Equality, sexism, feminism, etc. *Read Mod Note in 1st Post**

Dave!

Hey folks,

I realise I'm taking my life in my hands by raising this, but it's probably safer to do it here than Twitter, where people are routinely garrotted for questioning any of the feminist received wisdom.

I'll not bother with a long post about it, but a few examples come to mind recently of companies/governments/men coming under pressure from feminist activists (online and in print media) for perpetuating the disproportionately male balance or bias in various fields:

• Gender quotas in nominations for political parties*
• No women speakers at the opening of the Rosie Hackett Bridge
• Under-representation of women in the IT industry
• World Cup TV coverage panel—I think it was a station in either Finland or Sweden which was lauded for having a majority of women on its panel, with the comparison drawn against RTÉ, which had a bunch of old men
• Women lead characters in computer games! There was some controversy when a gaming company said that they weren't going to add a woman lead character because it was too much work
• "Every day sexism" in language and other areas

*This is a bigger issue which would probably take up a separate thread

I'm quite aware that there are still outstanding issues in relation to gender equality (pay parity), women's rights (abortion), sexist culture, etc., and I fully support moves towards fixing those and other issues. And some of the things that I listed above are genuine problems—I'm just listing them all off the top of my head.

I do cringe a little though when certain issues are raised.

• Am I just being a jerk because I'm a privileged middle-class white male, who doesn't have to deal with this stuff daily?
• Should there really be exact 50/50 representation for every single thing?
• Is it not okay that some things are skewed more in one direction, and others are skewed more in another?
• Should there be 50% men on any panel where the show is geared towards females?
• What about representation of minorities—should every panel contain at least one female, black, gay, traveller for maximum equality?

MOD NOTE:

El Guapo! wrote: »

I've had to delete a truck load of crap in this thread already. You're all welcome to discuss the topic at hand but do not post any sexist "jokes", and keep any anti-women or anti-men bile to yourselves please. You all know where the line is. Cross it and you will receive a ban. Fair warning.

darkpagandeath

Think your looking for more than equal.

How Soon Is Now

Bullet points and all I like your style op :-).

whiskeyman

Dave! wrote: »

Is it not okay that some things are skewed more in one direction,

There's a lot of sharp, rusty things that should be more skewed in One Direction...

Ficheall

What's your point, OP?

Aside from stirring...

Fat Christy

Your post has just made my head hurt. Why post in AHers, why?

Dave!

This thread is going better than expected!

There does be some decent discussions in AH, I'm sure some of those peeps will be along soon to raise the level of discourse...

We must also work towards a situation where there's an equal gender split of people sleeping on the street, dying in wars and in prison. If it's difficult to achieve maybe some mandatory gender reassignment surgery could be the answer?

How Soon Is Now

Fat Christy wrote: »

Your post has just made my head hurt. Why post in AHers, why?

His post made me think though....

How come you never see any female black gay travellers?

Muise...

Why Dave! why?!

I can't think of anyone on AH who defends that academic nitpicking. I can think of many who love getting a chance to get a dig in at teh wimminz over it because some girls were mean/bitches/didn't fcuk them.

:mad:

Fat Christy

3......2.......1......Let the gender war commence.

Also Dave, there's just far too many points to cover in your OP.

Dave!

Fat Christy wrote: »

3......2.......1......Let the gender war commence.

Also Dave, there's just far too many points to cover in your OP.

Not really, they're mostly examples and general points/questions to frame any discussion!

Gender quotas are gender neutral and were voted against by female TDs in a survey

The quota debate sprang to public consciousness in August 2010 when an article in the Irish Times newspaper reported the findings of a survey which showed that a majority of female TDs were against quotas as a means of increasing women’s political representation. The report sparked a lively public debate. In September 2010, the debate continued at a conference in University College Cork which engaged the interest of academics, citizens and political representatives, from which the ‘5050 Group’ emerged. This group set about campaigning for the introduction of legislative quotas in Irish elections, based on the recommendations of the aforementioned parliamentary committees.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/11/29/ireland-serves-as-an-example-for-the-way-in-which-gender-quotas-can-be-implemented-in-national-parliaments/

FunLover18

Dave! wrote: »

• Gender quotas in nominations for political parties*
• No women speakers at the opening of the Rosie Hackett Bridge
• Under-representation of women in the IT industry
• World Cup TV coverage panel—I think it was a station in either Finland or Sweden which was lauded for having a majority of women on its panel, with the comparison drawn against RTÉ, which had a bunch of old men
• Women lead characters in computer games! There was some controversy when a gaming company said that they weren't going to add a woman lead character because it was too much work
• "Every day sexism" in language and other areas

• I don't agree with gender quotas. How is that fair or democratic? I'm perfectly in favour of more female politicians but they should be nominated because of their ability not because of their vagina. It's positive discrimination.
• First I've heard of it but the bridge is named after a woman.
• I don't understand how men are to blame for this? Wasn't even aware it was an issue.
• I'd have no problem with female pundits provided they know what they're talking about and they don't replace Giles/Dunphy/Brady. I can love without the rest.
• Why are they too much work? Is it getting the boobs to jiggle just right? From my own experience most gamers I know are men and don't wouldn't want to play as a woman which is a separate issue.
• Huh?

Dave! wrote: »

• Am I just being a jerk because I'm a privileged middle-class white male, who doesn't have to deal with this stuff daily?
• Should there really be exact 50/50 representation for every single thing?
• Is it not okay that some things are skewed more in one direction, and others are skewed more in another?
• Should there be 50% men on any panel where the show is geared towards females?
• What about representation of minorities—should every panel contain at least one female, black, gay, traveller for maximum equality?

• I'm also a a privileged middle-class white male so I can't really answer that
• No.
• Yes.
• Jeremy Clarkson on Women's Hour; YES PLEASE
• Exactly. Where do you draw the line and why should women get preferential treatment over ethnic minority males.

I don't know if that's what you wanted …

Ficheall

Muise... wrote: »

I can think of many who love getting a chance to get a dig in at teh wimminz over it because some girls were mean/bitches/didn't fcuk them.

Best to get your own digs in first then, eh?

Arthur Beesley

Yeah, we should force women into IT.

Arthur Beesley

Dave! wrote: »

Hey folks,

I realise I'm taking my life in my hands by raising this, but it's probably safer to do it here than Twitter, where people are routinely garrotted for questioning any of the feminist received wisdom.

I'll not bother with a long post about it, but a few examples come to mind recently of companies/governments/men coming under pressure from feminist activists (online and in print media) for perpetuating the disproportionately male balance or bias in various fields:

• Gender quotas in nominations for political parties*
• No women speakers at the opening of the Rosie Hackett Bridge
• Under-representation of women in the IT industry
• World Cup TV coverage panel—I think it was a station in either Finland or Sweden which was lauded for having a majority of women on its panel, with the comparison drawn against RTÉ, which had a bunch of old men
• Women lead characters in computer games! There was some controversy when a gaming company said that they weren't going to add a woman lead character because it was too much work
• "Every day sexism" in language and other areas

*This is a bigger issue which would probably take up a separate thread

I'm quite aware that there are still outstanding issues in relation to gender equality (pay parity), women's rights (abortion), sexist culture, etc., and I fully support moves towards fixing those and other issues. And some of the things that I listed above are genuine problems—I'm just listing them all off the top of my head.

I do cringe a little though when certain issues are raised.

• Am I just being a jerk because I'm a privileged middle-class white male, who doesn't have to deal with this stuff daily?
• Should there really be exact 50/50 representation for every single thing?
• Is it not okay that some things are skewed more in one direction, and others are skewed more in another?
• Should there be 50% men on any panel where the show is geared towards females?
• What about representation of minorities—should every panel contain at least one female, black, gay, traveller for maximum equality?

Do we have quotas for male primary school teachers yet?

FunLover18

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Yeah, we should force women into IT.

Yeh because it worked out really well in The IT Crowd

http://f1.thejournal.ie/media/2013/09/the-internet-the-it-crowd-27191791-500-230.gif

Dave!

Muise... wrote: »

Why Dave! why?!

I can't think of anyone on AH who defends that academic nitpicking. I can think of many who love getting a chance to get a dig in at teh wimminz over it because some girls were mean/bitches/didn't fcuk them.

:mad:

There is loads of it on Twitter, seriously! You'd be hard pressed to find someone who voices an opposing opinion to it. If they do, they get "outed" as a misogynist and have their name dragged through the mud. Example that comes to mind is Jeff Atwood wrote this pretty benign and well-intentioned blog post, and was subsequently destroyed on Twitter by Shanley Kane (account is protected now) for... I can't even remember what.

It's not just some fringe on Twitter though, there are plenty of columnists in mainstream media outlets who routinely post opinions about this stuff. Una Mullally is pretty vocal about this kind of stuff. One example from her that comes to mind is when the Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram, she had an article in the Irish Times attributing the lack of media coverage of the kidnappings to the latent misogyny of Western society—implying that if it were boys who were kidnapped, that the coverage would be greater. But of course there were 50 schoolboys kidnapped earlier this year also, and there was little or no media coverage of that either.

A Primal Nut

Dave! wrote: »

[*]World Cup TV coverage panel—I think it was a station in either Finland or Sweden which was lauded for having a majority of women on its panel, with the comparison drawn against RTÉ, which had a bunch of old men

Were they hot in skimpy clothing - if so does that really further the feminist cause? Women on sports shows aren't usually selected for their knowledge of sports.

chughes

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

His post made me think though....

How come you never see any female black gay travellers?

Howya bwana.....

caustic 1

I know if RTE had some wimmenz on their panel for the world cup they wouldn't need as much make up as those gob****es pundits they have on.

the_syco

Dave! wrote: »

Should there really be exact 50/50 representation for every single thing?

Get 50% of people colecting bins, sweeping streets, all the crappy jobs that women seem to avoid; put women into those jobs, and then come back to be about equality, etc....

El Guapo!

Mod:Locking this for a min. Bear with me folks.

El Guapo!

I've had to delete a truck load of crap in this thread already. You're all welcome to discuss the topic at hand but do not post any sexist "jokes", and keep any anti-women or anti-men bile to yourselves please. You all know where the line is. Cross it and you will receive a ban. Fair warning.

kowloon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A43JOxLa5MM

Muise...

Dave! wrote: »

There is loads of it on Twitter, seriously! You'd be hard pressed to find someone who voices an opposing opinion to it. If they do, they get "outed" as a misogynist and have their name dragged through the mud. Example that comes to mind is Jeff Atwood wrote this pretty benign and well-intentioned blog post, and was subsequently destroyed on Twitter by Shanley Kane (account is protected now) for... I can't even remember what.

It's not just some fringe on Twitter though, there are plenty of columnists in mainstream media outlets who routinely post opinions about this stuff. Una Mullally is pretty vocal about this kind of stuff. One example from her that comes to mind is when the Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram, she had an article in the Irish Times attributing the lack of media coverage of the kidnappings to the latent misogyny of Western society—implying that if it were boys who were kidnapped, that the coverage would be greater. But of course there were 50 schoolboys kidnapped earlier this year also, and there was little or no media coverage of that either.

I've an idea Dave! If Twitter is a scary hairy nest of harpies, why not write a stern letter to Sir at the Irish Times to point out Mullally's mistake/deliberate skewing of facts to suit her agenda. I look forward to reading it.

Yours etc.,

Muise...
The Headdesk,
AH

kowloon

My post above makes no sense now after the thread was cleaned up

e_e

Dave! wrote: »

There was some controversy when a gaming company said that they weren't going to add a woman lead character because it was too much work

In fairness, that was an absolutely ridiculous excuse and anything that pisses off sexist male gamers is a plus in my eyes. I do love how so many of them pull out the "but I can't relate to a woman!" card yet feel completely comfortable playing as sociopathic killers in video games. Really speaks volumes to me.

kowloon

e_e wrote: »

In fairness, that was an absolutely ridiculous excuse and anything that pisses off sexist male gamers is a plus in my eyes. I do love how so many of them pull out the "but I can't relate to a woman!" card yet feel completely comfortable playing as sociopathic killers in video games. Really speaks volumes to me.

Pure rubbish, a metal bra is the only armour you need in a sword fight. This is pretty much common knowledge.

ancapailldorcha

e_e wrote: »

In fairness, that was an absolutely ridiculous excuse and anything that pisses off sexist male gamers is a plus in my eyes. I do love how so many of them pull out the "but I can't relate to a woman!" card yet feel completely comfortable playing as sociopathic killers in video games. Really speaks volumes to me.

I never understand that point. If it's a guy using magic powers to save the world from demons or whatever then it's fine. Change the character's gender and then they become unrelateable. Also, female Shepard for the win.

Dave!

Muise... wrote: »

I've an idea Dave! If Twitter is a scary hairy nest of harpies, why not write a stern letter to Sir at the Irish Times to point out Mullally's mistake/deliberate skewing of facts to suit her agenda. I look forward to reading it.

Yours etc.,

Muise...
The Headdesk,
AH

Bit hysterical there. Feel free to contribute without the whithering sarcasm. My posts are in good faith.

Wish I had thought to write in about it at the time.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

I would like to see an end to the way society seemingly has no issue whatsoever with the way women often brazenly, and unashamedly, objectify us men. We are not mere toys to be pawed at. Speaking of toys, I also take issue with those phallic shaped ones (which most women own, in one form or another) which really just suggest that men's worth is nothing more than that of an erect penis.

It's disgraceful, Joe, sends the wrong message.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50wYFrfal1s

Fat Christy

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Speaking of toys, I also take issue with those phallic shaped ones (which most women own, in one form or another) which really just suggest that men's worth is nothing more than that of an erect penis.

Good for you but touch my toys and you'll be a sorry, sorry man! :mad:

Vibrators FTW!

Czarcasm

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I would like to see an end to the way society some people seemingly has no issue whatsoever with the way some women often brazenly, and unashamedly, objectify us men me. We are I am not mere toys to be pawed at. Speaking of toys, I also take issue with those phallic shaped ones (which most some women own, in one form or another) which really just suggest that men's worth is nothing more than that of an erect penis women (and even some men) will derive pleasure from their use.

It's disgraceful, Joe, sends the wrong message.

FYP there Wisha. Some men, and equally some women, have no issue with being objectified, and some people even make quite a good living from it - equality right there.

Muise...

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I would like to see an end to the way society seemingly has no issue whatsoever with the way women often brazenly, and unashamedly, objectify us men. We are not mere toys to be pawed at. Speaking of toys, I also take issue with those phallic shaped ones (which most women own, in one form or another) which really just suggest that men's worth is nothing more than that of an erect penis.

It's disgraceful, Joe, sends the wrong message.

'Ride me sideways' was another one.

Fat Christy

Muise... wrote: »

'Ride me sideways' was another one.

Wall to wall basterds!

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Czarcasm wrote: »

FYP there Wisha. Some men, and equally some women, have no issue with being objectified, and some people even make quite a good living from it - equality right there.

Yet again you reply to one of my posts (where I am obviously joking) as I am being serious. Do you honestly think I would be evoking Joe Duffy if I were?

Oh and you may want to perform a search on YouTube for 'Don Jon - About Porn' after your last little outburst at my expense

Czarcasm

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yet again you reply to one of my posts (where I am obviously joking) as I am being serious. Do you honestly think I would be evoking Joe Duffy if I were?

The subtlety went right over my head tbh. So you DON'T want to be taken seriously then? I can do that

Oh and you may want to perform a search on YouTube for 'Don Jon - About Porn' after your last little outburst at my expense

I wasn't sure what the Zac Efron clip was about, and I sure as hell ain't sure what the hell that About Porn' stuff was about? It's all very vague, but I trust you're building up to something, right?

Reindeer

The bottom line is women and men are NOT equal. If we were, well, then in practice we would be equal. The difficult part is expressing and appreciating that which differentiates the genders while also finding a means for both genders to coexist in a mutually respectful manner.

Merida107

Reindeer wrote: »

The bottom line is women and men are NOT equal. If we were, well, then in practice we would be equal. The difficult part is expressing and appreciating that which differentiates the genders while also finding a means for both genders to coexist in a mutually respectful manner.

What does being equal mean to you?

the_syco

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

where I am obviously joking

Yet not one smilie was used :pac:

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Czarcasm wrote: »

The subtlety went right over my head tbh.

Yeah, course it did.

So you DON'T want to be taken seriously then? I can do that

Eh, not when I'm clearly joking I don't, no.. but sure nice try at the usually twisting of what a user is obviously saying. Where would your posts be without that little nuance. Hell, it's your signature mark at this stage.

I wasn't sure what the Zac Efron clip was about..

I joke about women needing to stop objectifying men and then post a video of a woman ripping a guy's shirt off and you can't see how they might relate to one another? Ooo...kaay.

..and I sure as hell ain't sure what the hell that About Porn' stuff was about?

Not sure if you're just feigning dumbness here or not, bit I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, it's Christmas..

I quoted the Don Jon clip on another thread and you, clearly not getting the reference (no reason why you should) decided to post this snide little rant. All understandable of course, as I appreciate how pleasing a clique must be never ending work and so who could in good conscience blame you for fabricating opinions in order to garner those well obviously much needed backslaps, which you must at this stage be now be so accustomed to. Sure what's a little twisting and misrepresentation between forum compatriots eh. Good on you I say. Shows initiative if nothing else.

Czarcasm

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yeah, course it did. Eh, not when I'm clearly joking I don't, no.. but sure nice try at the usually twisting of what a user is obviously saying. Where would your posts be without that little nuance. Hell, it's your signature mark at this stage. I joke about women needing to stop objectifying men and then post a video of a woman ripping a guy's shirt off and you can't see how they might relate to one another? Ooo...kaay. Not sure if you're just feigning dumbness here or not, bit I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, it's Christmas..

I quoted the Don Jon clip on another thread and you, clearly not getting the reference (no reason why you should) decided to post this snide little rant. All understandable of course, as I appreciate how pleasing a clique must be never ending work and so who could in good conscience blame you for fabricating opinions in order to garner those well obviously much needed backslaps, which you must at this stage be now be so accustomed to. Sure what's a little twisting and misrepresentation between forum compatriots eh. Good on you I say. Shows initiative if nothing else.

I'm sorry Wisha, you've completely lost me now. I tried to keep up, genuinely I did, but I don't think we're even on the same page any more, if we ever were. I'll withdraw from this discussion now as clearly I have no idea where it's going or what you're trying to say.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

the_syco wrote: »

Yet not one smilie was used

I can't, and don't, honestly believe anyone would take the following as someone being serious:

I also take issue with those phallic shaped ones (which most women own, in one form or another) which really just suggest that men's worth is nothing more than that of an erect penis.

It's disgraceful, Joe

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm sorry Wisha, you've completely lost me now. I tried to keep up, genuinely I did, but I don't think we're even on the same page any more, if we ever were. I'll withdraw from this discussion now as clearly I have no idea where it's going or what you're trying to say.

You're as transparent as it gets, but sure carry on, I'm sure your mates here believe you're being genuine.

tritium

Dave! wrote: »

It's not just some fringe on Twitter though, there are plenty of columnists in mainstream media outlets who routinely post opinions about this stuff. Una Mullally is pretty vocal about this kind of stuff. One example from her that comes to mind is when the Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram, she had an article in the Irish Times attributing the lack of media coverage of the kidnappings to the latent misogyny of Western society—implying that if it were boys who were kidnapped, that the coverage would be greater. But of course there were 50 schoolboys kidnapped earlier this year also, and there was little or no media coverage of that either.

Yes but the thing you have to remember is that Una Mulally is basically a fcuking moron with a chip on her shoulder who uses the Irish times as a soapbox. The same could be said for Donald Clarke in the Irish Times. Actually given the fairly monochrome agenda they've followed over the last while, with no attempt at balance, the Irish times in general is probably as far from the paper of record as its ever been.

Amirani

Reindeer wrote: »

The bottom line is women and men are NOT equal. If we were, well, then in practice we would be equal. The difficult part is expressing and appreciating that which differentiates the genders while also finding a means for both genders to coexist in a mutually respectful manner.

Men and women aren't equal by the exact same measure that you and me aren't equal. No two people are equal. If you judge two people to be equal purely because of their genitalia, then you're taking a very simplistic view of humanity.

the_syco

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I can't, and don't, honestly believe anyone would take the following as someone being serious:

It's AH. A LOT of posters post like that whilst being deadly serious.

Tony EH

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never understand that point. If it's a guy using magic powers to save the world from demons or whatever then it's fine. Change the character's gender and then they become unrelateable. Also, female Shepard for the win.

And then have her cop off with Miranda. :cool:

Am I doing this equality thing right?

Dave!

tritium wrote: »

Yes but the thing you have to remember is that Una Mulally is basically a fcuking moron with a chip on her shoulder who uses the Irish times as a soapbox. The same could be said for Donald Clarke in the Irish Times. Actually given the fairly monochrome agenda they've followed over the last while, with no attempt at balance, the Irish times in general is probably as far from the paper of record as its ever been.

Fair enough. I dunno if I'd reduce it to that, I don't in general have objections to Una Mullally's columns, nor to Donald Clarke's. I don't read them every week though.

GalwayGuy2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I never understand that point. If it's a guy using magic powers to save the world from demons or whatever then it's fine. Change the character's gender and then they become unrelateable. Also, female Shepard for the win.

Female Shepard is okay. There was a big deal made out of the voice actor, but, after I played as her, I wasn't too impressed. They took different viewpoints of the characters, but they were about equal in ability.

EDIT:

I've remembered my 'egalitarian' moments from when I was a young lad I played as a female character that I made as pretty as possible and with a personality that appealed to me:P The subtext of progressive gaming completely went over my head.

I wonder is that any different than creating a female character that is progressive/geeky/ breaking gender roles, so on so forth?