catthinkin wrote: » Which ways are men specfically discrimnated against ?
Bipolar Joe wrote: » The way you posted was needlessly harsh and angry right off the bat and I'm positive you know it.
pissblast wrote: » Its inherit. Mens minds are unstable towards women. And women dont have male organs so cant really understand the pressures of been male. Lack of sex for a long enough period is like a a heroin addict with no heroin they just go mad. Sexism is mainly directed towards women however I think Ireland can be proud of our equalisation of making women equals in everyday life should they so choose. the positions in my job are gendure based ie 50% of posts must be filled by both sexes. such things like this have helped no end in giving women an equal standing.
Ickle Magoo wrote: » Boards is a site dedicated to people having different opinions and discussing them but when it comes to women and sexism suddenly it's hypocrisy and "pick-and-mix" and women aren't allowed an opinion unless they've had some kind of global confab before-hand and all agree...it's just bizarre.
catthinkin wrote: » glass ceiling less than 3% of all major coperations have a woman at the helm
pissblast wrote: » I except that but what say if a qualified women chose not to run for office because it is male orientated and chose to stay at home.
foxyboxer wrote: » Take two timely examples. One ad on the tv is for D&G The One - Sport. The ad features a buff and tanned male model in just his bermuda chinos, nonsensically doing stretches and running around ancient ruins.Media reaction = tumbleweed. Next ad, has a pretty model in a bikini for Ryanair with the blurb "Try our Red Hot fares".Media Reaction = uproar and the banning of the ad.
TheZohan wrote: » Oh the irony...if only Outlaw Pete was here now..
Bipolar Joe wrote: » Zohan is making a good point in a bad way, I think. It's the idea of "Pink 'n' Mix" equal rights, like "I want to be paid as much as a dude, I want to be able to work the same jobs as a dude, I want to do all the things a dude can do! Apart from being forced into the army, to pay alimony................." or something.
Ickle Magoo wrote: » I disagree. I think the same lame nonsense which has already been responded to on pretty much every thread that touches on sexism, the same lame deflection and dismissal tactics that are causing much of the issues that the thread is about - dusted off and carted out yet again - deserves a harsh response... Boards is a site dedicated to people having different opinions and discussing them but when it comes to women and sexism suddenly it's hypocrisy and "pick-and-mix" and women aren't allowed an opinion unless they've had some kind of global confab before-hand and all agree...it's just bizarre.
Bannasidhe wrote: » When have Irishmen been 'forced' into the army exactly? As for women not paying alimony to men - my cousin will be pleased to hear she no longer has to pay her x husband 500 euro a week and she can take the house she had to buy him back. And no - it has nothing to do with shares in the marital home - the house they lived in had been a wedding present from her parents all paid for - so he never contributed a penny to it. Fact is, she has more money then him, has a great job and her own business while he is in a committed relationship with Jamesons so can't keep a job but became used to a lifestyle so the courts ruled she had to pay for him to continue to enjoy that lifestyle. The only time she bitched about it was when he was insisting that his house, the one she was buying for him, was to be in a very expensive area of Cork with harbour views and it's own private jetty.
catthinkin wrote: » That dosnt make sense one was for aftershave therefore the use of a man as an aspirational figure appropiate using a half naked girl with the term red hot to sell tickets for an airline is not the same . If a man in a thong with the words red hot next to him was used by an airline i would agree with you . They werent .
Lady Chuckles wrote: » That point is much better. Why don't you guys use such examples to begin with instead of talking crap about who proposes and who holds the door up for women and such? I don't think women are against paying alimony, but I don't know because you haven't approached that before Some are just human rights, though... Like earning the same for the same work, being respected at work and so on. Or do you want women to join the army in order to get that? I don't think anyone's really "forced" into the army anymore, though... :pac:
catthinkin wrote: » pay woman in the same jobs are generally paid less than their male counterparts glass ceiling less than 3% of all major coperations have a woman at the helm Which ways are men specfically discrimnated against ? I think most people who want to see that sexism exists will those who dont wont simple
Ickle Magoo wrote: » TheZohan wrote: » Oh the irony...if only Outlaw Pete was here now.. Is this discussion about AH or are we back to the frankly unhealthy obsession some had with a certain other forum? Hardly ironic when some people have such unhealthy attitudes that specialised forums are required, tbh...
Bipolar Joe wrote: » Don't pretend to not get it, it's toe-curling. Pick and mix comes from the idea of "I want all the good things, you can totally keep the crap stuff, that's yours", not "Ladies, let's all gather and reach a consensus."
Ickle Magoo wrote: » Again I disagree - I find it toe-curling that posters cannot acknowledge that other posters within a gender will have differing views.. Some women want it all, some men want it all - I'm still not sure why one deserves further discussion and consideration while acknowledging not all feel that way, while the mere presence of individual views (all 26 of them!) in women is cause for instant dismissal. I agree with some women on some points, I'm vehemently opposed on others - much the same as with many male posters...is that really so difficult to understand or take into consideration?
Bipolar Joe wrote: » page three
Bipolar Joe wrote: » This conversation ended on page three or something.
smash wrote: » catthinkin wrote: » That dosnt make sense one was for aftershave therefore the use of a man as an aspirational figure appropiate using a half naked girl with the term red hot to sell tickets for an airline is not the same . If a man in a thong with the words red hot next to him was used by an airline i would agree with you . They werent . Lets not muddy the waters here for god sake. Woman in bra and knickers adversing wonderbra = OK Woman in bra and knickers adversing ryanair = Sexist Topless man advertising diet coke with women drooling over him = OK Topless man eating chocolate advertising Aero = Still ok
Ickle Magoo wrote: » I agree with some women on some points, I'm vehemently opposed on others - much the same as with many male posters...is that really so difficult to understand or take into consideration?