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

Zulu · 05-10-2018 09:42AM

No

Deleted User wrote: »

Feminism is such a bad word these days that I prefer to call it egalitarianism.

Except it's not egalitarian. A truly egalitarian view wouldn't bother with gender at all; it would be blind to gender in it's treatment of the person.

Which is why I believe egalitarianism to be the way forward, not identity politics.

05-10-2018 10:40AM

the current system is to increase the division between the genders. That's no way to implement equality.

Zulu · 05-10-2018 11:42AM

No

Deleted User wrote: »

the current system is to increase the division between the genders. That's no way to implement equality.

Exactly, which is why I have such difficulty accepting a "considered feminist's" premise that they truly seek equality.

By "considered" i mean someone who has sat down and thought about it, and concluded that they identify with todays stock of feminism. As opposed to the (what I guess is the vast majority) large number of ordinary day-to-day people who mean feminism of an era gone past a feminism seeking equality not reparation.

Defunkd · 05-10-2018 02:09PM

Zulu wrote: »

Exactly, which is why I have such difficulty accepting a "considered feminist's" premise that they truly seek equality.

I asked a woman to tell me what Rights I - as a man - have that she doesn't have or is denied. Her answe involved lots of talking, but no substance.

sharper · 05-10-2018 02:20PM

Defunkd wrote: »

I asked a woman to tell me what Rights I - as a man - have that she doesn't have or is denied. Her answe involved lots of talking, but no substance.

That's a bit of a "Gotcha!" question though. You could also say men don't lack any rights that women have. Explaining the way expectations and judgement are used to harm men takes a little bit of time and operates mostly outside of well defined legal rights.

The slight difference is that if someone has already bought into the idea that gender role models hurt women it shouldn't be as much of a leap to apply that to men too.

In my experience many people cannot identify the difference between the male role model is regarded by society and the difficulty individual men have in performing that role. The female role model is also well treated, the problem is in individual women meeting the various standards.

Pawwed Rig · 05-10-2018 04:13PM

sharper wrote: »

You could also say men don't lack any rights that women have.

The ability to collect child benefit payments is one

sharper · 05-10-2018 04:53PM

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The ability to collect child benefit payments is one

Child benefit is paid to the father when the child resides more than 50% of the time with him http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Child-Benefit.aspx

Otherwise it should be the perfect issue for everyone to agree on. Feminists would argue it's a legal presumption that women are only good for child rearing, men's rights activists would argue it's a legal presumption men cannot rear children.

ahnowbrowncow · 05-10-2018 11:38PM

No

sharper wrote: »

Child benefit is paid to the father when the child resides more than 50% of the time with him http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Child-Benefit.aspx

Otherwise it should be the perfect issue for everyone to agree on. Feminists would argue it's a legal presumption that women are only good for child rearing, men's rights activists would argue it's a legal presumption men cannot rear children.

They refuse to pay child benefit to the father if both the mother and father are living with the child, even when the mother requests them to. Try explain how that's not sexist.

Pawwed Rig · 06-10-2018 07:40AM

I thought Sharper was agreeing with my point??

sharper · 06-10-2018 08:47AM

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

They refuse to pay child benefit to the father if both the mother and father are living with the child, even when the mother requests them to. Try explain how that's not sexist.

It is sexist, I'm just pointing out it's been modified to the point where it's not likely to be anyone's top priority to change though. Neither feminists nor men's rights advocates are likely to go after it anytime soon.

I would guess that things like changing stations typically being in women's toilets would rate higher on the list of concerns.

These types of issues should be able to easily gain consensus for change but many activists are too busy fighting proxy battles over who has it worse overall to do so.

Pawwed Rig · 06-10-2018 06:23PM

sharper wrote: »

I would guess that things like changing stations typically being in women's toilets would rate higher on the list of concerns.

I actually have not found this to be the case. Everytime I changed one of mine there was either a changer in the mens or a separate room (disabled toilet sometimes). It never actually arose (in Ireland) where there was nowhere available. In Spain they looked at me in shock when I asked where I could change the baby

07-10-2018 02:09PM

Zulu wrote: »

Exactly, which is why I have such difficulty accepting a "considered feminist's" premise that they truly seek equality.

By "considered" i mean someone who has sat down and thought about it, and concluded that they identify with todays stock of feminism. As opposed to the (what I guess is the vast majority) large number of ordinary day-to-day people who mean feminism of an era gone past a feminism seeking equality not reparation.

Except reparation is only one side of the coin. The other is superior rights. The fact is that feminists, or women's rights movements (yes, I see there being a difference) don't stop campaigning for increased rights once equality has been reached. They continue to seek further benefits both legally and socially/culturally which place women further along than men.

Consider workplace equality and anti-discrimination practices. For the most part, due to legal change genuine equality in the 'professional' workplace had been reached. Women were legally entitled to equal treatment with men, and had the avenues in place to punish those who failed to abide by the laws (and social perception). But in recent years with the implementation of quotas and other initiatives they're removing the establishment of gender equality by placing the need for more women in the workplace. In instances where quotas have been implemented and women have gained equal numbers, invariably there is a push for more women to be placed in those positions.

There is no movement to recognize the unequal numbers of women on panels compared to men due to the implementation of quotas. Just as we have the perception that women can claim discrimination for failure to obtain positions which generally aren't available to men (unless they're part of a minority like being gay or a ethnic background).

These movements seek to elevate women far higher both in legal and cultural terms. Basically, to give women the status which men apparently had in the past before the womens rights movements took off (not that men, in general, were actually receiving any such benefits but that's simply good propaganda).

So, it's not about equality. It hasn't been about equality since the 70s/80s.

PlaneSpeeking · 09-10-2018 11:06AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Except reparation is only one side of the coin. The other is superior rights. The fact is that feminists, or women's rights movements (yes, I see there being a difference) don't stop campaigning for increased rights once equality has been reached. They continue to seek further benefits both legally and socially/culturally which place women further along than men.

Consider workplace equality and anti-discrimination practices. For the most part, due to legal change genuine equality in the 'professional' workplace had been reached. Women were legally entitled to equal treatment with men, and had the avenues in place to punish those who failed to abide by the laws (and social perception). But in recent years with the implementation of quotas and other initiatives they're removing the establishment of gender equality by placing the need for more women in the workplace. In instances where quotas have been implemented and women have gained equal numbers, invariably there is a push for more women to be placed in those positions.

There is no movement to recognize the unequal numbers of women on panels compared to men due to the implementation of quotas. Just as we have the perception that women can claim discrimination for failure to obtain positions which generally aren't available to men (unless they're part of a minority like being gay or a ethnic background).

These movements seek to elevate women far higher both in legal and cultural terms. Basically, to give women the status which men apparently had in the past before the womens rights movements took off (not that men, in general, were actually receiving any such benefits but that's simply good propaganda).

So, it's not about equality. It hasn't been about equality since the 70s/80s.

Too true.

Feminists have long since abandoned all pretence at getting equality.

They want to win, they want to rule and they want blatant double standards.

As a woman (but NOT a feminist using the current definition) apparently I'm some kind of gender traitor for believing:

There should be evidence of sex crimes rather than mindless belief;
That men are as good - if not at times better - parents than women (cf that dumb Alexa ad where the device reminds the dad how to parent!)
and that if you are a woman you can achieve ANYTHING - dumbing down standards just devalues the achievements of those who have gone before.

Gender equality now is just a nice way of saying "we are discriminating against men".

KrustyUCC · 10-10-2018 12:31PM

Can you spot what is wrong with this controversial hotel ad?

https://www.oversixty.com.au/travel/travel-trouble/can-you-spot-what-is-wrong-with-this-controversial-hotel-ad

Christ people go out of their way to be offended

The hotel chain shouldn't have apologised

Calhoun · 10-10-2018 12:39PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Can you spot what is wrong with this controversial hotel ad?

https://www.oversixty.com.au/travel/travel-trouble/can-you-spot-what-is-wrong-with-this-controversial-hotel-ad

Christ people go out of their way to be offended

The hotel chain shouldn't have apologised

What is wrong with it? dont want to click on their trash article.

10-10-2018 01:25PM

Calhoun wrote: »

What is wrong with it? dont want to click on their trash article.

Try and guess where the controversy is coming from

Defunkd · 10-10-2018 03:12PM

^^^
Twitter outrage is just newspaper filler material. Who gives a fcuk what these spanners think is offensive or not.

Maxpfizer · 10-10-2018 04:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Try and guess where the controversy is coming from

Haha. That's great!

The man is reading the financial paper and eating breads and the woman is reading her fashion book and eating fruit.

People getting wound up "well I am a woman and I read the financial papers AND eat loads of carbs". So what?

You would think that one of the purposes of advertising is to appeal to the sort of regular person who would buy the product or use the services.

I'm always curious about the percentages of couples who do quite happily conform to the stereotypes.

A lot of couples I know, probably the vast majority, are in a situation where the man is the main "breadwinner" and I wonder if the women would have even been willing to "settle for less" in the partner's earnings department. I've had a female friend describe a potential partners earning potential as a "deal breaker" before so I dunno.

For sure in every relationship I have ever been in there has been a very specific dynamic regarding food and attitudes towards diet. I don't care and eat what I want and she is very conscious of her food choices and diet and weight etc.

I suppose the question is which came first? Are the ads influenced by the stereotype and so are trying to appeal to the regular "couple in the street" or are the stereotypes created by the ads?

I feel the same way about people complaining about how men are portrayed in ads for cleaning products or whatever. I wonder to what extent the idea that the woman knows all about the keeping of the house and the man is clueless is actually true.

I mean you could surely find 10s of thousands of couples who will say "well WE are not like that" but that's kind of meaningless if you can find millions more who would say "that's just like us".

The main objections are things like "I read the Financial Review every day and thing doesn't represent me". Or "some women are more interested in stocks and shares than fashion".

Well, OK then, but is it really reasonable to expect a fecking advertisement of all things to cater to your very specific and possibly even uncommon lifestyle?

It would seem very logical to me that if you were bringing a brand new product to the market and wanted to invest in advertising you wouldn't be thinking "how can my advert encourage people to conform to stereotypes" but would more likely be thinking "what can I do to appeal to the average person".

Someone like me sees a nice standard issue couple like myself and my OH enjoying a relaxing and enjoyable hotel stay.

Some other people see the evil Patriarchy forcing women to eat fruit and read about fashion while the male, poisoned by toxic masculinity, feels the need to read about financial issues and eat fattening manly breads to prove his manhood.

10-10-2018 04:38PM

I want to know why there aren't any black, asian or old people represented in this ad #notmyad

ELM327 · 10-10-2018 04:39PM

Lots of special snowflake people out there if they are offended by that.
What a load of BS.

Lets all run to our safe spaces now.

Sleepy · 10-10-2018 04:43PM

Let's face it, the type of woman who'd be offended by that bed would be in it alone. And there'd be another basket of croissants instead of the fruit platter.

Maxpfizer · 10-10-2018 04:51PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I want to know why there aren't any black, asian or old people represented in this ad #notmyad

Why are there only 2 people in the bed? Does this hotel have something against polyamorous couples?

Just typical cis-normative, hetro-normative trash from Sofitel hotels and resorts if you ask me.

"Breakfast in Brisbane" is this advert saying that EVERYONE who goes to Brisbane eats breakfast because, let me tell you, because of Fat Shaming and Patriarchy I don't eat until lunch time in an effort to keep myself in shape.

Also calling it a "luxury" implies that only people with a bit of money can afford to stay here. What if I prefer to just have a cheap and tacky hotel experience?

This couple here need to check their damn privilege right now.

It's probably built on aboriginal land too.

Donate to my Patreon or throw me some dollars on Ko-fi and you too could find out more in my upcoming book titled "Surviving Luxury Vacations in a Post Trump World - Examining Hotel Stays from an Intersectional Feminist Perspective"

johnnyskeleton · 11-10-2018 08:23PM

Ive a theory that if anything is genuinely sexist, from a noted misogynist and is deliberately intended to be sexist, it wont be called out. Itll be ignored. Its only when companies with extremely sensitive PR departments do somethingly mildly sexist by mistake that these uproars occur.

The pattern is publication, outrage, admonisment, apology, vindication. It seems to me that if you genuinely hate women youll be left alone, and youll only get in trouble if you accidentally but earnestly say something that can be percieved by someone as sexist.

The test, such as it is, as to whether to express faux outrage on the internet, is to see if you can get fulsome apologies for almost no effort.

Calhoun · 11-10-2018 09:10PM

I believe its actually them using, mistakes and mishaps as companies as a way of getting media attention and spreading their own narrative.

The companies then normally capitulate and end up screwing themselves up. The term get woke go broke is something doing the rounds online these days and generally it is true. If you use social justice narrative to sell any product or only appeal to the SJW folks you are really cutting your audience.

Not only that but for the most part the lengths these people will go punish you for your mistakes is unreal. CD project red a decent game developer in Poland made a joke about did you assume my gender, probably not wise in the current climate but not only did they apologies but after they did one of their staff was doxxed. Are these the type of people you really want to be working with?

Where will it end up? well i see allot more regulation of online in the future. This small but vocal mob are essentially going to be the cause for fairly draconian legislation of online platforms.

Sleepy · 12-10-2018 03:48PM

Calhoun wrote: »

The companies then normally capitulate and end up screwing themselves up. The term get woke go broke is something doing the rounds online these days and generally it is true. If you use social justice narrative to sell any product or only appeal to the SJW folks you are really cutting your audience.

Unless you're selling degrees in Gender Studies or media product of course. It seems to be doing pretty well for quite a few universities and authors/columnists.

Calhoun · 12-10-2018 08:12PM

Sleepy wrote: »

Unless you're selling degrees in Gender Studies or media product of course. It seems to be doing pretty well for quite a few universities and authors/columnists.

For how long is that sustainable, you already have University professors submitting false papers for peer review and having them pass.

As for the media, they now have themselges so you trustworthy that people are going to YouTubers ect for their news and things are becoming so bad mainstream media is attacking them.

iptba · 16-10-2018 10:39PM

Healthy Town: Women need to understand their heart health
About one third of all women in Ireland will die of cardiovascular disease
about 22 hours ago
Sponsored by Pfizer

https://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/healthy-town/healthy-town-women-need-to-understand-their-heart-health-1.3658471

Gender-specific health campaigns could be justified.
So if this gets balanced up with a similar sponsored piece aimed at men, then there would be no sexism.
But currently there is only this that I am aware of.

One eyed Jack · 16-10-2018 11:51PM

iptba wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/healthy-town/healthy-town-women-need-to-understand-their-heart-health-1.3658471

Gender-specific health campaigns could be justified.
So if this gets balanced up with a similar sponsored piece aimed at men, then there would be no sexism.
But currently there is only this that I am aware of.

I gotta be honest, I read that as a fairly balanced piece, pointing out the differences between men’s and women’s health in terms of cardiovascular health, something which a lot of women I know at least weren’t aware of, but they’re acutely aware of cardiovascular and heart diseases in men, as are most men.

Of course when the Healthy Towns program is sponsored by the makers of viagra, they’ll probably mention at some point how contrary to popular belief their little blue pill may show a lot more promise in preventing cardiovascular health conditions and type 2 diabetes, than just being prescribed as a treatment for male impotence -

Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors as novel cardioprotective agents – have we reached threshold for large-scale clinical trials?

(I’m sure the ladies will be happy to hear it too

)

ahnowbrowncow · 23-10-2018 07:41PM

No

Anyone notice the difference in how murderers are treated on the basis of their gender? It seems we're conditioned to believe that men are the offenders and women are the victims, even when it is the female being charged with murder.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/tina-cahill-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-of-fianc%C3%A9-in-australia-1.3672656

This woman in Australia had her murder downgraded to manslaughter as she was apparently suffering from PTSD due to her abusive partner.

The article even has quotes from her parents saying they came over to support her and saying that she's doing ok. Seriously? Are we supposed to be feeling bad for her?

I'm quite cynical about the abuse in these murder cases as it is the go to defence for female murderers. It's nearly always successful too so why wouldn't they try, it's her word against a dead mans. I was actually surprised Molly Martens was convicted of murdering Jason Corbett, one of the few cases I've noticed that the abusive husband defence didn't succeed.

There was also a man killed by his wife in Macroom recently, he had moved into the house where he was killed in order to care for his brother. I thought that bit was relevant as it appears that he was a decent person.

It then struck me when I read the below sentence in the RTE article

"Judge Dorgan... directed that she gets all assistance that she needs while in prison."

Very rarely have I seen that consideration shown to a man that has just killed his wife.

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2018/1010/1002135-macroom-court-woman/

Calhoun · 23-10-2018 07:44PM

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Anyone notice the difference in how murderers are treated on the basis of their gender? It seems we're conditioned to believe that men are the offenders and women are the victims, even when it is the female being charged with murder.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/tina-cahill-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-of-fianc%C3%A9-in-australia-1.3672656

This woman in Australia had her murder downgraded to manslaughter as she was apparently suffering from PTSD due to her abusive partner.

The article even has quotes from her parents saying they came over to support her and that she's doing ok. Seriously? Are we supposed to be feeling bad for her?

I'm quite cynical about the abuse in these murder cases as it is the go to defence for female murderers. It's nearly always successful too so why wouldn't they try, it's her word against a dead mans. I was actually surprised Molly Martens was convicted of murdering Jason Corbett, one of the few cases I've noticed that the abusive husband defence didn't succeed.

There was also a man killed by his wife in Macroom recently, apparently he had moved into the house where he was killed in order to care for his brother. I thought that bit was relevant as it appears that he was a decent person.

It then struck me when I read the below sentence in the RTE article

"Judge Dorgan... directed that she gets all assistance that she needs while in prison."

Very rarely have I seen that consideration shown to a man that has just killed his wife.

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2018/1010/1002135-macroom-court-woman/

To be fair though i am starting to think their is a sexism built into our current judicial system and not an anti-male one but judges who can't seem to move away from the old Irish model of the stay at home mammy.

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