X motnhs leave betweeen them however they wish) - not codified in our law.

I believe this is why we don't get women at the top echelons of business and government in this country. If men could be equally as likely to take parental leave as women then instantly the bias towards not promoting women due to fears they will take maternity leave would evaporate.

I should stress - I believe both men and women are screwed over by this. Oh and the kids too.

Sorry to nitpick, but it re-enforces your (well made) point. Men do not get any paternity leave by law.

So that leaves parental leave, annual leave, unpaid leave and Force Majeure. Parental leave can be delayed for up to 6 months. Annual leave and unpaid leave is approved at the discretion of the employer and Force Majeure only applies to an emergency when your presence is essential (and only for the immediate duration of that emergency).

Now, an employer would have to be a complete dick to not give the time off, but legally, I can't see a lot there that entitles the father the right to take even the day of the birth off, unpaid or otherwise.

I don't think that sexism in the workplace is a one way street either. It's nowhere near as bad for men as it was for women, but I don't think it's fair for men's complaints about it to be dismissed so quickly.

It's a very hard thing to quantify or to prove - but many organisations are afraid not to promote a woman, pregnant or not. Ironically, this can mean that a male candidate has to prove himself a lot more, because of his gender.

Millicent

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It was actually raised at all of the Marriage Equality thingies I was at. Every time the question of children in lesbian and gay relationships was mentioned it was always directly linked to the lack of unmarried father's legal rights to their children and it was seen as very much being a similar issue - that of a child being legally denied two parents.
One would expect some amount of well, lesbians who use sperm donors are denying the biological father's their rights argument - and that is something which does need to be discussed yet I have never heard that argument made.

Although most people in Ireland concerned that there may be an issue with this now get 'Danish' sperm due to their liberal laws and the fact the the donor signs away his parental rights prior to donation, plus the donor contacts the bank and his 'deposit' is made before a recipient is ever 'chosen'.

It seems in issues of procreative rights and laws, the government (all of them in many years) wash their hands of any subject which might upset certain sectors of their voters. Reminds me of -- not that these are connected -- but the peculiar case whereby embryonic stem cell research is neither legal nor illegal in this country. Same with the situation with the right to abortions for at risk women. It seems anywhere there is the potential that a few voters may be upset, the government just hums a tune and pretends not to notice the issue. Maddening really, when you think about it.

billybudd

Because most people are not able to disconnect personal circumstances with a valid argument such as equality.

Nature will always stop true eqaulity between the sexes happening.

Millicent

billybudd wrote: »

Because most people are not able to disconnect personal circumstances with a valid argument such as equality.

Nature will always stop true eqaulity between the sexes happening.

I don't personally believe it has to do with nature. We are more evolved than animals with reasoning, logic and emotional intelligence on our side. Why should nature be a limitation to progress?

Dudess

I did work with men who had experienced domestic abuse, the most damaging form of all being to use the children as a means of punishment against them. Their exes were utter weapons. I also dealt with men who were sexually abused as adults by women, and men who were victims of scam marriages and bled for every penny, and worse, every shred of their dignity.
It was heartbreaking and frightening, but I'm glad I learned about these issues, as they are not acknowledged sufficiently, and such men have so little voice. The isolation must be unreal.

One of the things that pisses me off the most about the lack of father's rights is the danger of children being put in the custody of unfit mothers. A small example: I was watching some programme about junkfood addicts (there doesn't seem to be anything else on TV these days :pac:) and one mother was an absolute wagon - no exaggeration she fed the kids nothing but shyte from chippers, rather than just as the odd treat, because she couldn't be arsed cooking. Her husband was a trained chef but she was such a bossy bully she wouldn't let him cook for them (probably felt threatened as it would show up her laziness) but when she was away for a few days, he cooked decent meals like spag bol which the kids loved. When the wife found out, she freaked.
As it turned out, they ultimately separated and she got custody. This sickened me as she was clearly negligent with regards to their health, not to mention all the money she was wasting, which could have gone towards her kids. And from what you could observe, their dad was clearly the better, more conscientious parent. A horrible injustice. :-/

billybudd

Millicent wrote: »

I don't personally believe it has to do with nature. We are more evolved than animals with reasoning, logic and emotional intelligence on our side. Why should nature be a limitation to progress?

You would think so, but sadly i do not think it is true, i have seen with my own eyes women passed by for promotion for a job because they where either pregnant or it was known openly they where trying to start a family. in a lot of case these women where the better option for the jobs on offer.