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

GalwayGuy2

I think its just calling someone out for being a dick. I do it to women all the time, a bit of banter is fine but when someone comes out with a really offensive or disgusting comment about either sex I'll tell them to watch themselves. Its embarrassing to hear.

I do agree with you though that we are in danger of making any kind of suggestive talk a no go when its totally harmless and just a bit of fun.

Yup, I agree. It's really more the added baggage that get carried along in these sort of campaigns.

It's a bit of a pity I went on feminist websites before I was emotionally/mentally able for them. I get uncomfortable if a man calls a woman 'cute' or 'she's perfect'. And a tiny part of my brain starts to see him as misogynistic.

And don't get me started on my fear of being seen/or actually being an 'objectifying misogynistic woman hater' growing up.

So, I'd rather young men didn't have to struggle with fear of their own sexuality. :P

donfers

No

iptba wrote: »

SAFE Ireland who brought us the "Man Up" campaign as discussed here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057082283

what is this "men's development network" then?

Is it just some kind of feminist movement masquerading under that name? Only "developed" men can be feminists after all!!

If so, it's more of the polarising gender-based stuff that create far more problems than they solve, entrench gender divisions and as far as I can see, only really succeed at one thing - justifying their own existence - "we complain and campaign therefore we are".

Make that "we" a bigger mroe inclusive group and then we can talk!

Pawwed Rig

Seems women with kids may become immune from custodial sentences

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0430/614087-dochas-centre-report/

The committee said it feels very strongly that mothers with young babies should not be jailed.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I know, pure comedy.

The very same people that say these things would probably consider themselves as very "progressive", when they are really a bunch of old dinosaurs.

diveout

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Seems women with kids may become immune from custodial sentences

It looks like its a question of space, money, and a system overburdened with foster kids.

py2006

diveout wrote: »

It looks like its a question of space, money, and a system overburdened with foster kids.

Surely some of those poor kids would be better off with their father.

diveout

py2006 wrote: »

Surely some of those poor kids would be better off with their father.

That is assuming there is one.

Incarcerated mothers are often single parents.

py2006

diveout wrote: »

That is assuming there is one.

Incarcerated mothers are often single parents.

Well yes, assuming he is about.

It does seem a bit odd that a child should be forced to stay with a mother with a dubious lifestyle choice and criminal convictions.

diveout

py2006 wrote: »

Well yes, assuming he is about.

It does seem a bit odd that a child should be forced to stay with a mother with a dubious lifestyle choice and criminal convictions.

Yes but you need to accept the reality of the foster care system. And it can take time to place the children.

So you need to consider all those factors in real time and how it would actually work.

It's not always as cut and dried as you might think, though I think what that article is about is really about state fiscal deficiency in being able to provide prison reform.

Anecdotal: I met a single mother who had been arrested for shop lifting. She was getting no child support at the time, and there was also paternal absenteeism. She shoplifted a baby outfit from a low cost supermarket. She gets arrested and then the two year old gets taken by social workers and on a huge list for temporary foster care because there is no other parent to take the child.

That just cannot be the only solution we can come up with. The article is not detailed enough with enough nuts and bolts to get a true or accurate analysis of what exactly the government proposes. It looks like NOT incarcerating women with kids, is the only thing they can come up with to solve the space issue and the foster care issue.

Pawwed Rig

py2006 wrote: »

Surely some of those poor kids would be better off with their father.

In most cases probably not better off, maybe equally as badly off. Fostering or adoption would be an ideal solution but it is unlikely to happen in the majority of situations.

Were a single Dad to have a young child should he also avoid custodial sentences? Or would the situation even arise that a Dad in these circumstances would have been allowed keep the child in the first place.

diveout

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

In most cases probably not better off, maybe equally as badly off. Fostering or adoption would be an ideal solution but it is unlikely to happen in the majority of situations.

Were a single Dad to have a young child should he also avoid custodial sentences? Or would the situation even arise that a Dad in these circumstances would have been allowed keep the child in the first place.

It would depend on if he were the custodial parent. Having an incarcerated dad has become sufficiently common in the US that Sesame Street created a character who has a dad in prison.

I'm only surmising why they have come up with this policy, maybe it's more of an issue for the single mothers.

Sleepy

Adoption would be a solution. It might not be popular with some but if a parent doesn't have the resources to raise a child and isn't prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to do so on social welfare (i.e. no or very little spending on cigarettes, alcohol, luxury brands etc.) the child really would be better off without that parent.

A longer term solution (which would be even less palatable to many) would be the legalization of abortion. The Donohue Levitt hypothesis is quite convincing that the Roe V Wade ruling had a direct impact on crime rates years later, effectively showing that those children produced because of the unavailability of legal abortion tend to be those raised in circumstances that contribute to the likelihood of them becoming criminals.

Pawwed Rig

diveout wrote: »

It would depend on if he were the custodial parent. Having an incarcerated dad has become sufficiently common in the US that Sesame Street created a character who has a dad in prison.

Well now this is not America. It is relatively easy for a decent guy in the US to run foul of the law and end up in jail. In Ireland that would be very unusual. Bear in mind the US uses the custody 'solution' more than any other nation on Earth.

diveout

Sleepy wrote: »

Adoption would be a solution. It might not be popular with some but if a parent doesn't have the resources to raise a child and isn't prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to do so on social welfare (i.e. no or very little spending on cigarettes, alcohol, luxury brands etc.) the child really would be better off without that parent.

A longer term solution (which would be even less palatable to many) would be the legalization of abortion. The Donohue Levitt hypothesis is quite convincing that the Roe V Wade ruling had a direct impact on crime rates years later, effectively showing that those children produced because of the unavailability of legal abortion tend to be those raised in circumstances that contribute to the likelihood of them becoming criminals.

What circumstances are those?

Abortion is not legal in Ireland and legal everywhere in the US. Are you suggesting that Ireland has a higher criminal rate per capita than the US or the UK?

Seriously?

diveout wrote: »

Abortion is not legal in Ireland and legal everywhere in the US. Are you suggesting that Ireland has a higher criminal rate per capita than the US or the UK?

They're suggesting that when you take timeshift the year freely available abortion became legal in the US that it maps to the downward shift crime rates reported in the states.

It maps with plenty of things.

diveout

Seriously? wrote: »

They're suggesting that when you take timeshift the year freely available abortion became legal in the US that it maps to the downward shift crime rates reported in the states.

Crime peaked between the 70s and 90s, and then dropped after Clinton pumped tons of money into enforcement.

Also UK crime rates have risen since the 1950s. Abortion became legal in 1967 in the UK.

Study seems a bit superficial.

Seriously?

diveout wrote: »

Crime peaked between the 70s and 90s, and then dropped after Clinton pumped tons of money into enforcement.

The argument is though that it was the removal of potential future offenders from '73 onwards would be reflected twenty years or so later. Where it was legalised earlier the crime rate drop was reported earlier regardless of the money pumped in.

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Seems women with kids may become immune from custodial sentences

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0430/614087-dochas-centre-report/

It's important to point out that the report isn't simply about women with kids:

The report says it is inappropriate that homeless women or those needing treatment for addiction are sent to the Dóchas Centre from the courts.

It says it would be more suitable for them to be given non-custodial sentences or treatment programmes.

People can have different stances on what is and isn't suitable sentencing for particular crimes or situations. What I want is consistency/equality in how men and women are treated.

Aside: I think the overcrowding issue is a bit of a red herring: the people (or some of them anyway) who are pushing the line that prison isn't a suitable place for most female offenders want fewer prison spaces in the new prison for women.

Amirani

diveout wrote: »

Crime peaked between the 70s and 90s, and then dropped after Clinton pumped tons of money into enforcement.

Also UK crime rates have risen since the 1950s. Abortion became legal in 1967 in the UK.

Study seems a bit superficial.

They've controlled for external actions. Have you read the study or just a synopsis?

It's clearly doing something right if it has over 500 research citations.

Carlos Orange

No

Diego Simeone wrote: »

They've controlled for external actions. Have you read the study or just a synopsis?

It's clearly doing something right if it has over 500 research citations.

How does it compare to the study that says removing lead from paint and petrol caused the reduction in crime?

Amirani

psinno wrote: »

How does it compare to the study that says removing lead from paint and petrol caused the reduction in crime?

Haven't read it, can't comment.

Piliger

diveout wrote: »

Abortion is not legal in Ireland and legal everywhere in the US.

It is legal in all of the US.

kiffer

No

Piliger wrote: »

It is legal in all of the US.

Um... that's what they said...?

IvyTheTerrible

Sleepy wrote: »

Adoption would be a solution. It might not be popular with some but if a parent doesn't have the resources to raise a child and isn't prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to do so on social welfare (i.e. no or very little spending on cigarettes, alcohol, luxury brands etc.) the child really would be better off without that parent.

A longer term solution (which would be even less palatable to many) would be the legalization of abortion. The Donohue Levitt hypothesis is quite convincing that the Roe V Wade ruling had a direct impact on crime rates years later, effectively showing that those children produced because of the unavailability of legal abortion tend to be those raised in circumstances that contribute to the likelihood of them becoming criminals.

Adoption would only be legal if the parents are not married, as far as I know it's illegal to give a child up for adoption if it's parents are married, even if they both give their consent.

py2006

Ok not sure if this is the right thread.

Mary Lou McDonald is shouting sexism today in response to a comment made by Ruairi Quinn....

"I never to be amazed at the warm affection and concern, the motherly concern, that you express for the well-being of the Labour Party," he said.

Deputy Lou McDonald took issue with Minister Quinn's response, saying: "If you think that referring to me as a mother, or motherly, to the cackles of your almost exclusively male audience would go down well with me or mothers who might be watching, then you're very wrong.

"I know a sexist undertone when I hear it."

I am not sure of the full context of this but is she right in what she is saying? I managed to catch a snippet of her on the radio on the way from work and I believe she suggested there needed to be more women in the Dail (as this would eradicate the sexism).

kunst nugget

maybe

py2006 wrote: »

Ok not sure if this is the right thread.

Mary Lou McDonald is shouting sexism today in response to a comment made by Ruairi Quinn....


I am not sure of the full context of this but is she right in what she is saying? I managed to catch a snippet of her on the radio on the way from work and I believe she suggested there needed to be more women in the Dail (as this would eradicate the sexism).

She was hardly shouting it out. Quinn was being a patronising cock and I think she pulled him up on it pretty effectively.

I wouldn't support MLMcD or SF in a million years by the way.

kerryguy78

Mary Lou is an idiot, he described her as a mother figure big deal, would she rather he said Mary Lou you look like a man!!!!!

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Any reason that this company is "specializing" in car insurance for women?

https://www.its4women.ie/

What's the point, if it's now supposed to be a level playing field with regards to quotes.

Amirani

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Any reason that this company is "specializing" in car insurance for women?

https://www.its4women.ie/

What's the point, if it's now supposed to be a level playing field with regards to quotes.

Just marketing reasons.

Amirani

This just came up in After Hours; Qantas Airlines purposely seats unaccompanied children beside adult females rather than males:

"The airline defends its policy, which still states: "Unaccompanied minors are allocated seats next to adult female customers. Where possible, Qantas aims to seat children near crew areas or next to an empty seat. This policy reflects parents' concerns and the need to maximise the child's safety and well-being."

What the hell?

Carlos Orange

No

Diego Simeone wrote: »

This just came up in After Hours; Qantas Airlines purposely seats unaccompanied children beside adult females rather than males:

What the hell?

Kinda wonder why parents who care about maximising child safety are sending them alone on flights.

runawaybishop

No

Diego Simeone wrote: »

This just came up in After Hours; Qantas Airlines purposely seats unaccompanied children beside adult females rather than males:



What the hell?

Old news though, the same thing happened to Boris Johnson when we was on a BA flight with his kids. BA changed their policy after a law suit (not by Boris).

py2006

I'm a big admirer of the late Christopher Hitchens. Like him or loath him, he was a fascinating man. I'm thinking he may be winding the interviewer up here but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpA7pfR0FIc

newport2

Some real beauties in this.

Based on the assumption that due to the higher divorce rate amongst high-earning women, the husbands must be at fault.

www.irishtimes.com/business/divorce-is-a-risk-when-she-earns-more-than-him-1.1791356

py2006

igh-earning women have difficulty finding a husband, and when they do, he is five times as likely to be unfaithful as other husbands. The woman will probably do more than her share of chores; though in the unusual event that he starts ironing and cooking, he is likely to end up feeling so emasculated he goes off sex. Either way, divorce beckons.

The constant reference to 'her friend' and her 'other friend' makes me doubt a lot of what she is saying. Isn't it incredible how the Irish times (in particular) publishes clearly sexist and rubbish articles.

newport2

py2006 wrote: »

The constant reference to 'her friend' and her 'other friend' makes me doubt a lot of what she is saying. Isn't it incredible how the Irish times (in particular) published clearly sexist and rubbish articles.

I love this one

"One friend complained that she no longer knew what her husband was for as he neither made much money nor showed any desire to help out at home. "

Talking about her husband as if he's a possession who should be discarded if he doesn't serve his purpose - make a lot of money or clean up at home.

Carlos Orange

No

newport2 wrote: »

I love this one

"One friend complained that she no longer knew what her husband was for as he neither made much money nor showed any desire to help out at home. "

Talking about her husband as if he's a possession who should be discarded if he doesn't serve his purpose - make a lot of money or clean up at home.

Sounds more like an employee than a possession.

Piliger

Has anyone seen the Independent today ? I was completely gobsmacked (!) when I saw it ...

NOT that I have any objection to the club whatsoever ! What is gobsmacking is the way this is being treated by the Independent in comparison to the treatment of the equivalent female activity ....

GalwayGuy2

^^^^

I also felt revenge for womankind, for every time a man who has negatively ogled and objectified a woman who strips. Although there was no negative objectification that night – objectification, yes, but it more curious and intrepid. The men on stage definitely held all the power.

I don't even know what to say about that.

Carlos Orange

No

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

^^^^

I don't even know what to say about that.

I love when stuff is only wrong when somebody else does it.

Pawwed Rig

Stolen from After Hours

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/i-dont-want-my-kids-sitting-next-to-a-man-on-a-plane-20140424-375z6.html

The logic is shocking here along with a very poor understanding of statistics I can't understand why Sky News and the Daily Telegraph would employ her.

Piliger

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Stolen from After Hours

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/i-dont-want-my-kids-sitting-next-to-a-man-on-a-plane-20140424-375z6.html

The logic is shocking here along with a very poor understanding of statistics I can't understand why Sky News and the Daily Telegraph would employ her.

An astonishing level of raw sexist bigotry, given a platform by that media outlet.

newport2

Piliger wrote: »

An astonishing level of raw sexist bigotry, given a platform by that media outlet.

"However, stranger danger is a risk and women are perpetrators in only about 8 per cent of cases, says the ABS data."

should read

"However, stranger danger is a risk and women are perpetrators in only about 8 per cent of REPORTED cases, says the ABS data."

Even the Guardian admits this is not just down to men

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/04/uk-female-child-sex-offenders

"results indicated that up to 20% of a conservative estimate of 320,000 suspected UK paedophiles were women."

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

Solange Knowles hitting Jay Z in the lift is pretty shocking. Go to any website and look at the comments and there are such a huge number asking what JayZ did to deserve this.

Pawwed Rig

Piliger wrote: »

An astonishing level of raw sexist bigotry, given a platform by that media outlet.

At least the woman is not a hypocrite as she openly admits to being a sexist. Seems hypocritical by Sky though who used sexism in the sacking of Andy Gray :rolleyes:

py2006

NormalBob Ubiquitypants wrote: »

Solange Knowles hitting Jay Z in the lift is pretty shocking. Go to any website and look at the comments and there are such a huge number asking what JayZ did to deserve this.

You only have to look here on After Hours.

py2006

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

At least the woman is not a hypocrite as she openly admits to being a sexist. Seems hypocritical by Sky though who used sexism in the sacking of Andy Gray :rolleyes:

I think the sexism was just a cover. I think Sky wanted him out for various reasons.

Piliger

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

At least the woman is not a hypocrite as she openly admits to being a sexist. Seems hypocritical by Sky though who used sexism in the sacking of Andy Gray :rolleyes:

Seems ? Remember, he is a man. No other explanation needed.

Carlos Orange

No

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Stolen from After Hours

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/i-dont-want-my-kids-sitting-next-to-a-man-on-a-plane-20140424-375z6.html

The logic is shocking here along with a very poor understanding of statistics I can't understand why Sky News and the Daily Telegraph would employ her.

Someone should rewrite the story as airlines expect women to mind unaccompanied children and stick the feminists on them.

Usually with a little effort you can get either gender to feel aggrieved with these kind of stories.