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

skyfall2012

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I really can't see what was sexist about what Norris said. Genuinely. Crude and unprofessional language, that's about it. It's strange - in the Blurred Lines thread people are mostly defending what are clearly sleazy lyrics and a sleazy vid; far worse than what Norris said IMO.

Norris just has 'Fanny' envy:D

fits

Sleepy wrote: »

On the genderisaton of Lego issue mentioned earlier in this thread, this one is one that's depressed me somewhat as a father of a 4.5 year old girl. Despite massive encouragement from me and her older brother (I actually got a lego set as a Christmas present myself last year and she had more duplo than she knew what to do with as a two year old) she has very little interest in playing with lego unless it's a model that has already been built for her. I'd welcome suggestions as to what might encourage her to play with it more as I really believe it to be the best, if not at least one of the best, toys for a child's development.

I don't think you can 'make' your daughter be interested in something although you can encourage it. People are going to be different. If she is not into lego, so be it.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I really can't see what was sexist about what Norris said. Genuinely. Crude and unprofessional language, that's about it. It's strange - in the Blurred Lines thread people are mostly defending what are clearly sleazy lyrics and a sleazy vid; far worse than what Norris said IMO.

The Houses of the Oireachtas and pop music videos are slightly different environments no? I am horrified at Norris. Terribly unprofessional language from him.

meeeeh

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I really can't see what was sexist about what Norris said. Genuinely. Crude and unprofessional language, that's about it. It's strange - in the Blurred Lines thread people are mostly defending what are clearly sleazy lyrics and a sleazy vid; far worse than what Norris said IMO.

Yes it was sexist. He tried to discredit RD on the basis of her sex and not on the basis of her arguments. At least in the part of the speach that is getting all the attention in media. But I also think that David Norris knew exactly what he was doing. Because of the abortion legalislation all eyes were on seanad and now all the attention is on the abolition referendum. I just don't know if it didn't backfire. I can't vote in Ireland so my opinion doesn't overly matter. I was against abolition but when you get that sort of a carry on then you wonder what are they there for.

Femme_Fatale

fits wrote: »

Terribly unprofessional language from him.

No arguments there.

La_Gordy

username123 wrote: »

Im a woman.

Sorry for my childishness and incorrect assumption there. I'm so used to any chat about women's issues being derailed that I thought that's what was happening!

If people aren't comfortable using the term mansplaining, that's fine. I personally will continue to use it because to me it encapsulates the very real phenomenon of men talking over us and our experiences, and it's a great term for highlighting that rather than using a more palatable word.

clairefontaine

Thats not mansplaining. That is a will to dominate, and Ive seen plenty of women doing it here too on this forum.

Cobblers altogether.

Its a bigoted word. Just be honest about it.

Femme_Fatale

It's like "mangina" - infammatory and unnecessary. I fully understand the annoyance over what "mansplaining" denotes, but the term only serves to further polarise.

meeeeh

@La_Gordy

It might be. But there is no point waving red flag to a bull and the crying when it starts running towards you.

I think it's the more polite version of fannygate. You get the attention but the wrong kind of attention and then nobody takes you seriously. Before someone complains that we are discussing the language, unfortunately the language especially on the forums tells a lot, often enough to discredit our own argument. As a different example someone posted earlier what some idiot on a stag said about the woman on the plane. While the statement was very sexist and insulting my first thought was I bet that little **** wouldn't even dare to speak to her. How we say it paints just as much of a picture about us as does what we say.

Ambersky

My argument isnt that there is no issue with the language used to describe a male behaviour, it is that given two issues of a perceived fault in male and female postersthe choice is to spend more time and energy correcting the female posters.
This once again detracts from sorting out the ongoing problems caused by quite a few male posters and we are back to criticising and demanding more of each other than we do of men.

Amirani

Ambersky wrote: »

My argument isnt that there is no issue with the language used to describe a male behaviour, it is that given two issues of a perceived fault in male and female postersthe choice is to spend more time and energy correcting the female posters.
This once again detracts from sorting out the ongoing problems caused by quite a few male posters and we are back to criticising and demanding more of each other than we do of men.

They're not mutually exclusive. I'd welcome argument and criticism to any opinions I'd express on here (and the only opinions I'd express, particularly in this thread, would relate to general or public cases i.e. I wouldn't really question an individual poster's experience), and I'd hope that others would feel the same, without resorting to using counter-productive comments that essentially degrade the value of their post. I know you disagreed with my views regarding Norris' comments, and in fairness to you, your responses didn't resort to using some of these lazy deflections.

Obviously you're correct in that this is The Ladies Lounge, and the focus (and criticism for such) should generally be more on sexism perpetrated by males.

Sleepy

La_Gordy wrote: »

If people aren't comfortable using the term mansplaining, that's fine. I personally will continue to use it because to me it encapsulates the very real phenomenon of men talking over us and our experiences, and it's a great term for highlighting that rather than using a more palatable word.

As a man, if I was to refer to a woman behaving in an irrationally aggressive manner as "PMSing", I'm sure you would agree with me that I could rightfully expect to be called on that and told I was being sexist.

Why then, when a man is being condescending is there a need to call it anything other than that? The sooner feminism can agree to defend the rights of women without attacking men's rights (or simply men in general), the sooner it will find itself receiving support from men like myself who are in favour of equality.

clairefontaine

Sleepy wrote: »

As a man, if I was to refer to a woman behaving in an irrationally aggressive manner as "PMSing", I'm sure you would agree with me that I could rightfully expect to be called on that and told I was being sexist.

Why then, when a man is being condescending is there a need to call it anything other than that? The sooner feminism can agree to defend the rights of women without attacking men's rights (or simply men in general), the sooner it will find itself receiving support from men like myself who are in favour of equality.

I don't have a problem with someone saying something is inspired by pms. I do have a problem with it being used to delegitimise a feeling. Feelings are often not in the rational realm either, so dismissing a feeling because it is irrational, is in itself irrational, mostly because its not really the point.

Equality and liberty are not the same thing, an idea that too often gets overlooked on this forum.

Where things run into problems is when the personal and the political get awkwardly knitted together. Someone will post a personal experience and it can get abstracted into a politicisation. That's where you get others not quite sure on what is appropriate to respond. There is one particular thread that comes to mind. Dare I speak its name? Nope.

What I hate about feminism, is that its usually some lefty numpty trying to tell me what I should be pissed off about this week.

Rule by example. A lot to be said for it.

Ambersky

I would like a forum that provides a place where women can talk with one another to discuss things from a female perspective.
At the moment what we have here is a forum where women are indeed invited to do just that but any thread that involves feminism, something that is considered sexist behaviour, violence against women or an experience of sexual inequality posted by a female poster is often and I would say usually quickly challenged by a male poster.
The male poster usually wants to disagree with the posters view that the event was sexist or in any way differently experienced by women as men experience that too.
He doesnt consider the described act or event as sexist and invites the original poster to prove him wrong.
If argued with the male poster will often challenge the original poster to define the words she is using to describe the event and argue that the problem is with the way the original poster worded things.
The male poster will sometimes then tell us how he can word it better and will re define the event in a more appropriate (to him) manner.
The original poster will be challenged to find proof of the event or proof of the frequency of the event.
The sources presented by the original poster will be challenged for their female bias.

There is a saying that while you are explaining you are loosing.
The whole point of having a forum dedicated to women talking with each other is to get a bit away from the constant explaining. I say a bit because god knows we disagree with one another enough.

Each individual male poster is not a problem in himself and not every male poster behaves like this but the frequency of challenges and explanations and invites to educate male posters in a forum dedicated to a female perspective is in my opinion a problem.
It is also in my opinion an expression of sexism and male bias that the male poster often does not seem to notice or be concerned that entire threads are now diverted around his interests, concerns, corrections, education and sometimes plain curiosity in a forum dedicated to a female perspective.
He thinks he is just taking up a little bit of time and does not seem to realise that when he is finished another man will take his place and we will be back to all the same explaining, answering challenges and looking for definitions of things.
Feminists would say women are use to giving men attention over and above the attention they give to themselves and to other women so none of this will seem strange.

It has been said that the derailing and constant challenges by men is an issue to be left up to mods whom I believe work very hard at redirecting the worst of this, particularly in the most sensitive threads, but still even in this thread alone a number of women posters have said they continue to have difficulty with it.
It has also been suggested that we ignore male posters who behave like this as though it was a tantrum. But male posters dont get all worked up into a tantrum, getting upset is left up to the original female posters. Male posters demand logic and reason and an eventual turning of all time and responses back to them.
Instead of looking at the issue that was originally identified the focus has once again here in this thread been redirected back to perceived wrong doing and language used by the women posters who have said they have a problem with some of the male input.
It has been said that the issue of a couple of female posters using language in frustration that could be considered sexist was not exclusive of also attending to the problem of male posters contributions to this forum. Indeed male posters would welcome the time and energy spent in such arguments without realising that it is precisely this time and energy that is at issue.
It may not logically be exclusive, logically we should be able to discuss the problem of male posters constant challenges but in practice on this forum it seems it is more important to correct the sexism of women posters first and I am thinking, instead of, dealing with the sexism of male posters taking too much attention.

coffee_cake

But male posters dont get all worked up into a tantrum

That may be true amber - it was just the image that popped into my mind when I think of the onslaught of "but what about MEN" attention-seeking

B0jangles

^^^ Very well put Ambersky ^^^

Here's a quote that always comes to mind whenever one of the inevitable derails begins in a thread about sexism/feminism:

Fran Lebowitz wrote:

"The opposite of talking isn't listening. The opposite of talking is waiting."

wallycharlo

Ambersky wrote: »

...I would like a forum that provides a place where women can talk with one another to discuss things from a female perspective...

Has the idea of a female-only sub-forum ever been kicked about?

Join by invite only, etc.

Sleepy

Ambersky, apologies for my part in that. If you'd like to have a discussion about whether it's acceptable for feminists to use sexist language "in frustration" in another thread (or even another forum where it might be more appropriate), I'd be happy to engage.

I'll bow out of this thread but be careful what you wish for: if a forum which includes so much discussion of feminist topics as this one does becomes an area where misandry goes unchallenged, it makes the entire community all the easier to be dismissed out of hand.

Pawwed Rig

wallycharlo wrote: »

Has the idea of a female-only sub-forum ever been kicked about?

There used to be a private forum as part of TLL. One of the mods/regulars should be able to point you in the right direction. It was mostly used for meet ups rather than discussions afaik.

wallycharlo

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There used to be a private forum as part of TLL. One of the mods/regulars should be able to point you in the right direction. It was mostly used for meet ups rather than discussions afaik.

My inquiry was more out of curiosity rather than practical need , thanks anyway

Ambersky

These are the first lines in the Ladies Lounge Charter. The text in Bold is Bold in the Charter itself.

First and foremost This forum is for the discussion of topics from a woman's point of view. We do welcome male input, but do bear in mind that this forum is first and foremost for the women of boards to have their say, from their point of view.

Anyone breaking any aspect of the charter will be first warned (by one or a combination of PM/infraction/on-thread) and then banned for any further violations. The length of the ban will depend on the degree of the violation or amount of previous violations.

Personally I'm not dismissing any suggestions but is it impossible to simply implement, even if it takes more awareness or reminders, the original intention of this forum.

Amirani

Sleepy wrote: »

I'll bow out of this thread but be careful what you wish for: if a forum which includes so much discussion of feminist topics as this one does becomes an area where misandry goes unchallenged, it makes the entire community all the easier to be dismissed out of hand.

This is a good point, and probably worth discussing in another thread as this one is going quite a good bit off topic.

I don't post much in here, but read it quite a bit. I find that it's the only place on boards where proper, informed discussions on feminism take place and it would be a shame for that to be hidden behind an invite-only wall. I'd consider myself a feminist in general, although I know a lot of the feminist community don't like men identifying themselves as such.

drumswan

Back on topic, can someone explain why Norris dismissing someones ideas by saying she is 'talking out of her fanny' is sexist?

Ambersky

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

In case anyone is concerned that this forum is overun with feminists who get all their own way and are never challenged by women posters, let me reassure you radical feminists are really in the minority here. BTW I do identify as feminist.

Sleepy

I know I said I'd bow out of this thread but since it's back on topic, I just can't help mentioning that I just reminded a co-worker that his asking a female employee if she "had any announcements" after returning from holidays was inappropriate.

So, some good can come out of men getting involved in these discussions!

kylith

drumswan wrote: »

Back on topic, can someone explain why Norris dismissing someones ideas by saying she is 'talking out of her fanny' is sexist?

I don't find it sexist, I find it prat-ish.

The best I can come up with is that he meant 'arse' but tried to de-rude it and accidentally went to the American version which is, as we know, very rude on this side of the pond.

Ambersky

There have been several threads on feminism and always it has been said that men can and are feminists too. But when it comes to spaces dedicated to women communicating with one another in my opinion a feminist males position would be to make sure he was not the focus of attention and his contribution would be his occasional presence and contribution but generally leaving the women to get on with it, disagreements and all. We are more than capable of challenging each other.

drumswan

kylith wrote: »

I don't find it sexist, I find it prat-ish.

The best I can come up with is that he meant 'arse' but tried to de-rude it and accidentally went to the American version which is, as we know, very rude on this side of the pond.

Lets say he meant vagina. How is it sexist? Genuinely interested.

meeeeh

I know this is OT but I prefer to be challenged, disagreed and argued with. I'll be the first to admit that my nature is combative and that I am bored by stuff where everyone or most people are in agreement. So no I'm not opposed to male contributions, in fact I find them entertaining or interesting. Excluding the idiots that should be dealt with by mods.

I think there is also bit of a divide between what people expect from forums. Some want to argue (me) and the others want to find people with similar outlook or even some support and friendship. So even if you banish all men from the forum, there will be probably still some of us who will annoy others. It's the nature of the public boards and sometimes there is very little that can be done unless the post is ot (guilty again).

Btw I don't like the "tantrum" expression because of implication that it's childish and speaking of sexism it's not often implied that men have tantrums. They loose their cool which implies they were provoked while tantrum has for me a lot more unprovoked, irrational feel.

meeeeh

drumswan wrote: »

Lets say he meant vagina. How is it sexist? Genuinely interested.

I'm repeating myself but he didn't dismiss the content of her arguments he dismissed her in a very gender specific way. And I'm pretty sure someone as well educated and well read as David Norris is perfectly aware of the Irish meaning of "fanny". He is not an idiot.

drumswan

Hmmm, I thought he did dismiss the content of her arguments. Would he have said it if he agreed with her?

Is being gender specific when insulting someone considered sexist?