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

Panthro wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6010287/Young-mother-21-took-13-year-old-schoolboys-virginity-avoids-jail.html


Ara sure its alright, just don't do it again.
Ffs.
Scumbag peado needs locking up.

In the context of the crown prosecution service hiding evidence that would exhonerate them, this is fairly ****ed up.

Calhoun wrote: »

It's starting to turn on itself in the US, the right are using similar tactical to the left and tacking out people based on past **** or craziness they are saying .

I wonder though what will Ireland's trump moment be .

They are really going after racist and sexist Sarah Jeong from the New York Times. But the NYT are holding strong, they understand the game well.

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

They won't be holding on for long. Trying to justify her racist remarks by saying she was reacting to harassment is clear BS. There's a clear pattern of racist and sexist behavior
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1025437806775226368.html

That's quite a long drawn out reaction.. 5 years ?!

Girls outperform boys in majority of Leaving Cert subjects
Boys fare better at higher maths, while boys in North overtake girls for the first time

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/girls-outperform-boys-in-majority-of-leaving-cert-subjects-1.3598751

Separately, new research by the Educational Research Centre shows that 10-year-old girls outperformed boys on overall reading skills.

However the article then discusses how gender stereotyping could negatively affect females.

But no mention of what could be done to help boys.

razorblunt wrote: »

I was on a flight today that had issues during pre-boarding and due to some weight restrictions they needed 2 volunteers to come off the plane and take a later flight for some cash money. I was interested but then they said "preferably males". What was strange though is that there were half a dozen women that there were 3/4 women considerably heavier than some of the men on the flight.

Found the whole thing strange.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

That is weird like unless it was a tiny Aer Arran style plane small weight differences in passengers shouldn't make that much difference.
Men do have a higher muscle mass than women though, and as muscle is more dense than fat they can weigh more while looking smaller, possibly not the rationale but could be a factor

Maybe they were just looking to take a couple of bigger and heavier guys from the plane just to be sure they'd get back into their MTOW; As said above, men do tend to have denser muscle mass - which makes us heavier for the same size.
Airlines use a standardized weight assumption per each passenger; It used to be around 80kg until Air Midwest 5481 crash in 2003, when the NTSB compared this data with that of medicals from the US Army and found the weight to be underestimated (the average serviceman weighed in at nearly 90kg). Not sure what the figure is now, but it's usally based off data from militaries, which in turn means largely male subjects.

So, this is most likely the reason for preferring to take men off the flight.

Now, from a media/PR standpoint...if I was taking decisions for the airline, I'd do exactly the same. This is the era of internet stupidity and something considered sensitive such as weight is involved - the last thing you want is somebody to go to the local news rag and claim the airline is "sexist and fat shaming" (the fact they asked for volounteers is moot, Internet angry mobs don't care for facts, just slogans).

By removing men, you decrease such risk - if nothing else, most news outlets will be totally uninterested in a sob "I've been discriminated 'cause I'm 'curvy'" story from a dude and would likely just laugh him out the door.

Over 100,000 likes and 25,000 retweets for this message in less than two days:
<https://twitter.com/emrazz/status/1033808577004228609?s=11>

As I believe I said here before, I think it is unfair to generalise or extrapolate to most men. If one looked at a graph looking at likelihood to undertake a mass shooting, virtually all men would have zero or virtually zero interest in doing it. There would be a tiny number in a totally separate group. Basically a bimodal distribution. It's not like something like some causes where there would be soft support violence.

I'm not sure about this point about "entitlement" being something exclusive to men. I think perhaps some people in each gender might be more likely to feel "entitled" to some things e.g. women might feel more entitled to have an expensive wedding?

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I was fully expecting this to transform into a violent attack to the gaming industry at large, with calls for bans and witch trials...while some have gone that way, it mostly was "just another shooting" for most media (the fact there is even a concept of "just another shooting" is a different problem altogether).

Thats because it was a football game. If it had of been Grand Theft Auto or whatever it would have been a diff story.

Quazzie wrote: »

Does anyone here watch MKR (My Kitchen Rules)? Basically it's like Masterchef mixed with Come dine with me. But it's with couples. Now the couple can be friends, actual couples, or siblings, etc. On the current season there are a brother and sister in it, and the guy is single. I've watched two episodes now where the hour long show, which is mostly about cooking, but there has been more of an emphasis on the guy being single and how two of the single ladies on other teams have taken a likening to him. They are all over him - practically drooling, and it's quiet cringey, but my first thought was, if the sexes were reversed the singles guys would be kicked off the show for sexual harassment and the girl would be in therapy with a lawsuit filed. It's hard to detail it correctly but anyone here who watches MKR will know exactly what I mean.

that's just reality tv, the roles are often reversed, countless reality shows have a few lads going after a single girl, if its actual harassment that's another issue entirely

Deleted User wrote: »

I think people are over-estimating the gender reversal thing to show the double standards. Are there double standards? Of course there are... but honestly, there are heaps of shows where men show their interest/attraction in women and it's not criticized. The issue is the manner in which it happens, and peripheral issues like age differences, social/class distinctions, etc.

This reversing the genders is becoming too common as if to say they would always be different, but I don't think they are... Admittedly, I don't watch much TV because it's so fake... but still.

Raising awareness about the double standards shouldn't go overboard. It's the very reason why so many third/fourth wave feminists are ignored. They reach for every possible example of sexism, and come off as being desperate.

Shows in 2018?

iptba wrote: »

Over 100,000 likes and 25,000 retweets for this message in less than two days:
<https://twitter.com/emrazz/status/1033808577004228609?s=11>

As I believe I said here before, I think it is unfair to generalise or extrapolate to most men. If one looked at a graph looking at likelihood to undertake a mass shooting, virtually all men would have zero or virtually zero interest in doing it. There would be a tiny number in a totally separate group. Basically a bimodal distribution. It's not like something like some causes where there would be soft support violence.

I'm not sure about this point about "entitlement" being something exclusive to men. I think perhaps some people in each gender might be more likely to feel "entitled" to some things e.g. women might feel more entitled to have an expensive wedding?

TBH, I think that tweet would make more sense of the references to men and male were changed to reference America and American.

Making fun of people's appearance is kind of low don't you all think?

sharper wrote: »

Making fun of people's appearance is kind of low don't you all think?

Were he/she/xhe born that way, it would be unfair to joke about xher appearance. Xhe has freedom of expression, so do I.

sharper wrote: »

Oh I don't know this was an issue of what is strictly legal or illegal.

Making fun of people's appearance is low. Legal but low.

There's a lot of valid discussion to be had on holding a festival that restricts access based on unalterable characteristics. Going after how everyone is dressed distracts from that.

Well appearance does have a part to play in it, as from the looks of the group they are conforming to a stereotype of certain females.

You will also not that if it was an all male festival appearance and looks would be the first thing to be attacked.