anna080 wrote: » So, going by her logic, can a privileged white woman be sexist towards a working class underprivileged black man? I'm guessing she'd still say no.
And while of course, a wealthy white woman is likely to have more privilege than a working class man of colour
Arcade_Tryer wrote: » It's a good article. Dictionary definitions are often a long way from explaining the actual meaning of many terms within different societal structures. However, I disagree that reverse sexism does not exist. It simply does. In fact it has to. Because sexism is human nature. Sexism against men is not institutionalised within societal structures however. And that's the issue I think she is trying to highlight. Which is fair enough.
[Deleted User] wrote: » She lost me when she says it's not fair to make fun of skinny people for being skinny, but it's much worse if you make fun of a fat person. How? Someone still gets criticised. I'm not reading the rest of that tripe. I'm going to assume it goes "It's not fair to be sexist to men but it's not as bad as being sexist towards women, because my opinion."
JRant wrote: » Oh it gets worse, she claims that suicide victims have nobody to blame but themselves for not expressing their feelings enough.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I definitely saved myself three minutes by skipping the rest of it then.
ivytwine wrote: » Yeah and as a former twig, I used to hate being slagged off about being skinny because it just felt I couldn't complain without sounding like I was bemoaning my good luck. It still hurt to be teased over my body.
JRant wrote: » That is simply not true though. The judiciary hand out far tougher and longer sentences to men than women. There are also the family courts which is heavily weighted towards women. Women receive very generous maternity leave, men get 2 weeks unpaid. Women are given free screening for certain cancers, men are not. These are just a few examples of societal structures that favour women over men. To be honest I'd struggle to name any societal structures that favour men over women in such blatant terms.
JRant wrote: » Of course it did but ideologues like herself have painted certain groups as perpetual victims and if you don't fall into one of these prescribed categories than your opinion doesn't count.
ivytwine wrote: » Historically there were tons but most have been dismantled at this point, bar a few legacy ones like the 8th Amendment. I note LON did not mention the family court, or that until recently unmarried fathers had no automatic right to be included on birth certs. I will say that those are primarily cancers that affect women, and there are prostrate screening programmes etc. I do think 2 weeks leave is nothing, but physically women do need a lengthier time. Emotionally both parents need the 6 months I think. Movember has been brilliant for men, and I'd like to see more of that for men, and I'll support it as the day is long.
ivytwine wrote: » It's funny isn't it. It's all about feelings but none of it's about feelings. Because if you're not the right type of person you can't possibly feel as much. There's no kindness or attempt at understanding with people like this.
Widdershins wrote: » I agree with you except on maternity leave. Pregnancy, birth, the tiredness and physical issues that go with the postpartum stage, and possibly breastfeeding a baby, takes its toll. Its simply not the same for men. They don't usually need the equivalent in maternity leave.
JRant wrote: » The 8th doesn't favour men though. It's a throwback to the religious having far too much power and needs to be removed from the constitution. Prostate screening is not a nationwide free screening program though unlike breast cancer or HVP. I'd agree than child birth is extremely demanding for women. 6 months is a fair anount of time to allow recovery and bonding time. By only giving men 2 weeks it makes it more difficult to both bond with the child and help their partner during such a tough time. An increase in paternity leave would also relieve the pressure on women's careers IMO. I fully agree with you on Movember.
gizmo555 wrote: » And, of course, for her and those who think like her all women are perpetual victims. I snorted with laughter listening to Richard Boyd Barrett on Matt Cooper yesterday evening. While - no doubt justifiably - criticising Donald Trump, he referred to Trump's overt prejudice against "Mexicans, Muslims, women, and other minorities". Hello? Richard? Women are half the population - not a "minority". (In fact, in Ireland and the US, women are slightly in the majority.)
ivytwine wrote: » It is the legacy of a very sexist institution though, and the constitution was written by a very sexist man. I'd like to see the line about a woman's place being in the home being removed. Even though it makes little difference to people in reality, I'd still like it gone.
JRant wrote: » I wouldn't even attempt to argue women don't deserve the time off to recover from the physical aspects of childbirth, that would be a patently ridiculous thing to do. There are however many other reasons why men should get longer paternity leave, to help them bond with the child, help the new mother at home, recover from the tiredness and physical exhaustion that effects them, and to also make it easier for women in the workplace regarding career prospects etc.
pookiesboo wrote: » http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html Using 'Serena Gomez and Justin Bieber' as examples to make a point makes her sound like a 12 year old not a 30+ year old woman. Cringe-tastic.
Goya wrote: » Chloe is vile and that behaviour was totally disgusting and it was harassment (and there certainly is a double standard) but why use the analogy of a man rubbing his penis on a woman's back? The mirror analogy would be a man rubbing his ass on a woman's head. And there would indeed still be uproar over that.
Sonics2k wrote: » Of course reverse sexism doesn't exist. It's just sexism.
ivytwine wrote: » I was talking about this with a friend recently, actually more about the examples of people like Roman Polanski and Jimmy Page and their antics with underage girls. I think using celebrities with their vast vast wealth and status (and maybe more in the past where they wouldn't have been as monitored) to extrapolate to the general population is lunacy. These people simply don't operate in the same reality as us. Like if an ordinary Joe Soap had his dick pics circulated to his boss there'd be definite consequences. I mean a young boy in Northern Ireland killed himself because he thought nude pics would be leaked to his community.
ivytwine wrote: » I mean a young boy in Northern Ireland killed himself because he thought nude pics would be leaked to his community.
deaddonkey15 wrote: » It was his own fault for not communicating his feelings enough, according to LON's latest piece. In fact she's on record as saying that a guy having nudes publicly distributed isn't as bad as it is for a girl. I'm sure she'd blame the patriarchy for that suicide before the the female who encouraged him to send the nudes.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/80e9a6343fda9bcab0fa728a3336d1dc.svg)
