Sexism you deal with in everyday life? ***Mod Note in first post. Please read***

GalwayGuy2

Girls are following the reality TV shows e.g. Geordie Shore and some of what they do, it's almost like watching porn.

Hmmm, Geordie Shore's an odd one. In a strange way it actually blurs the gender lines, eg: The guys are obsessed with their appearance and fitness, and the women creep on the men.

And while it is disrespectful and "Playery", it actually shows how undesirable that is.

I remember one scene where one of the guys was talking to his grandfather. Beforehand they were talking about the Grandfather's wife*, and it led to a conversation about the guy's relationship. The guy said something along the lines of, "It's not like your day where you see a woman and, done, marry her".

The grandfather said yeah and shook his head. In my opinion there was so many different types of emotions in that one word. He was sad that his son has not had that emotional connection with a woman that he had with his wife, he was annoyed that he'd view their relationship like that, and their was a wondefully grandfatherly feeling of "Wait till you grow up you tosser" :P

While this is completely and utterly off topic, it was a wonderful scene that stuck in my mind. Hell, it might have been the only scene that counts as reality.


*By his reaction I actually thought she had dies a few years ago, but I have no idea if that's true or not.

skyfall2012

I was reading some statistics recently about the number of women going for abortions in England from Ireland and a number of these women were rape victims and a high number of these rape victims were under 18 years of age.

I obviously don't know the circumstances of these rapes, but it did lead me to asking the question, how this is happening in such large numbers and is the attitude towards girls of this age from boys of the same age changing and what is causing this change in attitude?

And from the twitter quotes I read above about the girl who won Wimbledon, I have to say that I am shocked that people are OK with speaking about a woman in this way publicly and not feel ashamed, it is extremely hateful and is inciting hatred of this girl, which surely is illegal!

jank

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I was reading some statistics recently about the number of women going for abortions in England from Ireland and a number of these women were rape victims and a high number of these rape victims were under 18 years of age.

I obviously don't know the circumstances of these rapes, but it did lead me to asking the question, how this is happening in such large numbers and is the attitude towards girls of this age from boys of the same age changing and what is causing this change in attitude?

And from the twitter quotes I read above about the girl who won Wimbledon, I have to say that I am shocked that people are OK with speaking about a woman in this way publicly and not feel ashamed, it is extremely hateful and is inciting hatred of this girl, which surely is illegal!

Saying stupid stuff on twitter no matter how distasteful should never be illegal. We don't want that type of society at all. People are so hyper now a days about what others say, it makes a mockery of one of our few innate right, freedom of speech. The UK have a desperate record regards this lately.

skyfall2012

jank wrote: »

Saying stupid stuff on twitter no matter how distasteful should never be illegal. We don't want that type of society at all. People are so hyper now a days about what others say, it makes a mockery of one of our few innate right, freedom of speech. The UK have a desperate record regards this lately.

I agree freedom of speech is important to society, but inciting hatred which is what I believe those quotes are doing, should not be allowed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.
"

clairefontaine

WindSock wrote: »

I won't bother starting a new thread, but I found this link interesting. Look at all those Tweets, probably only a fraction of what is out there.


http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/54864863081/womens-wimbledon-champion-marion-bartoli-deemed

Why is it this is not considered hate speech?

Why when a woman gets beaten or killed its not a hate crime?

jank

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I agree freedom of speech is important to society, but inciting hatred which is what I believe those quotes are doing, should not be allowed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by certain characteristics.[3][4][5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.
"

Im sorry but using the term, "sure thats hate speech so it should be illegal" doesn't cut mustard here and is the classic example of PC culture of today where a silent authorian regime has us pinned up against the wall in case we offend someone.
What you want is a society that will jail someone cause they call someone ugly or a slut. Distasteful, immature, stupid and idiotic that name calling is, it should never be illegal.

clairefontaine

jank wrote: »

Im sorry but using the term, "sure thats hate speech so it should be illegal" doesn't cut mustard here and is the classic example of PC culture of today where a silent authorial regime has us pinned up against the wall in case we offend someone.
What you want is a society that will jail someone cause they call someone ugly or a slut. Distasteful, immature, stupid and idiotic that name calling is, it should never be illegal.

You're right but that's where we are now, where sensitivity breeds a new tyranny, one as potent as abusive speech itself.

jank

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why is it this is not considered hate speech?

Why when a woman gets beaten or killed its not a hate crime?

Do you honestly think it should?

skyfall2012

Freedom of speech is where someone has a point to make or an argument to put forward. The tweets in that thread have no point, but to put this girl down and incite a feeling of hate towards her, I don't see the point in that.

clairefontaine

jank wrote: »

Do you honestly think it should?

Did I say that?

I asked a question. Why is it not a hate crime to beat or kill a woman? But it is if you are gay or a minority race?

clairefontaine

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Freedom of speech is where someone has a point to make or an argument to put forward. The tweets in that thread have no point, but to put this girl down and incite a feeling of hate towards her, I don't see the point in that.

Freedom of speech means the government cant stop you, that's all it means.

jank

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Freedom of speech is where someone has a point to make or an argument to put forward. The tweets in that thread have no point, but to put this girl down and incite a feeling of hate towards her, I don't see the point in that.

No its not. Freedom of speech is Freedom of speech. END.OF.
There is no clause anywhere I have seen where one must make a 'point' to satisfy your needs or sensibilities. What you want is censorship. Of course there might be consequences for what you say. If you say that you want to blow up an airline at the airport check-in then expect a heavy fine and a lifetime ban from that airport. Same if you shouted fire at a cinema or theatre.

Their point I presume was to point out that the latest grand slam champion was a bit on the ugly side (I personally don't think this by the way). You can find that distasteful and disagree with it all you want but you cannot nor should not call for their jailing because your feelings are hurt.

skyfall2012

clairefontaine wrote: »

Freedom of speech means the government cant stop you, that's all it means.

The government can't stop you...from making a point or argument. But what is the point of those tweets, none!

clairefontaine

skyfall2012 wrote: »

The government can't stop you...from making a point or argument. But what is the point of those tweets, none!

You not seeing the point does not justify silencing others. If twitter wants to do that, fine, it can, but if it does it enough it will lose an audience and also get very boring.

skyfall2012

jank wrote: »

you cannot nor should not call for their jailing because your feelings are hurt.

Is that right, sounds like your hurting a little.

Abusive speech or actions should be illegal.

jank

clairefontaine wrote: »

Did I say that?

I asked a question. Why is it not a hate crime to beat or kill a woman? But it is if you are gay or a minority race?

I disagree entirely into pigeon holing society into little boxes where we can pass different laws for different people to satisfy the whims of the population. Crime is crime, murder is murder. It seems people are more interested in protecting their own little agenda rather than the rule of law and classic liberal democracy. Its a shame because what we end up with is a more divisive and polarised society, that breeds more bad laws and nanny state.

clairefontaine

jank wrote: »

I disagree entirely into pigeon holing society into little boxes where we can pass different laws for different people to satisfy the whims of the population. Crime is crime, murder is murder. It seems people are more interested in protecting their own little agenda rather than the rule of law and classic liberal democracy. Its a shame because what we end up with is a more divisive and polarised society, that breeds more bad laws and nanny state.

It's not my position.

I pointed out an inconsistency. That inconsistency shows either that women don't have the same victim status that other so called oppressed do, or that it is even lower than that of other so called oppressed groups.

Mod

jank don't post in this thread again please

skyfall2012

clairefontaine wrote: »

You not seeing the point does not justify silencing others. If twitter wants to do that, fine, it can, but if it does it enough it will lose an audience and also get very boring.

When I said there is no point to those tweets, what I mean is that those tweets are not focused on what that girl has just achieved through focus, dedication and hard work, instead they are abusive about her looks. IMO there should be no room for that sort of idiotic speech, it serves no purpose but to make the stupid people who read it be influenced by it and which could have consequences for her.

jank

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Is that right, sounds like your hurting a little.

Abusive speech or actions should be illegal.

Your not getting this are you.

First of all posting something on twitter would not be called an abusive action. Hitting someone, sexually assaulting someone is an abusive action. Posting childish comments on the internet is NOT an abusive action.

If we take your view on things, then nobody can say nothing to anyone without the fear of being termed abusive. Who makes the call? You? Some government employee? Me?

People are unhappy all the times what people say but if we start jailing people because their feelings are hurt then we are no better than a totalitarian regime like North Korea or Stalin's Russia where the mere hint of insubordination will land you and your family in a gulag.

You have the freedom of speech in Ireland, you can state your political views wthout the fear of punishment or reprisal. If we take that away then we have very little left in terms of freedom or liberty.

jank

Didnt see the mods warning.

clairefontaine

skyfall2012 wrote: »

When I said there is no point to those tweets, what I mean is that those tweets are not focused on what that girl has just achieved through focus, dedication and hard work, instead they are abusive about her looks. IMO there should be no room for that sort of idiotic speech, it serves no purpose but to make the stupid people who read it be influenced by it and which could have consequences for her.

Yeah..hmnnnn... I don't agree. Half the meaning of something depends on how much the reader invests into the language.

I don't particularly like what was said, but not enough to give the powers that be more power.

skyfall2012

jank wrote: »

Your not getting this are you.

First of all posting something on twitter would not be called an abusive action. Hitting someone, sexually assaulting someone is an abusive action. Posting childish comments on the internet is NOT an abusive action.

If we take your view on things, then nobody can say nothing to anyone without the fear of being termed abusive. Who makes the call? You? Some government employee? Me?

People are unhappy all the times what people say but if we start jailing people because their feelings are hurt then we are no better than a totalitarian regime like North Korea or Stalin's Russia where the mere hint of insubordination will land you and your family in a gulag.

You have the freedom of speech in Ireland, you can state your political views wthout the fear of punishment or reprisal. If we take that away then we have very little left in terms of freedom or liberty.

Eh Jank, you were asked not to post again, looks like you no longer have the freedom to speak.

skyfall2012

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yeah..hmnnnn... I don't agree. Half the meaning of something depends on how much the reader invests into the language.

I don't particularly like what was said, but not enough to give the powers that be more power.

I understand your fear of the powers that be, but I am more afraid of the crazed masses, incited by abusive tweets on the internet.

clairefontaine

skyfall2012 wrote: »

I understand your fear of the powers that be, but I am more afraid of the crazed masses, incited by abusive tweets on the internet.

Why? What are they going to do? ALLCAPS you?

D you think there will be crazed masses taking to the streets attacking every French tennis player they think is ugly? No they are still sitting around in their underpants, eating crisps and playing world of Warcraft.

skyfall2012

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why? What are they going to do? ALLCAPS you?

D you think there will be crazed masses taking to the streets attacking every French tennis player they think is ugly? No they are still sitting around in their underpants, eating crisps and playing world of Warcraft.

What I think is going to happen is not important. But, we must look at what has happened in the past through abusive tweets, facebook status' etc. and make a decision on whether hate speech has a place on the internet. IMO it doesn't have a place on the TV, internet, newspaper, as the results can only be negative.

GalwayGuy2

@Skyfall2012

Hmmm, totally dereailing here, but I'm kind of curious about your answer. Do you think it would be good for women if society saw women as "a protected individual or group." ?

clairefontaine

skyfall2012 wrote: »

What I think is going to happen is not important. But, we must look at what has happened in the past through abusive tweets, facebook status' etc. and make a decision on whether hate speech has a place on the internet. IMO it doesn't have a place on the TV, internet, newspaper, as the results can only be negative.

Right. And suppressing and pushing it underground is a better idea?

Hate speech often comes down to personal taste, informed by class, race, religion, and personal barometers. Not to mention the idiots who can't distinguish between criticism and persecution.

skyfall2012

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

@Skyfall2012

Hmmm, totally dereailing here, but I'm kind of curious about your answer. Do you think it would be good for women if society saw women as "a protected individual or group." ?

Your not really derailing, this is from that link I posted. I refer to this part of the link when referring to women as a person or group.
"Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group."

As far as the protected part, I would have to read the criminal justice act to understand the characteristics of a protected group, before I could give you an opinion.

clairefontaine

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Your not really derailing, this is from that link I posted. I refer to this part of the link when referring to women as a person or group.
"Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group."

As far as the protected part, I would have to read the criminal justice act to understand the characteristics of a protected group, before I could give you an opinion.

You do realise that would mean all the church pedo threads would be removed, or boards would face criminal charges?

It does matter what you think would happen. The consequences are important to think about before any action you take.