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

seamus · 17-07-2017 10:46AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What you're referring to has fcuk all to do with masculinity.

Toxic masculinity.

The pressure for men to adhere to certain behaviours and characteristics because they're men, even if those behaviours are detrimental to the mental or physical health of the individual. Such as refusing to go to a doctor for fear of being called weak, or refusing to register yourself as homeless lest people think you're a failure.

That doesn't imply that masculinity in itself is bad or toxic, which appears to be what you've taken from my post.

kunst nugget · 17-07-2017 10:55AM

maybe

seamus wrote: »

Toxic masculinity.

The pressure for men to adhere to certain behaviours and characteristics because they're men, even if those behaviours are detrimental to the mental or physical health of the individual. Such as refusing to go to a doctor for fear of being called weak, or refusing to register yourself as homeless lest people think you're a failure.

That doesn't imply that masculinity in itself is bad or toxic, which appears to be what you've taken from my post.

I'll be honest, I think 'toxic masculinity' is an awful term… especially when there is no equivalence in femininity. What you're describing is society's expectations, from both men and women, of how men such conform rather a problem with masculinity in and of itself.

ligerdub · 17-07-2017 10:56AM

Going off topic folks.

Anyone experienced any sexism then? :-)

Carlos Orange · 17-07-2017 10:56AM

No

seamus wrote: »

The pressure for men to adhere to certain behaviours and characteristics because they're men, even if those behaviours are detrimental to the mental or physical health of the individual. Such as refusing to go to a doctor for fear of being called weak, or refusing to register yourself as homeless lest people think you're a failure.

That doesn't imply that masculinity in itself is bad or toxic, which appears to be what you've taken from my post.

When you use gendered terms to refer to concepts that aren't inherently gendered people will read a stance into it. A lot of the boundaries of maleness are policed by women but that isn't called toxic femininity. Almost uniformly whenever I hear men getting made fun of for taking care of themselves when they are sick it is women shaming them by calling it man flu.

seamus · 17-07-2017 11:03AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'll be honest, I think 'toxic masculinity' is an awful term… especially when there is no equivalence in femininity. What you're describing is society's expectations, from both men and women, of how men such conform rather a problem with masculinity in and of itself.

Absolutely.
And I agree that the term is probably unnecessarily inflammatory. It implies that masculinity itself is toxic, when it doesn't mean that at all.

It's also often abused by referring to natural masculine traits in a negative way, when it's supposed to refer to expectations of men that unduly put them under pressure.

I personally feel that it's a really apt term, it's something that men should recognise in their daily lives and do their best to rail against it.

But what should be something that men as a collective fight against, has been twisted into a stick that the extreme feminists use to beat men with.

silverharp · 17-07-2017 11:14AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Classic bate and switch. When discussing the point on education it is '1 feminist's suggestion' so it can be ignored/derided . Below feminism is treated as a hivemind which isn't really pro family.

How far off your own course of improving education for men are you willing to go to score points against the feminists?

wha?? in this case it is one so was just stating a fact, if the hive mind agreed to this I would have the same attitude for the reasons I mentioned

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The article points out that actions have consequences. It states that the success of getting women into education has created an imbalance which is having negative consequences.

How you'd you address the problems?

but then we are back to choices and valuing whats important.

As for addressing the problems it depends, at the lower socio end (which this article clearly wasnt interested in) society has to recognise that working class men need to have a reasonable prospect of steady work or they wont be able to cross the threshold into "marriage material" so taxes, open door migration, education/training need to be looked at.

At the professional end, quotas have to be done away with. On the same day I read this article there was something on RTE about getting more women to surgical positions in an artificial way, connect the dots!
As for the other issues with this grouping its mostly down to attitude of the individual women. If a girl is smart enough to be embarking on €150K per year medical career then she should be smart enough to figure out that she needs to find someone earlier rather than later and build a life together otherwise it probably wont happen, its no worse than the pressure men have to have on track careers so they are seen as desirable by the opposite sex.

Carlos Orange · 17-07-2017 11:20AM

No

silverharp wrote: »

At the professional end, quotas have to be done away with. On the same day I read this article there was something on RTE about getting more women to surgical positions in an artificial way, connect the dots!

The HSE is only 83% female so obviously we need more female surgeons for 'gender equality' reasons.

I don't agree with quotas but if we are going to have them they shouldn't be employed only for certain types of people.

PucaMama · 17-07-2017 11:37AM

psinno wrote: »

silverharp wrote: »

At the professional end, quotas have to be done away with. On the same day I read this article there was something on RTE about getting more women to surgical positions in an artificial way, connect the dots!

The HSE is only 83% female so obviously we need more female surgeons for 'gender equality' reasons.

I don't agree with quotas but if we are going to have them they shouldn't be employed only for certain types of people.

How is the hse 83percent female?

Carlos Orange · 17-07-2017 11:48AM

No

PucaMama wrote: »

How is the hse 83percent female?

This isn't where I read it but it says the staff in the public health service were 79% female at the end of 2016.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/Our-Workforce/Public-Health-Service-Workforce-Profile-at-December-2016.pdf

Strangely I don't see anything about increasing male representation in their diversity goals.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/diversity/dei_strategicplan.pdf

PucaMama · 17-07-2017 05:11PM

psinno wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

How is the hse 83percent female?

This isn't where I read it but it says the staff in the public health service were 79% female at the end of 2016.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/Our-Workforce/Public-Health-Service-Workforce-Profile-at-December-2016.pdf

Strangely I don't see anything about increasing male representation in their diversity goals.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/diversity/dei_strategicplan.pdf

I see a lot of male doctors and specialists etc on my job but not many male nurses/care assistants etc generally any job that involves looking after is usually more "female". If you want incentives for men to look for these jobs does that mean you agree with the quotas for women in other jobs? Because I believe there shouldn't be quotas for any job. Or for any reason. Pick the best candidate not the person to up your "diversity" score.

Carlos Orange · 17-07-2017 05:31PM

No

PucaMama wrote: »

I see a lot of male doctors and specialists etc on my job but not many male nurses/care assistants etc generally any job that involves looking after is usually more "female". If you want incentives for men to look for these jobs does that mean you agree with the quotas for women in other jobs? Because I believe there shouldn't be quotas for any job. Or for any reason. Pick the best candidate not the person to up your "diversity" score.

I'm generally against quotas but if they are going to exist they should exist in a gender/race/whatever neutral manner. Magically they don't exist when men are under represented. Nor do more soft approaches to massaging the make up of work places. If they are explicitly tasking themselves with improving the number of women in leadership (already women are 58% of management),travellers and the disabled ignoring 50% of the population seems a small oversight. That 92% of nurses are female and 96% of nursing students are indicates they are going in the wrong direction.

PucaMama · 17-07-2017 06:02PM

psinno wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

I see a lot of male doctors and specialists etc on my job but not many male nurses/care assistants etc generally any job that involves looking after is usually more "female". If you want incentives for men to look for these jobs does that mean you agree with the quotas for women in other jobs? Because I believe there shouldn't be quotas for any job. Or for any reason. Pick the best candidate not the person to up your "diversity" score.

I'm generally against quotas but if they are going to exist they should exist in a gender/race/whatever neutral manner. Magically they don't exist when men are under represented. Nor do more soft approaches to massaging the make up of work places. If they are explicitly tasking themselves with improving the number of women in leadership (already women are 58% of management),travellers and the disabled ignoring 50% of the population seems a small oversight. That 92% of nurses are female and 96% of nursing students are indicates they are going in the wrong direction.

Quotas for disabled people I don't have a problem with but for everything else I'm not so sure. I think there are some jobs that either men or women just don't want to do. Serious lack of men in nursing and care work. I'm in that type of work. We need more men there but I've never heard of any quota for nursing so we can't really blame it on that.

Outlaw Pete · 18-07-2017 02:01AM

seamus wrote: »

That doesn't imply that masculinity in itself is bad or toxic, which appears to be what you've taken from my post.

If I felt you were saying that masculinity (in and of itself) was bad or toxic, then I wouldn't have said the following:

What you're referring to has fcuk all to do with masculinity.

Here is what you referred to:

seamus wrote: »

IMO, toxic masculinity makes it far less likely that men would register as homeless for fear of being stigmatised.

newport2 · 18-07-2017 06:37AM

seamus wrote: »

Toxic masculinity.

The pressure for men to adhere to certain behaviours and characteristics because they're men, even if those behaviours are detrimental to the mental or physical health of the individual. Such as refusing to go to a doctor for fear of being called weak, or refusing to register yourself as homeless lest people think you're a failure.

That doesn't imply that masculinity in itself is bad or toxic, which appears to be what you've taken from my post.

If that's the case, why aren't the pressures for women to adhere to certain behaviours and characteristics because they're women, even if those pressures are detrimental to the mental or physical health of the individual, referred to as Toxic Femininity?? Such as half starving yourself on a crash diet lest people don't think you look good.

Both pressures come from society, but only in women's case is this acknowledged and deemed to be society's fault. In men's case it's deemed to be a fault with men, ie toxic masculinity.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2017 09:54AM

psinno wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

How is the hse 83percent female?

This isn't where I read it but it says the staff in the public health service were 79% female at the end of 2016.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/Our-Workforce/Public-Health-Service-Workforce-Profile-at-December-2016.pdf

Strangely I don't see anything about increasing male representation in their diversity goals.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/Resources/diversity/dei_strategicplan.pdf

2 questions spring to mind.
1. Is there any movement to increase male representation in their diversity goals? These things don't just happen so it would take dedicated people and time to achieve.
2. Would you be happy to see anything about increasing male representation in their diversity goals? Strikes me that you'd be as unhappy about that as you are about seeing an effort to increase the number of female consultants.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2017 10:19AM

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Classic bate and switch. When discussing the point on education it is '1 feminist's suggestion' so it can be ignored/derided . Below feminism is treated as a hivemind which isn't really pro family.

How far off your own course of improving education for men are you willing to go to score points against the feminists?

wha?? in this case it is one so was just stating a fact, if the hive mind agreed to this I would have the same attitude for the reasons I mentioned

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The article points out that actions have consequences. It states that the success of getting women into education has created an imbalance which is having negative consequences.

How you'd you address the problems?

but then we are back to choices and valuing whats important.

As for addressing the problems it depends, at the lower socio end (which this article clearly wasnt interested in) society has to recognise that working class men need to have a reasonable prospect of steady work or they wont be able to cross the threshold into "marriage material" so taxes, open door migration, education/training need to be looked at.

At the professional end, quotas have to be done away with. On the same day I read this article there was something on RTE about getting more women to surgical positions in an artificial way, connect the dots!
As for the other issues with this grouping its mostly down to attitude of the individual women. If a girl is smart enough to be embarking on €150K per year medical career then she should be smart enough to figure out that she needs to find someone earlier rather than later and build a life together otherwise it probably wont happen, its no worse than the pressure men have to have on track careers so they are seen as desirable by the opposite sex.

Just for clarity, Do you actually think there is some kind of hive mind or an official feminist position on education? It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between your serious positions about victimisation and hyperbole.
That's a fairly wide ranging list of issues you're proposing tackling. Immigration, taxes, education, all aimed at making men's career prospects align to your ideal. But any effort to encourage women into STEM or medical consultant positions, is completely out of bounds for you. Why the massive difference in approach?

daithi7 · 18-07-2017 02:47PM

The universal irony is visible here again. Basically it goes like this, where women are under represented , blatant sexist, discriminatory policies should be adopted to 'rectify' the under representation, as obviously 50:50 is the fairest and best, despite the fact that many women proactively opt to be the main home maker and care giver to offspring, etc.

Where men are under represented (e.g 3rd level education now), it's because of the 'obvious' limitations of maleness, masculinity, etc, etc and therefore should just be accepted as the way it is.

I'm a great believer in equality of opportunity and meritocracy. Essentially any movement or policy that promotes ideas contrary to those principles sticks in my gut.

E.g. the last election , FG dictated that over 30% of their candidates should be women. Yet only a tiny percentage of females were councillors or any other stepping position to TD to show they had the experience, skill& potential to be decent tds. This was blatant sexist discrimination against more able candidates who would lose out to preferred females simply because their gender.

This was compounded after the election, when I heard a stupid, sexist woman from the national woman's council (ehhh is there a men's one!?!) being interviewed by pat Kenny on the composition of the new government. She stated straight up that she thought all 6 women fg tds who were elected should be ministers. Yet when it was pointed out to her, that surely it should be the best candidates for the jobs who should become ministers, she seemed to struggle with that concept I.e. meritocracy.

I derive absolutely no pleasure from seeing any woman feeling she must resort to freezing her ovaries, or even eggs for that matter. It is nice to see people meeting a compatible partner and making a life with them. However, I do understand some people laughing at that small cohort of silly women who may have 'priced themselves out of the market' due to an over developed sense of self worth, and now have found themselves without a mate. I know a good few of these kind of women, they drank the feminist Koolaid, they thought themselves too good for too many of their male 'peers', and now they're transforming to aging, embittered, lonely egos, trying to stay relevant in a world that sneers at their self inflicted smug misery.

Thankfully, I know far, far more wholesome, happy women leading productive, flourishing, happy lives, which thankfully is the norm in my experience, but the other cohort exists and tbh they are and always have been their own worst enemy. Tough on them, boo hoo

ancuncha · 18-07-2017 03:28PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

2 questions spring to mind.
1. Is there any movement to increase male representation in their diversity goals? These things don't just happen so it would take dedicated people and time to achieve.
2. Would you be happy to see anything about increasing male representation in their diversity goals? Strikes me that you'd be as unhappy about that as you are about seeing an effort to increase the number of female consultants.

I think you would be interested to watch The Red Pill film by Cassie Jaye on the mens right movements

Very informative on why there aren't more mens groups

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2017 04:43PM

daithi7 wrote:

Where men are under represented (e.g 3rd level education now), it's because of the 'obvious' limitations of maleness, masculinity, etc, etc and therefore should just be accepted as the way it is.

Do people say things like that? If you read this thread then you'll see none of that. Maybe you'll see some extremists with that opinion. Likewise you'll see the opposite opinion expressed by extremists on this thread - women can't excel in STEM because of the 'obvious' limitations of femaleness, lack of aptitude etc. etc.

You will see people oppose quotas for women but propose similar quotas for men. You'll see people insist the status quo is appropriate when a gender imbalance favours men, such as engineering, and lament a gender imbalance when it favours women, such as nursing or teaching.

Encouraging men into teaching = good
Encouraging women into STEM =bad

I'm always left wondering what the standard is.

py2006 · 18-07-2017 04:55PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Encouraging men into teaching = good
Encouraging women into STEM =bad

I'm always left wondering what the standard is.

Where do you get this from???

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2017 04:59PM

py2006 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Encouraging men into teaching = good
Encouraging women into STEM =bad

I'm always left wondering what the standard is.

Where do you get this from???

This thread and the men's rights thread.

Any effort to encourage women into STEM is roundly opposed. You'll find lots of support for encouraging men into teaching.

py2006 · 18-07-2017 05:01PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This thread and the men's rights thread.

Any effort to encourage women into STEM is roundly opposed. You'll find lots of support for encouraging men into teaching.

Absolute nonsense

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2017 05:05PM

py2006 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This thread and the men's rights thread.

Any effort to encourage women into STEM is roundly opposed. You'll find lots of support for encouraging men into teaching.

Absolute nonsense

It isn't.

I've had pages of conversations on these threads about the need for more male teachers. Nobody opposed the idea though some will admit they don't know how to do it effectively without quotas -and they don't support any quotas.

Whether you're aware of those chats or not, isn't really the issue.

daithi7 · 18-07-2017 05:06PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do people say things like that? ....../quote]

I challenge you to look up the record of the dail to see how often issues relating to sexism against women were brought up ,versus how often issues relating to sexism against men. I'd be guessing about 5 to 1, but it could well be even higher.

Equality studies curricula are also indicative of this same malaise.

Essentially there is a feminism industry and agenda that has been allowed to dictate practically all discourse in Ireland on equality issues for close to 50 years, now. Ironically this agenda is not based on equality at all, but selective, sexist, positive discrimination against men. It's pathetic,imho, and the lack of critical analysis of this agenda when it is so obvious at times is really pathetic. E.g. fine Gael positive discrimination at last general election for instance.

py2006 · 18-07-2017 05:10PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It isn't.

I've had pages of conversations on these threads about the need for more male teachers. Nobody opposed the idea though some will admit they don't know how to do it effectively without quotas -and they don't support any quotas.

Whether you're aware of those chats or not, isn't really the issue.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Your ascertain that people discussing men's rights are 'roundly opposed' to women in stem.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2017 05:18PM

daithi7 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do people say things like that? ....../quote]

I challenge you to look up the record of the dail to see how often issues relating to sexism against women were brought up ,versus how often issues relating to sexism against men. I'd be guessing about 5 to 1, but it could well be even higher.

And are those fail records going to say the things from the poster above? ' where men are under represented it's because of 'obvious' issues of maleness, masculinity etc etc.' I doubt that's been said in the sail so I think we're at crossed purpose.

I've no intention to look it up. Assuming you're right and the ratio is 5:1 so what? TDs can raise men's rights too. If they choose not to do so then it's a bad show from them.

People will oppose them but that's doesn't mean they can't do it. Posters on this thread will oppose feminism but that doesn't mean feminism collapses.

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2017 05:23PM

py2006 wrote:

You know exactly what I'm talking about. Your ascertain that people discussing men's rights are 'roundly opposed' to women in stem.

Now, what you did there was naughty. I didn't say anyone is 'opposed to women in STEM'. I said they are opposed to measures to ENCOURAGE MORE women into STEM. See below. Naughty naughty.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Any effort to encourage women into STEM is roundly opposed. You'll find lots of support for encouraging men into teaching.

py2006 · 18-07-2017 05:32PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now, what you did there was naughty. I didn't say anyone is 'opposed to women in STEM'. I said they are opposed to measures to ENCOURAGE MORE women into STEM. See below. Naughty naughty.

My mistake but I still disagree. Encouraging is fine. However people may disagree with positive discrimination etc

El_Duderino 09 · 18-07-2017 05:54PM

py2006 wrote: »

My mistake but I still disagree. Encouraging is fine. However people may disagree with positive discrimination etc

No worries

The conversations usually break down there because the proponents aren't usually sure what encouragement would be effective - without resorting to quotas.

iptba · 18-07-2017 07:28PM

daithi7 wrote: »

The universal irony is visible here again. Basically it goes like this, where women are under represented , blatant sexist, discriminatory policies should be adopted to 'rectify' the under representation, as obviously 50:50 is the fairest and best, despite the fact that many women proactively opt to be the main home maker and care giver to offspring, etc.

Where men are under represented (e.g 3rd level education now), it's because of the 'obvious' limitations of maleness, masculinity, etc, etc and therefore should just be accepted as the way it is.

I'm a great believer in equality of opportunity and meritocracy. Essentially any movement or policy that promotes ideas contrary to those principles sticks in my gut.

E.g. the last election , FG dictated that over 30% of their candidates should be women. Yet only a tiny percentage of females were councillors or any other stepping position to TD to show they had the experience, skill& potential to be decent tds. This was blatant sexist discrimination against more able candidates who would lose out to preferred females simply because their gender.

This was compounded after the election, when I heard a stupid, sexist woman from the national woman's council (ehhh is there a men's one!?!) being interviewed by pat Kenny on the composition of the new government. She stated straight up that she thought all 6 women fg tds who were elected should be ministers. Yet when it was pointed out to her, that surely it should be the best candidates for the jobs who should become ministers, she seemed to struggle with that concept I.e. meritocracy.

Also just to add that all parties have to do this for elections (to get half the money from the State). And the quota will be 40% (increased from 30%) indefinitely from 7 years after the law was passed.

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