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

citytillidie · 08-03-2017 12:04PM

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/feminism-worst-female-pedestrian-crossing-lights-stir-debate/

Melbourne installing female pedestrian traffic light signals to avoid unconscious bias. We're losing our privileged position on Melbourne's traffic lights!

Why not go with Walk / Don't Walk simple effect and gender neutral

Jan_de_Bakker · 08-03-2017 12:19PM

citytillidie wrote: »

Why not go with Walk / Don't Walk simple effect and gender neutral

There would be uproar about English you know in a country where English is the official language - the horror!!

lazybones32 · 08-03-2017 12:27PM

FortySeven wrote: »

Got a royal slap across the face. Reall venom in it. Called all the names under the sun I was.

She was in bed with me 25 minutes later.

Imagine that, role reversed.

So the sex was worth the slap and verbal abuse? Do you need that sh*t to get an erection or something? Genuine question.

lazybones32 · 08-03-2017 12:38PM

citytillidie wrote: »

Why not go with Walk / Don't Walk simple effect and gender neutral

That's offensive to people in wheelchairs...

you need sensitivity training!

givyjoe · 08-03-2017 12:57PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

So the sex was worth the slap and verbal abuse? Do you need that sh*t to get an erection or something? Genuine question.

If the roles were reversed, and it was a woman on the receiving end (of the slap!), would you ask this? Genuine question..

lazybones32 · 08-03-2017 01:10PM

Yeah, I would. I'd question anyone for sitting there while taking personal insults and ask why didn't they walk away. But if they chose to stay, it must be asked whether they get off on it.

Carlos Orange · 08-03-2017 01:20PM

No

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yeah, I would. I'd question anyone for sitting there while taking personal insults and ask why didn't they walk away. But if they chose to stay, it must be asked whether they get off on it.

Not really but it is a reasonable question to ask why they did it.
The same as it is reasonable to ask why people stay in abusive relationships. I read a long report years ago on domestic abuse and it seems one of the key reasons men suffer from less domestic abuse is that they tend to get out of the relationships where it happens more than women do.

lazybones32 · 08-03-2017 02:14PM

psinno wrote: »

Not really but it is a reasonable question to ask why they did it.
The same as it is reasonable to ask why people stay in abusive relationships. I read a long report years ago on domestic abuse and it seems one of the key reasons men suffer from less domestic abuse is that they tend to get out of the relationships where it happens more than women do.

But this wasn't a relationship - he called in to a woman he finished with X time ago, had no contact with since, calls in, gets insulted and slapped and sleeps with her 25 mins later, then goes on Boards trying to pass it off as some kind of sexism he's experienced.
For a husband/wife bf/gf to fight, take it too far and go to bed for sex 25 mins later is very different to the story above. He wasn't forced or coerced and as soon as the abuse/slap happened, it was his choice to stay or leave.

Carlos Orange · 08-03-2017 02:19PM

No

lazybones32 wrote: »

it was his choice to stay or leave.

It is always a persons choice to stay or go.

In some rare circumstances it isn't possible to exercise that decision.

eviltwin · 08-03-2017 02:22PM

FortySeven wrote: »

I was back in Galway two weekends ago and called up to a woman's house I hadn't spoken to in a while. We had a friend's with benefits thing going last year but I didn't keep up the friend bit after moving to the UK.

Got a royal slap across the face. Reall venom in it. Called all the names under the sun I was.

She was in bed with me 25 minutes later.

Imagine that, role reversed.

Why did you stay around long enough to get into bed after being slapped? I don't understand that. Its not a domestic violence situation, you should have stood up for yourself and walked once she did that.

One eyed Jack · 08-03-2017 02:29PM

FortySeven wrote: »

I was back in Galway two weekends ago and called up to a woman's house I hadn't spoken to in a while. We had a friend's with benefits thing going last year but I didn't keep up the friend bit after moving to the UK.

Got a royal slap across the face. Reall venom in it. Called all the names under the sun I was.

She was in bed with me 25 minutes later.

Imagine that, role reversed.

I'm imagining it, roles reversed, and I'm still not seeing what point you're trying to make? Did you want her to be in bed with you 25 minutes later?

There's an awful lot missing from that story.

08-03-2017 02:43PM

FortySeven wrote: »

I was back in Galway two weekends ago and called up to a woman's house I hadn't spoken to in a while. We had a friend's with benefits thing going last year but I didn't keep up the friend bit after moving to the UK.

Got a royal slap across the face. Reall venom in it. Called all the names under the sun I was.

Personally I'd say she was justified. After all, you did say friends with benefits rather than a simple ****buddy. You disappeared and reappeared later without a word. Seems reasonable to think you're a <insert whatever you feel like here>

She was in bed with me 25 minutes later.

You're equalling sex with what here? A deep emotional connection? :rolleyes: She used you for sex. I highly doubt she'll consider you for a friend anymore. She might use you again for sex or not. Probably she'll find someone else, because it's generally easy for a girl to get a sex partner, and harder to find someone capable of filling two roles. Frankly I'm amazed you see this as a victory. You've lost something important and it's not the sex.

Having sex for simply the sake of having sex gets old fast.

Imagine that, role reversed.

Err. No. It might shock you to realise that there are many types of male behavior. While I do prefer "friends with benefits" compared to other relatonships, your behavior is not mine. Never will be. I see no advantage in behaving that way.

Calhoun · 08-03-2017 02:47PM

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/demographically-women-are-going-to-take-over-the-world-quite-soon-so-enjoy-1.2985096

Imagine the uproar if an article "Men are going to take over the world" was written ...

When we inevitably have our next large scale war it will be interesting to see how things go.

Be also interesting if items like the above triggered selective birthing in certain cultures. Was reading an article lastnight about India and how they arent allowed identify the sex of the child as parents are selectively choosing males.

lazybones32 · 08-03-2017 02:48PM

psinno wrote: »

It is always a persons choice to stay or go.

In some rare circumstances it isn't possible to exercise that decision.

Yes but the situation described by the OP isn't the same as the rare circumstances you speak of. If he was in fear of his life/safety, he didn't say so and if he was, I'd still criticise him for posting it to Boards first and not the Gardai.

08-03-2017 03:04PM

Calhoun wrote: »

When we inevitably have our next large scale war it will be interesting to see how things go.

It's interesting how with all these discussions about employment equality, and not enough women in particular fields or levels of those fields... there's very little talk about a requirement for women to serve in the military frontline troops (rather than simply logistics, support etc). To balance the ratio a little... :rolleyes:

Lemming · 08-03-2017 03:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's interesting how with all these discussions about employment equality, and not enough women in particular fields or levels of those fields... there's very little talk about a requirement for women to serve in the military frontline troops (rather than simply logistics, support etc). To balance the ratio a little... :rolleyes:

I seem to recall that the US forces - I believe USMC - have accepted their first women in front-line roles (i.e. infantry, not support that happens to end up on the front-line). Plenty of US/UK female soldiers have found themselves at the sharp end, but almost all were not designated infantry roles. That distinction might be lost at the sharp-end of the stick mind you, but it does have an important bearing on recruitment, training & logistics, not to mention carries social & political baggage.

Zulu · 08-03-2017 03:26PM

No

eviltwin wrote: »

Its not a domestic violence situation

Really? Why do you say that?

you should have stood up for yourself and walked once she did that.

Advice you'd offer a battered wife no doubt?

Calhoun · 08-03-2017 03:27PM

Be interesting to see what happens, we live in a world where its expected by default the man fights and dies to maintain the status quo in civil liberties but at the same time is told that he is privilege and in some cases id discriminated against because of his sex.

All things being equal i think that we should see equality on the battlefield front lines, so all get to fight and die to uphold civil liberties.

Be interesting to see the state of demography had we not lost million of males during two world wars.

One eyed Jack · 08-03-2017 03:30PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's interesting how with all these discussions about employment equality, and not enough women in particular fields or levels of those fields... there's very little talk about a requirement for women to serve in the military frontline troops (rather than simply logistics, support etc). To balance the ratio a little... :rolleyes:

Why would you expect there would be any talk about it at all? Why would any women's groups argue that we should put more women in the front lines so that they too have as equal a risk of being killed as men? Why do men's groups not argue that there should be less men on the front lines? That would be more like the kind of equality men's rights groups should be arguing for, instead of always being on the back foot more concerned with their transparent anti-feminist agenda that does nothing to promote men's position in society, only makes them look as bad as some "modern feminists" IMO, neither group doing their respective "causes" any favours.

Calhoun · 08-03-2017 03:35PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would you expect there would be any talk about it at all? Why would any women's groups argue that we should put more women in the front lines so that they too have as equal a risk of being killed as men? Why do men's groups not argue that there should be less men on the front lines? That would be more like the kind of equality men's rights groups should be arguing for, instead of always being on the back foot more concerned with their transparent anti-feminist agenda that does nothing to promote men's position in society, only makes them look as bad as some "modern feminists" IMO, neither group doing their respective "causes" any favours.

Wishful thinking/day dreaming yes we should look to reduce war in all its form but lets be pragmatic that isnt stopping soon so unless you create combat robots its a valid discussion to have.

Why wouldnt mens groups discuss female participation in combat situations? why should i fight and die for a society that casts me as a privilege villain who will rape any female i come across if given the chance?

One eyed Jack · 08-03-2017 03:36PM

Calhoun wrote: »

Wishful thinking/day dreaming yes we should look to reduce war in all its form but lets be pragmatic that isnt stopping soon so unless you create combat robots its a valid discussion to have.

Why wouldnt mens groups discuss female participation in combat situations? why should i fight and die for a society that casts me as a privilege villain who will rape any female i come across if given the chance?

We don't have conscription in Ireland, I think you're safe.

Calhoun · 08-03-2017 03:45PM

We are talking about the principle of the conversation but ok stay in your dreamland.

One eyed Jack · 08-03-2017 03:50PM

Calhoun wrote: »

We are talking about the principle of the conversation but ok stay in your dreamland.

So your solution to war is then to send more people to die, just in equal numbers to even up the gender quotas, as long as they're women?

What sort of dreamland do I have to be in where subjective principles have any bearing on objective reality?

Calhoun · 08-03-2017 03:53PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So your solution to war is then to send more people to die, just in equal numbers to even up the gender quotas, as long as they're women?

What sort of dreamland do I have to be in where subjective principles have any bearing on objective reality?

Its not a solution more a question, if we have wars of the future why should it only be male lives on the line. It should be both should it not or what do you suggest if we do have a war?

One eyed Jack · 08-03-2017 04:07PM

Calhoun wrote: »

Its not a solution more a question, if we have wars of the future why should it only be male lives on the line. It should be both should it not or what do you suggest if we do have a war?

Wouldn't it be much more in our line to avoid any casualties of war, rather than suggest that more women should be forced into something they don't want to do, because men want to do it? You're completely ignoring the fact that men volunteer to join the armed forces. Nobody is being forced to join the armed forces, so the numbers of men killed is simply due to the fact that more men than women join the armed forces in the first place.

This isn't an example of sexism against men at all, like a good many of the last few posts haven't been examples of sexism against men, but are more the sort of stuff I'd expect to hear from people who need to be victims, regardless of their gender.

ligerdub · 08-03-2017 04:13PM

Most of the wars fought by the west are done in a relatively low-risk, almost cowardly war nowadays. They fight against low power militia groups and drop bombs on them. There aren't that many people in real danger spots with hand to hand fighting so to speak. The idea of this frontline thing is relatively minor regardless of gender.

I'd be more interested in the lack of calls for more women in waste management and the like.

Calhoun · 08-03-2017 04:15PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wouldn't it be much more in our line to avoid any casualties of war, rather than suggest that more women should be forced into something they don't want to do, because men want to do it? You're completely ignoring the fact that men volunteer to join the armed forces. Nobody is being forced to join the armed forces, so the numbers of men killed is simply due to the fact that more men than women join the armed forces in the first place.

This isn't an example of sexism against men at all, like a good many of the last few posts haven't been examples of sexism against men, but are more the sort of stuff I'd expect to hear from people who need to be victims, regardless of their gender.

Obviously yes there should be more done to prevent casualties of war but that is not the reality of war. Should we not question why more woman arent stepping up to do their duty?

I believe it is an example of the dual standards that are in place for men and woman and if we believe their is a societal duty in some countries to go and fight in war then we should should have similar standards for woman.

eviltwin · 08-03-2017 04:17PM

Zulu wrote: »

Really? Why do you say that?
Advice you'd offer a battered wife no doubt?

Because it's not and its an insult to genuine victims to refer to it as such.

__Alex__ · 08-03-2017 04:39PM

givyjoe wrote: »

I think Wibbs's point just went way over your head.. Wait, how tall are you

I'll sum it up with a few points as the thread has moved on.

a) people have preferences
b) that doesn't mean they will stick rigidly to them (ie. my hubs prefers blondes and I am definitely not one)
c) if tallness gets a woman going, you can't tell her she's wrong in that. Just like pretty much any physical attribute that turns someone on. That is something you literally cannot help.
d) yes, it's all a bit brutal and can feel unfair.

That's it really.

Zulu · 08-03-2017 04:42PM

No

eviltwin wrote: »

Because it's not and its an insult to genuine victims to refer to it as such.

I note you avoided the second question.

Because "you say so" isn't sufficient.

Apparently: Domestic violence is the physical, emotional, sexual or mental abuse of one person by another within close, intimate or family relationship.

They are in a relationship of sorts, are they not?
It is intimate and close, is it not??
There is at least one example of physical abuse, is there not???

Perhaps you follow feminist dogma; perhaps men can't be the victims of domestic abuse, I don't know, but what I do know is that your very quick to ignore the possibility, and very eager to move past it. Why is that?

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

Comments

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