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

iptba wrote: »

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.

Yeah, fuppin bats. So effectively we're gonna get a bunch of less competent, less able, less experienced female candidates forced on the electorate with quotas ahead of more able, more experienced , male candidates all because of some stupid feminist agenda that is supposed to promote positive discrimination to encourage more females into public life (more like forcing more experienced, able males out of public life actually). Also the lack of critical analysis of this legally enforced sexist discrimination by the mainstream media in Ireland just shows how endemic and pervasive this feminization of the media and public debate has now become. It's mad Ted!!

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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?

Hive mind is your term if I remember correctly , but do I think academic or lesbian feminists will become inclusive I doubt it. I could see trendy feminists who happen to be parents joining the dots If there was a cultural shift away from men not mattering. At some stage there has to be consequences that everyone notices.
My point is about engagement in society, push men (working class) away from the "social contract" and they will disengage or become criminals. Nothing to do with the career prospects of the top 10%.
Probably overlaps with the left abandoning the working class for multiculturalism.

Dutch tv advert 'do you let your boy be boy enough?'




http://www.laatjijjouwjongengenoegjongenzijn.nl/#het-statement

Boys and girls are equivalent, but not the same. We, educators of the Netherlands, sometimes lose sight of boys developing and learning in a different way than girls. In general, educators expect children to behave calmly, listen well and sit still. While boys learn more by discovering, experimenting, taking risks. Educators seem less appreciated in recent years' boys behavior. Boys slow down, inhibits their development.
From science there are divergent views whether the differences between girls and boys are born or born in the upbringing. However, they agree that attention should be paid to this subject.
SIRE would like to ask all Dutch educators about their behavior towards boys. So boys get the space to develop in the way that suits them.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

More of this so called "toxic masculinity" bullshit.

https://twitter.com/TIME/status/892882796066340864

The more they continue it, the bigger a problem they make for themselves.

This 'author' also writes in the Irishtimes and has a specific 'target market' for her work, but this article has so many generalisations it's almost funny. Plenty of alternative views in the comments section though!:D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4754914/Where-good-men-gone.html

Where have all the good men gone? These sassy, sophisticated, solvent women say they are struggling to find other halves that can measure up

• Five single women share why they've struggled to find men worth dating
• They ask if it is possible to find independent, attractive mid-life daters
• One dating coach says there are seven women for every man aged 40-55

By Alana Kirk For The Daily Mail
Published: 22:15, 2 August 2017 | Updated: 16:04, 3 August 2017

Men’s relationships frequently overlap; they won’t leave one partner until they find another, so they are never really single.
By contrast, women take longer to recover from a break-up. They often step out of the dating ring completely, sometimes for many years, to rebuild their lives or to focus on bringing up children.

When Jo coaches women on dating, she tells them to accept the reality. ‘It’s just a fact that there is a lack of available decent men,’ she says.

But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. Men, indoctrinated over generations to pursue younger women, are instinctively reluctant to consider those of a similar age to their own, even ones who look youthful and attractive.

With the statistics against them, women are motivated to want to look after themselves and make the best of what they have, while there is no incentive for the men to do the same.

As Jane will attest, middle-aged and 50-plus men tend to be set in their ways, less adventurous and less youthful in outlook.

‘Men my age are all up for a pipe and slippers life, and I’m not,’ she says. ‘When I got married my husband was six years older than me, but I wouldn’t take that age gap now because men aged 52 to 60 are boring. They just don’t have any oomph in them.

‘Younger men are drawn to older women as much as older men are drawn to younger women. And this is not a new phenomenon,’ says Suzie Parkus. ‘They are drawn to the confidence and life experience of older women, especially those who don’t look their age.

‘I think women have been raised to believe they are winning an amazing prize to get a man, who then has a sense of entitlement — so he puts in no effort whatsoever and always thinks he can get better.’

Unless men change their attitude to dating women of a similar age to them, and make more effort with their personal care (and most women accept this is unlikely), it is hard to see how the situation can change for these gorgeous women.

The article says that men tend to go for younger women, not considering people of their own age, but then also saying that "Younger men are drawn to older women as much as older men are drawn to younger women. And this is not a new phenomenon".

I used to laugh at this sort of stuff, but it's frequently a source of something beyond irritation. This stuff is taken as gospel and has spread out into the ether. It needs to be challenged to the same extent as the counterpoint anti-women stuff which occasionally pops up. There is too much fear or pandering when it comes to these sort of assertions. The obvious internal hypocrisies are also quite frequent.

By all means they can put this stuff out there if they so wish, but you better have a point and have some sort of back-up argument bar your friend Sharon and Karen who both, aged 45, spent the last 20 years focusing on their careers and dismissing 90% of their potential suitors.

it comes back to biology , after ~30 men are going to be thinking with their big brain and not their little one. Where young men might not see crazy in their 20's once they are older and wiser their choices will be more rational . I havnt read the whole article but 40 something women in the UK will only really have the option of 40 or 50 something men many of whom will have probably been burned by divorce in the past. of course if will be a case of "where have all the good men gone"

Buffman wrote: »

This 'author' also writes in the Irishtimes and has a specific 'target market' for her work, but this article has so many generalisations it's almost funny. Plenty of alternative views in the comments section though!:D

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4754914/Where-good-men-gone.html

I know it's the Daily Mail (and worse again, the 'Femail' segment in the Daily Mail), but I'm a mixture of amused and bemused reading that article tbh. It appears on the one hand to be a bunch of women lamenting the availability of 'good men' at their age, while at the same time suggesting that their lack of success in finding 'good men' is because they themselves are too good for the vast majority of men their own age?

I'm very confused after reading that :pac:

My take on just the women in that article alone is that it isn't their age is a barrier to them being attractive to men, but rather it's their attitude. And this particular old chestnut never seems to go out of fashion as a way of telling themselves they're not the one with the problem, it's men who want nothing to do with them are the problem -


‘I have two children and a career to manage and I’m forthright. I think men find women like me intimidating.
‘I want a strong, independent man. Why is that so hard?’


There just aren't enough facepalms sometimes, but it's not because I'd feel intimidated that I would have no interest in someone like that, it's because they are an utterly delusional narcissist.


‘At this stage of my life I need someone who is independent. I’ve set the bar now and I don’t want someone who needs looking after —unless he shows he can look after me first.’


That's quite possibly the most confusing statement I've ever read - wants a man who is independent, but only if the man can show her she can depend on him, so that she can be independent...

Fcuk, I'm off for a drink, it's Friday! :pac:

Wibbs wrote: »

She must live in reverso land to my experience as in my experience that works far more with the genders reversed. I struggle to think of one man of my acquaintance that worked like that, but about half of the women of my acquaintance did/do. On

I totally agree here. It was always very much the opposite way around to me

Wibbs wrote: »

Because of my advanced years I have heard very similar M, but it was a minority and a particular type going on. At least in my small sample group. A generalised description would be women of a certain blonde and of a certain age(mid-late 30's in my examples), above average in looks and fashion when young, the rugger bugger/media crowd, with various unlabelable jobs masquerading as careers, who got lots of attention from "suitable" and unsuitable" men early on. And usually went for the latter. More excitement as it were. Now the wild oats were sown the draw to the burbs hit like salmon mindlessly rushing upstream to the rivulet of their birth and they were looking for the domesticated kind of cereal. A man of a type that would pass muster among her peers, who would look fine in FaceBook photos of their all pine and promise scandi kitchen on tick, but would slowly go out of focus over time, to be replaced in the foreground by pics of her kids.

It generally is, all things being equal. In the sense that the averagely attractive man has fewer choices in their twenties compared to the averagely attractive woman, but that starts to go into reverse in the 30's and even 40's and it seems according to that article even into their 50's.

Though on that note I smell some extra topping of BS on top of the existing large serving. Yeah a guy in his mid 30's who doesn't look like he would be better served ringing bells in Notre Dame, hasn't gone to seed and is in receipt of a regular monthly rather than weekly pay packet has a fair few options and can certainly choose to go for younger if that's his thing. In a few rarer again cases that might hold true into his forties. By the fifties that percentage is small. Beyond that you had better be a member of the Rolling Stones*. It would be my humble that beyond fifty the "market" pendulum that has swung from one gender to the other settles more in the middle. No matter how many life punched and paunched grecian 2000 men, or multiple incoming cats and classes in watercolours women like to fantasise otherwise. So again IMH it sounds like those particular women are more akin to those ageing lotharios in both living in an ego preserving fantasy world.




*in my own average love life my "peak" was between 35 and 40ish. And I was a late bloomer. When I say peak, I mean that I got the most interest from the widest range of women of my age and younger at that time. Yes I have gotten interest since, but it was generally women closer to my age and any much younger women were a case of a phase/fancy/fling, rather than seen as anything like a long term prospect.

Probably one of the best posts I've ever seen.....hats off

py2006 wrote: »

I totally agree here. It was always very much the opposite way around to me

Count me in on that - I've never met any guy who would be in a "constantly attached" state, but the majority of women I know are like that; They'd always be in some sort of a long-ish relationship (at least in the intentions), and barely a month or two of "singledom" would happen in between those.

On the other hand, I do know an absolute load of "Permasingle" guys, who I'd never seen dating someone or that very, very rarely do with very long hiatuses in between. I'll give you that, I work in IT - so in a a few cases the reason is total, utter and devastating social ineptitude (Sheldon Cooper from TBBT would look like an unrelenting party animal, in comparison); Mostly however is due to preference and choice.

We could discuss ages about why this is the case (my feeling is that a lot of "serial daters" of either gender do it due to boredom with their own life, but I digress), but that's my own experience, echoed by more than one as I can see...

Wibbs wrote: »

Because of my advanced years I have heard very similar M, but it was a minority and a particular type going on. At least in my small sample group. A generalised description would be women of a certain blonde and of a certain age(mid-late 30's in my examples), above average in looks and fashion when young, the rugger bugger/media crowd, with various unlabelable jobs masquerading as careers, who got lots of attention from "suitable" and unsuitable" men early on. And usually went for the latter. More excitement as it were. Now the wild oats were sown the draw to the burbs hit like salmon mindlessly rushing upstream to the rivulet of their birth and they were looking for the domesticated kind of cereal. A man of a type that would pass muster among her peers, who would look fine in FaceBook photos of their all pine and promise scandi kitchen on tick, but would slowly go out of focus over time, to be replaced in the foreground by pics of her kids.

And I thought I was going to write an interesting and articulate post; This, my man, goes right up there with the "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe..." speech.

Wibbs wrote: »

It generally is, all things being equal. In the sense that the averagely attractive man has fewer choices in their twenties compared to the averagely attractive woman, but that starts to go into reverse in the 30's and even 40's and it seems according to that article even into their 50's.

Though on that note I smell some extra topping of BS on top of the existing large serving. Yeah a guy in his mid 30's who doesn't look like he would be better served ringing bells in Notre Dame, hasn't gone to seed and is in receipt of a regular monthly rather than weekly pay packet has a fair few options and can certainly choose to go for younger if that's his thing. In a few rarer again cases that might hold true into his forties. By the fifties that percentage is small. Beyond that you had better be a member of the Rolling Stones*. It would be my humble that beyond fifty the "market" pendulum that has swung from one gender to the other settles more in the middle. No matter how many life punched and paunched grecian 2000 men, or multiple incoming cats and classes in watercolours women like to fantasise otherwise. So again IMH it sounds like those particular women are more akin to those ageing lotharios in both living in an ego preserving fantasy world.

*in my own average love life my "peak" was between 35 and 40ish. And I was a late bloomer. When I say peak, I mean that I got the most interest from the widest range of women of my age and younger at that time. Yes I have gotten interest since, but it was generally women closer to my age and any much younger women were a case of a phase/fancy/fling, rather than seen as anything like a long term prospect.

The biggest issue the women in the article have is that they wouldn't take any "less" than themselves; In a nutshell, they won't "date down" - if one of them met a handsome, smart, polite and caring gentleman in his 50s, which however worked as a carpenter or delivery driver, he'd be "unsuitable" to them or "not good enough"; On the other hand, the successful male professional in his 50s won't have a single problem dating, say, a 30 years old cleaning lady (I say this with the utmost respect for the mentioned occupations, which still are the foundation of society - try being an high flying solicitor without a roof on your head, in a filthy room and with nobody delivering avocado bagels at lunch time!).

I would actually say that they're looking above themselves even, kind of still trying to find the "carer/provider" fantasy - they're basically shooting for the highest possible tier; It goes without saying that men in that position will have plenty of choice and it'll work against a 50-something woman.

It really is the exact reverse of the average or even above average 20-something guy who only runs after supermodel types and complains he gets none, without realizing that every single man in any room these young women walk in, wants to be with them - which means they have the choice to dismiss anyone but the top of the crop.

tritium wrote: »

Theres a certain hypocrisy here too. Younger men who cant seem to get a date are almost seen as nerds or creepy loners in the media. Any they make to fix it is met with wailing about pua and manipulation. Generally theyre told they dont have any right to a date so they should know their place.

Fast forward 20 years and women who are in the same position are told its so unfair, poor you by the, admitedly womens rag elements mainly, of the media.

A strange double standard imho...

when I think back to the 80's in retrospect lads had less information and were led by the nose in the whole dating scene. I reckon part of the ire now is that is that men and teenage boys have access to more information. If a lad uses some bit of pua its no more manipulative than a girl using push up bra or a very creative use of makeup

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know it's the Daily Mail (and worse again, the 'Femail' segment in the Daily Mail)

Not a section of the interweb I'd normally be perusing, I don't think I'd be in their 'target demographic'!:D

A friend sent me the link to it in a humorous context. I was bemused reading it, but apart from the funny side, it was the combination of delusion, entitlement, hypergamy, hypocrisy and misandry in the one article that prompted me to post it here.

Saying that, the article definitely needs to be read in context with it's medium, a tabloid who just cares about profit and which is aimed at a certain target market.

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah I dunno B, I'm not so sure how many are buying into this stuff. Beyond - in the Irish context - the environs of Montrose or TV3's Loose Women Midday, with its coterie of well coopered cacklers.
....................
In the media sure, but "when the rubber meets the road" as our Yank cousins would say, reality is the biggest challenge of all. And that reality tends to prove that "mature, independent, confident women, I don't need no man, but really I do" who self describe themselves as such are up there in the deluded olympics with every middle aged and up bald man who thinks he looks like Patrick Steward/Sean Connery/Jason Statham and can pull the blonde barmaid working her way through university. Did'ya see the way she looked at me lads...

That's disgust you mong, disgust at avoiding beer breath oul lads her da's age, so that she can get some extra to help with the rent, while she's boning up on her biochemistry books.

It's just that the deluded women are given far more airtime. In TVland at least. Mostly because in that section of the media it's mostly made up of women of a similar bent. In Hollywoodland where it's more men of that type that's why you're more likely to see your Brad Pitts and the like paired off with near embryos in tube tops. It is what it is.

Yep, numbers wise I'd agree that (hopefully) it's not a majority of people who buy into this type of propaganda. For those that do, it probably does lead to a type of self-fulfilling prophecy and when 'reality bites', it's easy to have your believes reinforced by 'stories' like this one, rather than look in the mirror.

Putting the dating side of it to one side, it's when one sided media propaganda like this starts having real life implications for everyone that we've to keep an eye on, even if it's only 'softening' up public opinion so that the likes of 'positive' discrimination gender quotas get on the books with little or no discussion/opposition.

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye B, but as a worthwhile example of how that should work it's not a good one, given it seems to be mostly populated by little Englanders, reactionaries and dribblers on day release. But I suppose that's the risk one takes when all comers are welcomed/encouraged. The nitwits tend to have the most polished keyboards and vocal chords. *looks at keyboard. Realises the irony. Crap...

Yep, agreed, the DM comment section might not be the most savory example of free speech, but at least readers of that 'story' got an opportunity to read some alternative realistic views on it.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that really the case? The poster H3llr4iser mar this exact point 2 posts before yours ;

Maybe H3llr4iser is part of the dreaded media. Or else it's not just the media who use this image.

Some men can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault.
Some women can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault. This notion is more about making the same old point than commenting on anything in reality.

Oh hold on, I see what you're doing here - fine, but please let me make a clarification

Both situations DO exist; What is important is to be objective enough to recognize reality and make the proper distinctions.

The super-insecure, socially challenged "nerd" type IS NOT an invention of the media; They exist for real and come in both male and female flavour, although for some reason or the other the former seems to be vastly outnumbering the latter. Being involved in IT for the last two decades, I can guarantee you that I've met an absolute tonne of them through College and then work; I'm sure that at least in the past, an external observer would have easily classified me in the group - I'm a rather extreme introvert who had to learn how to be sociable for the sake of professional and personal life quality

It is obvious that a lack of social aptitude will put someone of a rather dramatic backfoot - just about anybody else in the room will seem more appealing and lively. A simple, hard boiled reality of life and interaction.

It is however also undeniable that the reaction to these personality traits are often unjustifiably hostile; Not enjoying being the centre of the attention, being shy, enjoying things most people can't or don't want to understand does not make someone a bad person nor "undesirable" - and it is evident that, in this specific situation, there is quite a bit of cultural influence from the media. It's also interesting to see how it is changing over time - when I was a teenager, the simple mention you had anything to do with computers would make people run a mile; Now it's just a normal thing, even a viable topic of conversation. Maybe the cool kids in 2136 will be chatting about Schrodinger's cat at pool parties

Lastly, let me cover the concept of "creep" - it's a term that boils my p1ss; Actually no - it sublimates it (nerd reference alert!).

It's essentially a very offensive term (look past the "undesirable man" meaning, it actually implies "disgusting" and even "revolting" characteristics) that is nonchalantly thrown around, mostly (yet not exclusively) by women, to tar any guy they don't like; And most of the media are indeed culprit for condoning and even spreading the use of it. It's perfectly fine not to like, or even dislike, somebody - but it doesn't give you the right to offend that person.

So this stereotype does exist as you outline and use in an example, but the media is wrong if it uses the same stereotype in the same context?

If someone is less appealing to the opposite sex, it's hardly up to the opposite sex to change what they find appealing to include the individual in question. Yet that seems to be the implication. If a man is socially inept and can't find a partner, then it's the media's fault or the feminist's fault or the women's fault.

Maybe it's just a function of society that some people partner up and others don't. That goes for men and women.