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

py2006

Fascinating video on what happened when a woman questioned some 'Slut Shaming' activists about 'Rape Culture'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXGWJu99jAU

Pepe LeFrits

She speaks well.

Yer man though... ugh. 'Socialist communists' :rolleyes: and as for the super creepy bit last minute or so of the video...

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

If I am over-reacting then again that's fair enough but surely the Guardian, or any media outlet really, should never be starting an article with the phrase "Men are pretty terrible people"?

I think it's a fair point to add here that the very same people who are A-OK with an article that starts with "Men are pretty terrible people" are also the ones who hit the roof when someone dares to criticize Islam or Muslims in the light of recent events.

I would not personally hold Muslims or Islam solely accountable for what has happened in the same way that I would not hold "Men" accountable for sexual assault, rape, etc.

What I cannot wrap my head around is how people who apparently think that Patriarchy is a serious and pervasive problem, people who have made it their life goal to "end rape culture", are absolutely unwilling to criticize Islam or Muslims in the same terms as they will criticize Men. I was under the impression that Islam does not exactly hold women in high regard?

Grand Theft Auto? Gaming is a boys club and always has been. This game is a terrible example of misogyny and rape culture. Criticize it. Ban it.

The Qur'an?

For me, it's times like these that really expose their sexism. If they will (correctly) refuse to tar all Muslims with the same brush and (again, correctly) make rational arguments about how all followers of Islam do not condone terrorism then WHY are they more than willing to abandon that logic when they decide to come right out and bang on about how terrible men are?

(Disclaimer: I do despise religion though and am thoroughly in favor of shaming people for their idiotic belief in Allah or God or whatever. If you want to believe in a magical sky fairy then you are fair game for ridicule.)

ancapailldorcha

maybe

This thread is about sexism against men, not Islam. Take it to the appropriate forum please.

silverharp

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/kindergarten-teacher-will-let-boys-play-legos-when-hell-freezes-over-promote-gender-equality#.qizntxr:TkYP

A kindergarten teacher in Bainbridge Island, Washington, has banned boys from playing with Legos as part of the fight for gender equality.

The Bainbridge Island Review reports Captain Johnston Blakely Elementary School kindergarten teacher Karen Keller intentionally excludes boys from playing with Lego building blocks. Allegedly, this is in attempt to help girls.

Keller told the Bainbridge Island Review, “I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head. I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad.”

According to Keller, playing with building blocks like Legos helps children develop spatial and math skills. Girls, therefore, are at a disadvantage in developing those skills because Legos are not marketed towards girls.

silverharp

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/19/men-are-not-monsters.html

Last week three of my four boys were herded into school-sponsored assemblies and asked to stand, raise their hands and pledge to never, ever hurt a woman. While their female classmates remained seated, my boys faced intense pressure to say:

I promise

To never ever

Hit, hurt, or otherwise harm

A woman, girl, or child.

I understand

That I am bigger and stronger

Than many women, girls, and children.

Therefore it is my DUTY

To NEVER HARM them,

Protect, Respect, Honor, and Love them

No matter what.

Aghast, my 17-year-old son walked out. Less than two hours later, he went to choir practice, where he and his classmates practiced a parody of "Cell Block Tango" from the musical "Chicago" that features the “six merry murderesses of Cook County Jail” singing about killing their lovers. Here's one verse:

Hah! He had it coming

He had it coming

He took a flower

In its prime

And then he used it

And he abused it

It was a murder

But not a crime!

Ironic, eh?

tritium

silverharp wrote: »

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/kindergarten-teacher-will-let-boys-play-legos-when-hell-freezes-over-promote-gender-equality#.qizntxr:TkYP

Ah yeah the old classic. If we can't make our team smarter we'll make everyone else dumber....


I despair

jackofalltrades

maybe

Keller told the Bainbridge Island Review, “I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head.
I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad.”

So not only does she not let boys play with Lego, she also lies to them.
People like this shouldn't be teaching children.

Sleepy

Girls, therefore, are at a disadvantage in developing those skills because Legos are not marketed towards girls.

Really? How come my daughter has Disney Princess Lego, Lego "Friends" and is asking for Lego "Pixies" for Christmas?

Into The Blue

My daughter loves her Jurassic world and star wars Lego.

It's down to the parents, not the toy companies who are just supplying the demand that already exists.

Sleepy

I should have clarified, she also has other Lego but those sets I mentioned are all definitely marketed at girls.

Into The Blue

Sleepy wrote: »

I should have clarified, she also has other Lego but those sets I mentioned are all definitely marketed at girls.

Apologies, i was referring to that gobshïte teacher.

Sleepy

No offense taken at all, I didn't take your post as anything other than the same as my last one: pointing out the idiocy of that feminist...

iptba

"Canada's Syrian refugee plan limited to women, children and families
Unaccompanied men not included because of ongoing security concerns"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugee-plan-women-children-families-1.3330185

Carlos Orange

No

iptba wrote: »

"Canada's Syrian refugee plan limited to women, children and families
Unaccompanied men not included because of ongoing security concerns"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugee-plan-women-children-families-1.3330185

I'm sure all the feminists are raging about gender equality. /s

LostinBlanch

maybe

To be fair, given events in Paris recently, I actually think that's a good move.

ancapailldorcha

maybe

I disagree completely. It was 11 men who committed the Paris attacks. 1.5 million refugees are projected to reach Germany by the end of the year (including those already there). How many of them have committed such atrocities?

gizmo555

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It was 11 men who committed the Paris attacks.

. . . and one woman

Pawwed Rig

LostinBlanch wrote: »

To be fair, given events in Paris recently, I actually think that's a good move.

It is not too much more of a stretch to ban Muslims altogether.

Amirani

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is not too much more of a stretch to ban Muslims altogether.

It's no more of a stretch - and based on the sample in Paris recently, there's a stronger correlation between religion and terrorism than sex and terrorism.

Completely immoral response from Canada.

ALiasEX

100 Women 2015: Social media 'fuels gender violence' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-34911605

"It is time for a "world-wide wake-up call", says the UN."

"The report says tech companies need to "explicitly recognise cyber violence against women and girls as unlawful behaviour" and provide "relief to victims and survivors".

But the picture is bleak so far. Statistics reveal that one in five female internet users live in countries where gender violence is unlikely to be legally punished."

Sleepy

"cyber violence"? Has someone invented a "slap some sense into that moron" function that I haven't been told about?

Carlos Orange

No

Maybe we could just think things that are wrong are wrong irrespective of the genders of people involved.

py2006

Violence is the use of physical force with the intention to hurt, damage or kill.

Equating this to slagging people off online is ridiculous.

It is always interesting that when people say/do awful things somebody somewhere writes an article (with exaggerated stats) on how women are the sole victims and of course people buy into it.

orubiru

ALiasEX wrote: »

100 Women 2015: Social media 'fuels gender violence' http://www.bbc.com/news/world-34911605

"It is time for a "world-wide wake-up call", says the UN."

"The report says tech companies need to "explicitly recognise cyber violence against women and girls as unlawful behaviour" and provide "relief to victims and survivors".

But the picture is bleak so far. Statistics reveal that one in five female internet users live in countries where gender violence is unlikely to be legally punished."

The statsistics are pretty damning to be honest. "1 in 3 women experience some form of violence in their lifetime". I do wonder what the statistic for men would be though?

If their basic assumption here is that Cyber Violence = Physical Violence then I see no reason why the two can't be used interchangeably for the purposes of making a response.

Why is the phrase "explicitly recognise cyber violence against women and girls as unlawful behaviour" used rather than "explicitly recognise cyber violence as unlawful behaviour"?

If a person lives in a country where violence is punished how can we make the claim that "gender violence" is somehow not punished?

Where in the world could I go out into the street choose a random woman and say "now I will punch you because you are female" deliver my punch and then skip off down the street knowing that I will not face any punishment AT ALL?

Society already punishes violent acts. I don't know the laws of every nation on Earth but I feel like the vast majority do punish violent acts.

Do they all punish online abuse? I don't know. I'd expect that if they do then abuse sent to a man would be treated the same as abuse sent to a woman. I'd certainly be surprised to find that if I sent a bomb threat to a famous male celebrity I'd be punished less harshly than if I sent a bomb threat to a famous female celebrity.

I don't know how it's possible to avoid asking how we are supposed to define "gender related violence"?

Let's I have a bit of verbal confrontation with a guy on the bus and he ends up punching me in the face. We ask that guy would he have punched me if I were a woman and he says definitely not. Surely that makes me the victim of "gender violence"? If someone would never hit a woman but would hit a man if necessary then that's "gender violence" right?

Or is "gender violence" simply when a man commits violence towards a woman? What about when a woman commits violence towards a man? Is that also "gender violence"?

So "gender violence" can only have a few meanings, I think.

One - If someone assaults, harasses or otherwise abuses a person simply because of their gender. So you find out the person who created the video game is woman and you think "well, I've found out the creator is a woman so I have to abuse this person now". This works both ways though. There are plenty of people out there who are keen to victimize men and boys. This definition make the "women and girls" part redundant.

Two - A person uses gender based slurs or gender specific threats when abusing a person. I would argue that these slurs and threats are "instruments" used for abuse. For example, if I were likely to kill a guy because he owes me money then I may have to choose between a knife and a gun. I say the knife is quieter and less easy to trace so I select my instrument. To call this a "knife crime" is actually quite misleading. It would be a murder and the specific instrument used is actually not relevant when considering motive. So when you decide that you really don't like the person who created the video game and your chosen instrument of abuse is a gendered slur? Well, this isn't "gender abuse" it's just straight up abuse. This definition makes the idea of "gender abuse" redundant.

Ultimately, the only conclusion I am able to reach from reading this article is that certain parties are pushing for crimes committed against "women" to be treated differently to crimes committed against "men"?

Realistically, crimes should be looked at on a case by case basis rather than forcing Judges to consider that when the victim belongs to Group A and the accused belongs to Group B there is an automatic level of punishment to be administered.

My solution for all you horrible misogynists online? When the cops kick your door in over your "Go Home Gamer Girl" tweet just remember you're not a man! That's an absurd notion! You're a queer, non-binary, multiracial, trans-badgerkin!

iptba

I'm no expert on this but here's a statistic from one survey:

Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

silverharp

Irish Youtuber , interesting commentary against the bias in the Beeb etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcHY9Z7qeH8

Sleepy

I'm a Whovian but hate watching youtube videos, is there a transcript or summary of the argument anywhere? I couldn't find one on Youtube

Wibbs

maybe

from what I could gather S, his general beef was how the BBC's more Left/Feminist vibe was influencing programming and how men were often portrayed in said programmes. One example in the very last episode which I did notice myself(fellow Whovian, its my guilty pleasure ) was when one character regenerated from a man to a woman and her first lines were something like; "oh that last body was the first time I was a man. I'm back to normal now. Wow how do they deal with all that ego". Like I say something like that anyway. And I can see his point. Can you imagine the same scenario with the genders reversed? Likely meltdown on tumbler/Twitter/The Guardian.

Now being a grown arsed man I brush that kinda thing off, but I try to imagine myself as a ten year old boy watching that kinda stuff and I do think it's a swing of the pendulum the other way from "girls love pink fluffy things" that did and still does impact girls and women. It's an utterly stupid way to operate. "I know, let's take chauvinistic examples of daftness and just repeat them with the genders reversed. That'll work". Eh no. It hurt people before, how the feck do ye think it'll help the second time around?

Another area where I would agree with the chap is where he notes that too often women characters are made up to be hardcore hardarses, basically they make them into macho men, capable of taking on and beating the crap out of men. The Buffy Scenario(™). Yes I can see how that can come across as being empowering to young women, but it's also a little bit dangerous if some then try to apply that in the real world. Let's face it if Buffy was real and so was Dracula, the former would be the latter's low calorie snack between impalings.

IMH what some of these "progressives" are doing is actually regressive, because it's telling young women and indeed young men that to win you have to be a macho hardarse. The only difference seems to be that now you wear a skirt and makeup. Does not compute. As a kid - and why the Doc still appeals as a guilty pleasure - I loved Dr Who because he was a mercurial, daft, jack of all trades renaissance man, who used his mind and words and fun to fix things. He rarely became even close to violent and was a real breath of fresh air for me back then.

Sleepy

Hmm, I can see where he might have had an issue with that one line but to stretch that to "Doctor Who hates men" is no small stretch. While, yes, the female companions are often turned into super-women, so too are some of the men: Rory Williams was a great example of how a man could be both caring / nurturing (being a nurse) and a loyal protector (the Last Centurian story-line).