Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

FouxDaFaFa

I was in Edinburgh for the comedy festival during August and came upon these two signs in the women's toilets at a pub that doubled as a venue.

One of very few occasions when I've been like "I should get my camera out in this bathroom". You could argue that the first one is just sad and cynical but the second one is ridiculous. There was a third stall not pictured with a sign that was harmless.



First one reads: A wise girl kisses but doesn't love, listens but doesn't believe and leaves before she is left. (Marilyn Monroe)
Second: As long as you know men are like children, you know everything. (Coco Chanel)

I was pretty taken aback. It basically implied that all men are untrustworthy and unworthy of love and also "like children" in their ways. I mean, wtf?

Panthro

maybe

Much like some of the tripe that get's posted on Facebook.
I mean come on, talk about the height of stupidity.

IvyTheTerrible

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

I was in Edinburgh for the comedy festival during August and came upon these two signs in the women's toilets at a pub that doubled as a venue.

One of very few occasions when I've been like "I should get my camera out in this bathroom". You could argue that the first one is just sad and cynical but the second one is ridiculous. There was a third stall not pictured with a sign that was harmless.



First one reads: A wise girl kisses but doesn't love, listens but doesn't believe and leaves before she is left. (Marilyn Monroe)
Second: As long as you know men are like children, you know everything. (Coco Chanel)

I was pretty taken aback. It basically implied that all men are untrustworthy and unworthy of love and also "like children" in their ways. I mean, wtf?

That second quote reminds of how colonials used to excuse their treatment of the natives "There are like children". Extremely patronising BS.

FouxDaFaFa

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

That second quote reminds of how colonials used to excuse their treatment of the natives "There are like children". Extremely patronising BS.

Well, if there's any truth to the claims about Chanel being a Nazi agent, she would have been used to dehumanising people.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Galwayguy35

Phoenix wrote: »

I have been groped at work in the ass by older women

Did you bring it to the attention of management/HR?

py2006

I'd like to actually hear of somebody who has and what the reaction was.

Femme_Fatale

Panthro wrote: »

Much like some of the tripe that get's posted on Facebook.
I mean come on, talk about the height of stupidity.

Hate those fecking things - and the implication that they speak for all women.

I like this one that's kind of a backlash

Vojera

A very close friend of mine had his children essentially stolen from him about ten years ago when his Australian wife took their kids, with his permission, to Australia for a holiday to see their grandparents and never came back.

He was basically told not to bother fighting her over it because he would never be awarded custody as their father, and the fact that he was the one out working and earning a living while she stayed at home with them would go against him.

I can't imagine how that would feel, being told the whole system is stacked against you when you have clearly done nothing wrong and I also can't ever imagine someone telling a woman not to fight for her kids.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Did you bring it to the attention of management/HR?

In my experience HR staff seem to be pretty much made up of women. Not only would it be embarrassing but you'd probably be told to "be a man".

Mister R

Phoenix wrote: »

I have been groped at work in the ass by older women

Thank the media's cougar culture for that. Loads of women over 40 thinks they're Demi Moore and every guy under 35 wants them.

Tmeos

Interesting point in the budget today and not picked up on very much in the discussion is that for single or separated parents from next year only the primary resident parent usually (but not always) the mother retains her tax credit worth aprox 1600 a year while the father looses his even if he has the child and all related costs three nights a week. I think this is grossly unfair and surprised more has not been made of it but as usual they are going for easy targets who won't kick back

clairefontaine

Vojera wrote: »

A very close friend of mine had his children essentially stolen from him about ten years ago when his Australian wife took their kids, with his permission, to Australia for a holiday to see their grandparents and never came back.

He was basically told not to bother fighting her over it because he would never be awarded custody as their father, and the fact that he was the one out working and earning a living while she stayed at home with them would go against him.

I can't imagine how that would feel, being told the whole system is stacked against you when you have clearly done nothing wrong and I also can't ever imagine someone telling a woman not to fight for her kids.

She was bluffing. Australians are no nonsense when it comes to these things.

System wasn't stacked against him at all, not on Aussie land.

Same mistake women make, the barriers are sometimes in your head, and ironically stacked in there by feminism or whatever group pretending to advocate for them. Men's groups do the same.

Have to watch for paper tigers.

JenEffy

How is this thread allowed to continue? This is a joke.

Amirani

JenEffy wrote: »

How is this thread allowed to continue? This is a joke.

What's wrong with it?

ToxicPaddy

JenEffy wrote: »

How is this thread allowed to continue? This is a joke.

MOD NOTE

If you have an issue with a post please report it, if not and have nothing constructive to add, kindly refrain from posting

py2006

Unfortunately for some, sexism is something that men do/say that is directed towards women. Women are incapable of being discriminatory, sexist, demeaning or resentful towards men. Therefore, in their eyes, a discussion like this is beyond nonsense and should not be tolerated as all it does is belittle female victims. Have I got that right?


Sigh.

awec

This post has been deleted.

py2006

awec wrote: »

I don't see what this post adds to the discussion.

Back to the topic please folks - no more derailing the thread.

With respect, it is not off topic nor is it an attempt to derail the thread. A lot of men who experience sexism are met with that attitude I outlined above. Which has been mentioned already.

The Corinthian

I would have thought that the prejudice is a classic example of sexism; that men cannot experience sexism. To even suggest men can is somehow laughable.

It's one that most men have experienced in the past, in comments made in conversations, where even polite scepticism that such a concept exists and which, thanks to the poster above who attempted to detail the thread, we have all experienced now first hand.

JenEffy

NiallSparky wrote: »

What's wrong with it?

What's wrong with a thread about the sexism men experience? There are men who've been sexually assaulted and discriminated against but as a whole, sexism against men does not exist. Every woman has experienced sexism, the men who have experienced it are in a very tiny minority. Besides assault, I don't understand what men experience as sexism.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Playboy

No

JenEffy wrote: »

What's wrong with a thread about the sexism men experience? There are men who've been sexually assaulted and discriminated against but as a whole, sexism against men does not exist. Every woman has experienced sexism, the men who have experienced it are in a very tiny minority. Besides assault, I don't understand what men experience as sexism.

Why dont you read the thread and find out instead of casually dismissing something because you are not well informed.

DamoKen

Maybe actually read the thread before pleading ignorance. Or if you can't be bothered reading it why bother posting in it?

awec

This post has been deleted.

runawaybishop

No

whoops.

donfers

No

JenEffy wrote: »

What's wrong with a thread about the sexism men experience? There are men who've been sexually assaulted and discriminated against but as a whole, sexism against men does not exist. Every woman has experienced sexism, the men who have experienced it are in a very tiny minority. Besides assault, I don't understand what men experience as sexism.

It's precisely because this kind of "head in the sand" attitude exists that threads like this are so important


...didn't see the warning above before I posted

hedgehog2

Just noticed this thread,really interesting reading.
I had an interview within back in Sept for a role I am well qualified for.
It was myself and 7 females in for the day,two rounds of interviews.
We all got to know each other and it turned out my qualifications were really specific for the role and I had about 8 yrs experience more than the closest candidate.
I am fairly used to interviews and perform well in them.
The panel had one male and two females,I did really well the fella was keen on my experience and they all liked the recent project I managed over the last two years.
Did`nt get the job,the lady who got it is 10yrs my junior and a recent graduate with zero experience.
I checked into this further over the past 12 yrs not one male has been awarded the job,the head of the department is a female and my friend who works in a separate department contacted her after they awarded the post.He inquired discretely why the girl with zero experience got it and
she could not satisfactorily tell him why I did not get the job just that she bonded better with her.
My two cents she does not like working with males which I heard from a good source and bullies her female staff.
Most likely dodged a bullet but it was the first job interview I did not get in my entire career so a bit of a kick considering I am well experienced for the role,but I definitely see a sexist angle in her decision.

Sleepy

hedgehog2 wrote: »

Just noticed this thread,really interesting reading.
I had an interview within back in Sept for a role I am well qualified for.
It was myself and 7 females in for the day,two rounds of interviews.
We all got to know each other and it turned out my qualifications were really specific for the role and I had about 8 yrs experience more than the closest candidate.
I am fairly used to interviews and perform well in them.
The panel had one male and two females,I did really well the fella was keen on my experience and they all liked the recent project I managed over the last two years.
Did`nt get the job,the lady who got it is 10yrs my junior and a recent graduate with zero experience.
I checked into this further over the past 12 yrs not one male has been awarded the job,the head of the department is a female and my friend who works in a separate department contacted her after they awarded the post.He inquired discretely why the girl with zero experience got it and
she could not satisfactorily tell him why I did not get the job just that she bonded better with her.
My two cents she does not like working with males which I heard from a good source and bullies her female staff.
Most likely dodged a bullet but it was the first job interview I did not get in my entire career so a bit of a kick considering I am well experienced for the role,but I definitely see a sexist angle in her decision.

Is there a HR process you could go through with regards to having her sexism sanctioned?

Personally, I'd be livid in your situation and genuinely would be considering legal action over the discrimination. Given that no other candidate came near you in terms of qualifications or experience (the most important factors in employment discrimination from what I can see) I'd certainly at least follow up with HR/senior management and advise them you're considering your legal options.

It might not necessarily get you the job but it may at least get the sexist bitch fired.

Sauve

Sleepy wrote: »

It might not necessarily get you the job but it may at least get the sexist bitch fired.

Mod
Leave out the name calling please

Maguined

Sleepy wrote: »

Is there a HR process you could go through with regards to having her sexism sanctioned?

Personally, I'd be livid in your situation and genuinely would be considering legal action over the discrimination. Given that no other candidate came near you in terms of qualifications or experience (the most important factors in employment discrimination from what I can see) I'd certainly at least follow up with HR/senior management and advise them you're considering your legal options.

It might not necessarily get you the job but it may at least get the sexist bitch fired.

Sounds like it is a big company and in big companies HR will always back the managers/directors decisions.

The only thing people can do in these situations is to actually take the company to court over such discrimination which is extremely expensive, time consuming and is not reliable to go your way.

Like most examples of sexism in the work place there is in theory something official you can do about it but in practice a lot of the times it's not worth the risk.

GalwayGuy2

This: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-jail-for-woman-who-admits-sexually-assaulting-teenage-relative-610591.html

Just going to highlight the fact that it is statutory rape and not sexual assault.

And I'm going to give a few of the comments that sickened me.

Judge Desmond Hogan remarked that it was an "unusual but serious case" in which the woman had taken advantage of a young person.

Ms Biggs said that although her client had breached the child's trust, “in a warped and dysfunctional way, she did love that child” and the child loved her.

Pawwed Rig

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Just going to highlight the fact that it is statutory rape and not sexual assault.

“It was consensual, the complainant said she was not frightened, and there were genuine feelings between them…in so far as a 14-year-old can have feelings,” said Ms Biggs.

I thought sex with a minor could not be considered consensual by definition?

iptba

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

This: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/no-jail-for-woman-who-admits-sexually-assaulting-teenage-relative-610591.html

Just going to highlight the fact that it is statutory rape and not sexual assault.

And I'm going to give a few of the comments that sickened me.

Judge Desmond Hogan remarked that it was an "unusual but serious case" in which the woman had taken advantage of a young person.

Ms Biggs said that although her client had breached the child's trust, “in a warped and dysfunctional way, she did love that child” and the child loved her.

No mention of being placed on sex offenders' register so:
(i) not named (for legal reasons - presumably because the victim might be identified);
(ii) no jail time;
(iii) it appears, not placed on the sex offenders' list.

Little more than a (metaphorical) slap on the wrist.

Pawwed Rig

No mention of the word paedophile either

clairefontaine

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

No mention of the word paedophile either

Pedophilia is a diagnosis, not the same thing always as a sex offender. Im assuming that journalists cannot label someone this without risk of libel, unless their history has proven a historical pattern of attraction to children.

Pawwed Rig

My dictionary must be incorrect then as it defines it as "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children."



I think this qualifies

clairefontaine

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

My dictionary must be incorrect then as it defines it as "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children."



I think this qualifies

Yes it is that alright.

But in a journalistic reporting of a sex offense, they have to be careful.

She may not be diagnosed as a pedophile, even though YOU think this qualifies.

Not all child sex offenders are pedophiles in that they commit the offence with a child but they do not have a "disposition" in which they are attracted to to children specifically.

The Corinthian

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Just going to highlight the fact that it is statutory rape and not sexual assault.

Legally you need a penis to commit rape in Ireland. Yes, I'm not joking; only men can commit rape in Ireland, the most that a woman can be charged with is the lesser crime of sexual assault.

Still my favourite line from the judge was this:

"He said he was unsure whether the defendant has full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of what she did and has some way to go until she realises the full consequences."

...but sure, let's release her anyway...

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Legally you need a penis to commit rape in Ireland. Yes, I'm not joking; only men can commit rape in Ireland, the most that a woman can be charged with is the lesser crime of sexual assault.

Still my favourite line from the judge was this:

"He said he was unsure whether the defendant has full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of what she did and has some way to go until she realises the full consequences."

...but sure, let's release her anyway...

That sounds like the Queen Victoria logic of not making lesbianism illegal because it doesn't exist.

Is sex assault really considered a lesser crime? Is that because rape brings risk of pregnancy?

Carlos Orange

No

The Corinthian wrote: »

Legally you need a penis to commit rape in Ireland. Yes, I'm not joking; only men can commit rape in Ireland, the most that a woman can be charged with is the lesser crime of sexual assault.

Still my favourite line from the judge was this:

"He said he was unsure whether the defendant has full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of what she did and has some way to go until she realises the full consequences."

...but sure, let's release her anyway...

I'm pretty sure she realises the lack of consequences already. Not named and no jail time.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

That sounds like the Queen Victoria logic of not making lesbianism illegal because it doesn't exist.

The law is probably Victorian, although the origin of many of such laws are actually Elizabethan (for example while male homosexuality was punishable by death in her day, lesbianism was not as she refused to accept it existed).

The UK has reformed many of these laws in the last fifty years. We've not really bothered in Ireland until there's a scandal or pressure to do so.

Is sex assault really considered a lesser crime? Is that because rape brings risk of pregnancy?

Yes. Rape can result in a life sentience, sexual assault of a minor has a far more lenient maximum of 14 years. I don't know what the logic there is. Maybe Bill Clinton drafted the law?

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

The law is probably Victorian, although the origin of many of such laws are actually Elizabethan (for example while male homosexuality was punishable by death in her day, lesbianism was not as she refused to accept it existed).

The UK has reformed many of these laws in the last fifty years. We've not really bothered in Ireland until there's a scandal or pressure to do so.

Yes. Rape can result in a life sentience, sexual assault of a minor has a far more lenient maximum of 14 years. I don't know what the logic there is. Maybe Bill Clinton drafted the law?

Bill Clinton actually pushed through some of our more ridiculous sex offender laws. So yeah, nothing would surprise me there.

If you look at the judges ruling in this particular case, it looks like he ignored the law and was legislating from the bench so id have to ask what would changing the law actually do if judges ignore them anyway.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Bill Clinton actually pushed through some of our more ridiculous sex offender laws. So yeah, nothing would surprise me there.

More in the sense of it's not sex unless intercourse is involved, which essentially was his logic over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

TBH, the difference in treatment that exists in such cases is no surprise; we recently saw (this time in the UK) how two almost identical cases of teachers having affairs with their students were treated almost completely differently, not only in law, but subsequently in the media.

But the law itself is highly flawed; at least up until 2009, the crime of incest was punishable up to life in prison - if you are a man. Women could, or perhaps still can, only get a maximum of 7 years, for the same crime.

In this case, and IMHO, it appears the buck stops with Judge Hogan. Anyone who could make such a judgement is frankly a buffoon, who has no place in a court of law; a white knight with a wig.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

More in the sense of it's not sex unless intercourse is involved, which essentially was his logic over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

TBH, the difference in treatment that exists in such cases is no surprise; we recently saw (this time in the UK) how two almost identical cases of teachers having affairs with their students were treated almost completely differently, not only in law, but subsequently in the media.

But the law itself is highly flawed; at least up until 2009, the crime of incest was punishable up to life in prison - if you are a man. Women could, or perhaps still can, only get a maximum of 7 years, for the same crime.

In this case, and IMHO, it appears the buck stops with Judge Hogan. Anyone who could make such a judgement is frankly a buffoon, who has no place in a court of law; a white knight with a wig.

It sounds kind of Catholic like its not an affair unless there's intercourse.

My impression is over all sentencing for child sex offences in Ireland has been pretty light.

Tis case is really just wow. One of the things that depressed me about Ireland was that nothing seemed to matter, there were no consequences to anything, and this is just more of that. She's basically free to continue preying on a minor because the judge feels she loves her. They all say they "love" their victims. They actually believe it half the time too.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

It sounds kind of Catholic like its not an affair unless there's intercourse.

The legislation is most likely inherited from before independence, so hardly Catholic.

Pawwed Rig

I know this was discussed before but I was just researching some statistics on cancer in Ireland on www.cancer.ie

The incidence of cancers in 2009 was:
Non melanoma skin cancer–8,145 cases
Prostate cancer–2,859 cases
Breast cancer–2,766 cases
Bowel cancer–2,271 cases
Lung cancer–1,784 cases

Now prostate cancer is exclusively male and breast cancer is almost exclusively female (26 cases of male breast cancer).
42% of men and 50% of women diagnosed with cancer currently survive for five years and longer.
So comparing prostate cancer and breast cancer. Men are more likely to get it and are more likely to die yet when you think of cancer awareness and fundraising drives, breast cancer is the one that immediately comes to mind.

IvyTheTerrible

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I know this was discussed before but I was just researching some statistics on cancerin Ireland on www.cancer.ie

The incidence of cancers in 2009 was:

• Non melanoma skin cancer–8,145 cases
• Prostate cancer–2,859 cases
• Breast cancer–2,766 cases
• Bowel cancer–2,271 cases
• Lung cancer–1,784 cases

Nowprostate cancer is exclusively male and breast cancer is almost exclusivelyfemale (26 cases of male breast cancer).

42% ofmen and 50% of women diagnosed with cancer currently survive for five years andlonger.

Socomparing prostate cancer and breast cancer. Men are more likely to get it andare more likely to die yet when you think of cancer awareness and fundraisingdrives, breast cancer is the one that immediately comes to mind.

I'm not sure that's neccessarily sexism though, cervical cancer is something only women can get; and there isn't the same awareness or fundraising for that.
I don't know about Ireland, but I hear a lot about screening for colon and prostate cancer here in France.

Pawwed Rig

It is an indication of who is more valued in society or more importantly who is more disposable.

Cancers in women
Gynae cancers–992 Cervical –304, Ovary –297, Uterine–391

I have heard alot more about cervical smear tests in my lifetime than prostate exams. Isn't there a free smear test provided by the HSE?

FouxDaFaFa

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So comparing prostate cancer and breast cancer. Men are more likely to get it andare more likely to die yet when you think of cancer awareness and fundraising drives, breast cancer is the one that immediately comes to mind.

Yes and unfortunately iirc, Ireland has a higher prostate cancer mortality rate than other developed countries, like the US.

It doesn't have to be a death sentence but it often is, whether that's ignorance of what they should be looking out for or a reluctance to go to the doctor until it's too late.

As for why breast cancer has had more successful fundraising drives, it's probably because big companies have alway been behind it as the kind of "cool" cancer to support. (I mean no offence by this).

It's much easier to aim products at a (largely) female demographic and make the drives kind of fun (oh look, pink!) rather than say "and guys, check your balls and go to your doctor for an awkward test if you're worried". It's not as palatable.

I think schemes like Movember (coming up fast) are great steps in the right direction. A whole month dedicated to raising awareness about men's cancers. And awareness of how great facial hair can be.