Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

smash

Bannasidhe wrote: »

TBH - they are also a dying breed mostly now existing in the outer reaches of American academia.

Well there was one in particular in the previous thread who kept dragging things back to her perception of women being objectified as an equality issue.

Bipolar Joe

catthinkin wrote: »

Which ways are men specfically discrimnated against ?

In almost every single way as females. Take a look at modern media. You see how women are portrayed? Not cool, huh? Take a look at how men are portrayed. Equally uncool. What helps the uncoolness remain uncool is that men are expected to "Get on with it." I'm neurotic enough.

A while ago there were t-shirts that had things like "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" alongside a picture of exactly that. Switch it around, "Girls are stupid, throw rocks at them" and there would be fucking outrage.

Ickle Magoo

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

The way you posted was needlessly harsh and angry right off the bat and I'm positive you know it.

I disagree.

I think the same lame nonsense which has already been responded to on pretty much every thread that touches on sexism, the same lame deflection and dismissal tactics that are causing much of the issues that the thread is about - dusted off and carted out yet again - deserves a harsh response...

Boards is a site dedicated to people having different opinions and discussing them but when it comes to women and sexism suddenly it's hypocrisy and "pick-and-mix" and women aren't allowed an opinion unless they've had some kind of global confab before-hand and all agree...it's just bizarre.

Dravokivich

pissblast wrote: »

Its inherit. Mens minds are unstable towards women. And women dont have male organs so cant really understand the pressures of been male. Lack of sex for a long enough period is like a a heroin addict with no heroin they just go mad.

Sexism is mainly directed towards women however I think Ireland can be proud of our equalisation of making women equals in everyday life should they so choose. the positions in my job are gendure based ie 50% of posts must be filled by both sexes. such things like this have helped no end in giving women an equal standing.

Equality in the workplace does not mean a 50/50 representation of gender. It means nothing is done to disadvantage someone from the availablity of a job based on any prejudice due to their gender.

If 50% of positions have to be held by women, that leads me to suspect capable men may be getting brushed aside just to meet a ratio. But, it can also work the other way where as capable women are being held back because there isn't enough men.

That presents a disadvantage to men and women based purely on their gender.

foxyboxer

A further example.

In the Gentlemen's club forum we can post pictures of our favourite ladies under the title

tGC Easy on the Eye Thread - Posting NSFW Image = Permanent Ban,No Chat/Quoting Pics

yet in the Ladies Lounge the opposite thread is entitled.

Who Makes You Drool? Male Form Appreciation Thread

IIRC the GC thread title had a similar title but it was deemed offensive to use such words as 'drool' or 'hubba hubba' lest we be seen to objectify said ladies pictures.

TheZohanS

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Boards is a site dedicated to people having different opinions and discussing them but when it comes to women and sexism suddenly it's hypocrisy and "pick-and-mix" and women aren't allowed an opinion unless they've had some kind of global confab before-hand and all agree...it's just bizarre.

Oh the irony...if only Outlaw Pete was here now..

smash

catthinkin wrote: »

glass ceiling less than 3% of all major coperations have a woman at the helm

Nothing to do with women's right. It's do to with who's best for the job.

pissblast wrote: »

I except that but what say if a qualified women chose not to run for office because it is male orientated and chose to stay at home.

Then that's her own doing!

Mr. Presentable

Sexism only exists when the object is female. That is why it is difficult to discuss. There is no equality between sexes and all the "rights" are awarded to females.

1) Parental rights 9/10 go to the female
2) Clubs that exclude females are outlawed
3) But it's OK to have female only clubs
4) Sexism is a female stick to beat men with, much like race is, as in "Is it because I is female (black)?"

I was reading another thread discussing females taking a couple of days off every month because of their period. When it was suggested that promotion prospects may be harmed by this record this was decried as sexist.

catthinkin

foxyboxer wrote: »

Take two timely examples.

One ad on the tv is for D&G The One - Sport. The ad features a buff and tanned male model in just his bermuda chinos, nonsensically doing stretches and running around ancient ruins.

Media reaction = tumbleweed.

Next ad, has a pretty model in a bikini for Ryanair with the blurb "Try our Red Hot fares".

Media Reaction = uproar and the banning of the ad.

That dosnt make sense one was for aftershave therefore the use of a man as an aspirational figure appropiate

using a half naked girl with the term red hot to sell tickets for an airline is not the same .

If a man in a thong with the words red hot next to him was used by an airline i would agree with you . They werent .

Ickle Magoo

TheZohan wrote: »

Oh the irony...if only Outlaw Pete was here now..

Is this discussion about AH or are we back to the frankly unhealthy obsession some had with a certain other forum?

Hardly ironic when some people have such unhealthy attitudes that specialised forums are required, tbh...

Lady Chuckles

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Zohan is making a good point in a bad way, I think. It's the idea of "Pink 'n' Mix" equal rights, like "I want to be paid as much as a dude, I want to be able to work the same jobs as a dude, I want to do all the things a dude can do! Apart from being forced into the army, to pay alimony................."

or something.

That point is much better. Why don't you guys use such examples to begin with instead of talking crap about who proposes and who holds the door up for women and such?

I don't think women are against paying alimony, but I don't know because you haven't approached that before

Some are just human rights, though... Like earning the same for the same work, being respected at work and so on.

Or do you want women to join the army in order to get that?
I don't think anyone's really "forced" into the army anymore, though... :pac:

Bipolar Joe

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I disagree.

I think the same lame nonsense which has already been responded to on pretty much every thread that touches on sexism, the same lame deflection and dismissal tactics that are causing much of the issues that the thread is about - dusted off and carted out yet again - deserves a harsh response...

Boards is a site dedicated to people having different opinions and discussing them but when it comes to women and sexism suddenly it's hypocrisy and "pick-and-mix" and women aren't allowed an opinion unless they've had some kind of global confab before-hand and all agree...it's just bizarre.

Don't pretend to not get it, it's toe-curling. Pick and mix comes from the idea of "I want all the good things, you can totally keep the crap stuff, that's yours", not "Ladies, let's all gather and reach a consensus." You're just as guilty of deflection and dismissal tactics, and no amount of s will convince anyone otherwise.

Nothingbetter2d

i have to laugh when women complain that there isnt enough women in government, well of the few that are there or were there many of them had very high positions within government, Mary Robinson, Mary McAlese, Mary Harney, Mary White, Mary Hanafin, Mary Coughlin (whats with all the Marys :???:, Joan Burton, to name a few.

if ye want more women in government either get into politics and run for office or vote them in.

the fact that men still massively outnumber women in government is because not enough women run for office and of the few that do not all women vote for them.

Micky Dolenz

Sexism shouldn't be a competition. "We get screwed over more.no, we do"

Sexism should be challenged wherever it is found and whatever sex it affects.
A bit of unity would go a long way.

Bannasidhe

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Zohan is making a good point in a bad way, I think. It's the idea of "Pink 'n' Mix" equal rights, like "I want to be paid as much as a dude, I want to be able to work the same jobs as a dude, I want to do all the things a dude can do! Apart from being forced into the army, to pay alimony................."

or something.

When have Irishmen been 'forced' into the army exactly?

As for women not paying alimony to men - my cousin will be pleased to hear she no longer has to pay her x husband 500 euro a week and she can take the house she had to buy him back. And no - it has nothing to do with shares in the marital home - the house they lived in had been a wedding present from her parents all paid for - so he never contributed a penny to it. Fact is, she has more money then him, has a great job and her own business while he is in a committed relationship with Jamesons so can't keep a job but became used to a lifestyle so the courts ruled she had to pay for him to continue to enjoy that lifestyle.
The only time she bitched about it was when he was insisting that his house, the one she was buying for him, was to be in a very expensive area of Cork with harbour views and it's own private jetty.

Conall Cernach

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When have Irishmen been 'forced' into the army exactly?

As for women not paying alimony to men - my cousin will be pleased to hear she no longer has to pay her x husband 500 euro a week and she can take the house she had to buy him back. And no - it has nothing to do with shares in the marital home - the house they lived in had been a wedding present from her parents all paid for - so he never contributed a penny to it. Fact is, she has more money then him, has a great job and her own business while he is in a committed relationship with Jamesons so can't keep a job but became used to a lifestyle so the courts ruled she had to pay for him to continue to enjoy that lifestyle.
The only time she bitched about it was when he was insisting that his house, the one she was buying for him, was to be in a very expensive area of Cork with harbour views and it's own private jetty.

Ahh now a hitman would be cheaper for her.

smash

catthinkin wrote: »

That dosnt make sense one was for aftershave therefore the use of a man as an aspirational figure appropiate

using a half naked girl with the term red hot to sell tickets for an airline is not the same .

If a man in a thong with the words red hot next to him was used by an airline i would agree with you . They werent .

Lets not muddy the waters here for god sake.

Woman in bra and knickers adversing wonderbra = OK
Woman in bra and knickers adversing ryanair = Sexist

Topless man advertising diet coke with women drooling over him = OK
Topless man eating chocolate advertising Aero = Still ok

Bipolar Joe

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

That point is much better. Why don't you guys use such examples to begin with instead of talking crap about who proposes and who holds the door up for women and such?

I don't think women are against paying alimony, but I don't know because you haven't approached that before

Some are just human rights, though... Like earning the same for the same work, being respected at work and so on.

Or do you want women to join the army in order to get that?
I don't think anyone's really "forced" into the army anymore, though... :pac:

I'm not a feminist, I'm an egalitarian socialist.

As for the army thing, a lot of places require males to have a stint in the army, but the chicks are left out of it. I don't want female rights, I don't want black rights (Is that the OK term to use now?), I don't want any specific person rights. I want EQUAL rights. The idea that men and women are better suited to particular jobs is partly stupid. I'm a weak little guy, no way could I work the majority of jobs men typically do. I would love to be a stay at home Pop.

token101

catthinkin wrote: »

pay woman in the same jobs are generally paid less than their male counterparts

glass ceiling less than 3% of all major coperations have a woman at the helm

Which ways are men specfically discrimnated against ?

I think most people who want to see that sexism exists will those who dont wont simple

Maybe because women work in less well paid sectors like the teaching and nursing, than say engineering and science? There's nothing stopping them though.

If that's true, and I'd doubt it, maybe there just aren't enough capable women in the other 97%? Maybe the guy was just better? It shouldn't be about quotas, it should be about who's best in every walk of life.

Men have less parental rights. Men pay more for car insurance. Men are expected to be the provider. Men are expected to defend women in situations of violence. Men are expected to know how to change a tyre, fix things, put up shelves. All this gender role rubbish exists on both sides. But you only ever hear women complain.

Scanlas The 2nd

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

TheZohan wrote: »

Oh the irony...if only Outlaw Pete was here now..

Is this discussion about AH or are we back to the frankly unhealthy obsession some had with a certain other forum?

Hardly ironic when some people have such unhealthy attitudes that specialised forums are required, tbh...

The discussion is about sexism not AH and I don't see why discussions of other forums are necessarily irrelevant to the topic. Why is it pathetic?

hondasam

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When have Irishmen been 'forced' into the army exactly?

As for women not paying alimony to men - my cousin will be pleased to hear she no longer has to pay her x husband 500 euro a week and she can take the house she had to buy him back. And no - it has nothing to do with shares in the marital home - the house they lived in had been a wedding present from her parents all paid for - so he never contributed a penny to it. Fact is, she has more money then him, has a great job and her own business while he is in a committed relationship with Jamesons so can't keep a job but became used to a lifestyle so the courts ruled she had to pay for him to continue to enjoy that lifestyle.
The only time she bitched about it was when he was insisting that his house, the one she was buying for him, was to be in a very expensive area of Cork with harbour views and it's own private jetty.

This story works the other way round as well, plenty of women marry men who are financially better of than them.
From your description it would seem your cousin bought a husband.

Bipolar Joe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When have Irishmen been 'forced' into the army exactly?

As for women not paying alimony to men - my cousin will be pleased to hear she no longer has to pay her x husband 500 euro a week and she can take the house she had to buy him back. And no - it has nothing to do with shares in the marital home - the house they lived in had been a wedding present from her parents all paid for - so he never contributed a penny to it. Fact is, she has more money then him, has a great job and her own business while he is in a committed relationship with Jamesons so can't keep a job but became used to a lifestyle so the courts ruled she had to pay for him to continue to enjoy that lifestyle.
The only time she bitched about it was when he was insisting that his house, the one she was buying for him, was to be in a very expensive area of Cork with harbour views and it's own private jetty.

I didn't once mention that this was the case the world over, did I? You're deliberately looking for things to pick out and use as ammo. Obviously people be different, herp derp.

Ickle Magoo

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Don't pretend to not get it, it's toe-curling. Pick and mix comes from the idea of "I want all the good things, you can totally keep the crap stuff, that's yours", not "Ladies, let's all gather and reach a consensus."

Again I disagree - I find it toe-curling that posters cannot acknowledge that other posters within a gender will have differing views.. Some women want it all, some men want it all - I'm still not sure why one deserves further discussion and consideration while acknowledging not all feel that way, while the mere presence of individual views (all 26 of them!) in women is cause for instant dismissal.

I agree with some women on some points, I'm vehemently opposed on others - much the same as with many male posters...is that really so difficult to understand or take into consideration?

Bipolar Joe

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Again I disagree - I find it toe-curling that posters cannot acknowledge that other posters within a gender will have differing views.. Some women want it all, some men want it all - I'm still not sure why one deserves further discussion and consideration while acknowledging not all feel that way, while the mere presence of individual views (all 26 of them!) in women is cause for instant dismissal.

I agree with some women on some points, I'm vehemently opposed on others - much the same as with many male posters...is that really so difficult to understand or take into consideration?

It was already mentioned, he was making a good point in a bad way. This conversation ended on page three or something.

EDIT: Going for coffee, can't wait to see how many pages this gets to in that time.

Ickle Magoo

Same applies to the general point that you feel is so good, although badly made.

Feeona

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

page three

Sexist pig :mad::pac:

smash

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

This conversation ended on page three or something.

This is page 3 :P

catthinkin

smash wrote: »

catthinkin wrote: »

That dosnt make sense one was for aftershave therefore the use of a man as an aspirational figure appropiate

using a half naked girl with the term red hot to sell tickets for an airline is not the same .

If a man in a thong with the words red hot next to him was used by an airline i would agree with you . They werent .

Lets not muddy the waters here for god sake.

Woman in bra and knickers adversing wonderbra = OK
Woman in bra and knickers adversing ryanair = Sexist

Topless man advertising diet coke with women drooling over him = OK
Topless man eating chocolate advertising Aero = Still ok

dont understand why your getting irrate??

I agree any advert that objectives any sex is sexist . Having said that there are way more ads objectifying woman than men for gods sake

stovelid

Sexism and the objectification of women is disgusting.

I change nappies. I cook. I'm in tune with my feelings. I wish that women made the same salary as I do. I'm a sensitive yet forceful lover. I've worn pink shirts on occasion, despite the boorish laughter of other "men". I take pleasure in asking (female) shop assistants where the tampons are in a loud and unabashed voice. I love The Ladies Longue even more than Soccer and Motors.

Sisters please, please PM me (with pics) to discuss how we can march respectfully forward together to a new dawn of gender harmony.

Chuck Stone

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I agree with some women on some points, I'm vehemently opposed on others - much the same as with many male posters...is that really so difficult to understand or take into consideration?

Embarrassingly, yes.