Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

dark crystal · 17-02-2012 01:48AM

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed.

I see it as more a societal issue. The default response was women should stay inside, not women. That was 30 years ago and different times though. The police generally don't do that now. Don't think they did during the riots?

Well I remember the police advising people to stay indoors after dark during the riots as well (again for their own safety, not as any sort of prohibitive measure).

The reason women were advised to stay indoors after dark during the ripper period, was simply because that's specifically who he was targetting - women. No conspiratorial chauvinistic agenda there at all on the part of police.

smash · 17-02-2012 01:49AM

Millicent wrote: »

That point was fuelled from research like this from the Examiner:

Those results also include the opinion women though. That's worth noting. And it's very twisted to be honest.

hatrickpatrick · 17-02-2012 01:49AM

later12 wrote: »

That's true, and I don't know a single human being who agrees with it; male or female. There are also other blatantly sexist provisions, including the fact that the maximum penalty for incest which can be passed down on a woman is 7 years, whereas for a man it is life.

But I don't want to be rude here, but what has this got to do with feminism?

I'm responding to the posters here who claim that men do not have legitimate grievances, specifically to a post which asked "Honestly, can you cite one area in which men are discriminated against?"
There's one, and one with the potential to utterly ruin people's lives, as I've seen first hand.

You yourself said you have a mens' rights agenda, as have I in some specific respects... so what's the problem? Feminists do not seem to deny these problems faced by men, and as a man I certainly do not... but I'm just not sure how relevant this is to feminism any more than womens' inferior pay statistics might be relevant to your mens' rights agenda.

I don't have a men's rights agenda, I have an equalitist agenda. I'm equally appalled by discrimination against women and I argue against it whenever it comes up.
This is because I firmly detest hypocrisy of all kinds. If you believe in "equality" that means you oppose your unfair advantages as well as disadvantages. I've seen tons of people here and elsewhere claim that men's rights advocates are "whingers" and people "who want to go back to the days when they had the upper hand" or other such tripe. The very reason I posted in this thread was in response to a post which denied that men faced any legal discrimination apart from divorce.

As has been said countless times, people speak most convincingly on matters about which they feel the most informed and passionate about... there's nothing wrong with that.

No, but there is most certainly something wrong with denying others' discrimination or claiming that, in every single area, you are the one who is the victim. It would be nice to hear feminists acknowledge that in some areas, men get a shockingly bad deal, and argue against them - instead of ridiculing and sarcastically putting down posters such as myself.
I've actually been labelled a misogynist on AH before, my offense was to suggest that until divorce laws are reformed, men should consider boycotting state sponsored marriage. It's an opinion - you don't find me insulting other posters for their opinions. Labelling me a misogynist for that is akin to labelling someone an anti semite because they oppose the Israeli government's foreign policy, or an Anti American because they didn't like Bush.

Bipolar Joe · 17-02-2012 01:51AM

So, I recently got a PM regarding a compliment I gave a lady in this here thread, which she seemed fairly happy with at the time. Apparently she just "Got" the compliment (Yeah, I dunno, either). It appears I was trying to make a point, the point being the one I told her. Anyfuckingwho, long story short, the reason we can't have a sensible conversation about sexism is because b!tches be many varieties of kraxy in the brain area, and when you say something nice they hunt for underlying messages, picking up on stuff that just isn't fucking there. That is what's been happening since page one of this thread, on both sides. We're paranoid children, all of us.

.Mod

?? Banned.

Millicent · 17-02-2012 01:52AM

smash wrote: »

Those results also include the opinion women though. That's worth noting. And it's very twisted to be honest.

Oh yeah, I know it's from women too. Very, very disturbing and twisted. It's largely things like that which are a huge part of why I'm a feminist--not because I have an issue with men, but because I want to challenge views like that in society.

Mr.Biscuits · 17-02-2012 01:52AM

Millicent wrote: »

The Romeo and Juliet law is disgusting and on the other side of the coin, it paints girls as delicate little flowers who don't have the ability to be complicit in sexual activity with a minor of their own age.

It's a nasty, nasty law.

It was feminists that put pressure on legislators to amend the law in such a fashion. It was feminists that did not care that it was leaving boys open to criminal prosecution for an act that girls would be immune from being prosecuted for. This is why people have an issue with Feminism, because they see that when feminists get into prositions of power, they are capable of causing such inequality in our society. There is ample evidence that feminists are cocerned with their own end and not too bothered if there is an assocaited knock-on of inequality for the oppoiste sex, in many areas of society, not just this one.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 01:53AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The people on this thread, and others, who claim men are not seriously discriminated against under the law.

And of course the Irish legal system, which apparently doesn't afford young boys the same sympathy as young girls.

Not according to the Irish statute books.

100% agreed.

Who on this thread said there were not instances where the law discriminates against men?

I honestly haven't seen anyone say this - but I am open to correction as I sometimes speed read and may have missed it - what I have seen is people who identify as feminist say their primary focus is women's issue but this does not for a second imply there are not issues facing other sections of society.

I have inundated TDs with letters and collared them in person on a wide range of subjects including the Romeo and Juliet Law and unmarried father's rights.

You are making some sweeping assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever. Can you supply any evidence of any feminist supporting the Romeo and Juliet Law or saying that unmarried father's shouldn't have legal rights to their children?

The evidence of feminists who agree with you that there is discrimination against men is amply supplied in this thread alone.

hatrickpatrick · 17-02-2012 01:54AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is a nasty law. As if teenage girls arn't as awash with horny hormones exactly the same as teenage boys are and they have to be coerced or persuaded against their will.

The whole thing seems to me to be predicated on the male as sexual instigator and the female as unwilling participant - as if females don't have a sex drive and never, ever, instigate sex :rolleyes: .

Clearly our ministers have never been to Wesley.

No... NO!!! Oh dear God, the flashbacks *shudder*

smash · 17-02-2012 01:55AM

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

So, I recently got a PM regarding a compliment I gave a lady in this here thread, which she seemed fairly happy with at the time. Apparently she just "Got" the compliment (Yeah, I dunno, either). It appears I was trying to make a point, the point being the one I told her. Anyfuckingwho, long story short, the reason we can't have a sensible conversation about sexism is because b!tches be many varieties of kraxy in the brain area, and when you say something nice they hunt for underlying messages, picking up on stuff that just isn't fucking there. That is what's been happening since page one of this thread, on both sides. We're paranoid children, all of us.

That made me laugh!

Millicent · 17-02-2012 01:56AM

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

It was feminists that put pressure on legislators to amend the law in such a fashion. It was feminists that did not care that it was leaving boys open to criminal prosecution for an act that girls would be immune from being prosecuted for. This is why people have an issue with Feminism, because they see that when feminists get into prositions of power, they are capable of causing such inequality in our society. There is ample evidence that feminists are cocerned with their own end and not too bothered if there is an assocaited knock-on of inequality for the oppoiste sex, in many areas of society, not just this one.

Again, not a hive mind. Plenty of feminists who find it reprehensible.

ETA: Do you know which feminist groups pushed for it? I wasn't aware of that aspect of the matter.

later12 · 17-02-2012 01:56AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm responding to the posters here who claim that men do not have legitimate grievances

In fairness, whoever suggest that is in the distinct minority.

I don't have a men's rights agenda, I have an equalitist agenda./ This is because I firmly detest hypocrisy of all kinds.

I'm not pulling that out of thin air, I'm quoting you directly who said you had a mens' rights agenda.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is one which absolutely enraged me and probably played a large part in creating my men's rights agenda

Micky Dolenz · 17-02-2012 02:01AM

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

It was feminists that put pressure on legislators to amend the law in such a fashion. It was feminists that did not care that it was leaving boys open to criminal prosecution for an act that girls would be immune from being prosecuted for. This is why people have an issue with Feminism, because they see that when feminists get into prositions of power, they are capable of causing such inequality in our society. There is ample evidence that feminists are cocerned with their own end and not too bothered if there is an assocaited knock-on of inequality for the oppoiste sex, in many areas of society, not just this one.

Link?

Millicent · 17-02-2012 02:01AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Clearly our ministers have never been to Wesley.

No... NO!!! Oh dear God, the flashbacks *shudder*

Oh God, I've been afraid I'll be arrested for looking out the window driving past that place. :eek: Feels ick and wrong.

Ickle Magoo · 17-02-2012 02:01AM

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

It was feminists that put pressure on legislators to amend the law in such a fashion. It was feminists that did not care that it was leaving boys open to criminal prosecution for an act that girls would be immune from being prosecuted for.

Interesting, I didn't know that - do you happen to have any citations? Kevin Myers doesn't count btw.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 02:05AM

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

It was feminists that put pressure on legislators to amend the law in such a fashion. It was feminists that did not care that it was leaving boys open to criminal prosecution for an act that girls would be immune from being prosecuted for. This is why people have an issue with Feminism, because they see that when feminists get into prositions of power, they are capable of causing such inequality in our society. There is ample evidence that feminists are cocerned with their own end and not too bothered if there is an assocaited knock-on of inequality for the oppoiste sex, in many areas of society, not just this one.

If there is 'ample evidence' lets see it.

As far as I am aware the situation was a law was rushed through as it was found a defence of honestly believing the female was of consensual age was not allowed under Irish Law.

This legislation, of course, was hastily enacted in the aftermath of the CC v Ireland and A v Governor of Arbour Hill Prison cases in 2006 and the recognition of the unconstitutional nature of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1935 which allowed for no defence of “reasonable belief” to a charge of statutory rape.

http://humanrightsinireland.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/romeo-and-juliet-gender-discrimination-law-challenge-rejected/

Perhaps you can explain how it was the result of pressure by feminists as you so confidently assert when it was enacted as a result of supreme court rulings?

Can you provide evidence that it was the result of feminist lobbing that the injustice which results in males being unfairly treated and criminalised or do you just want that to be the case?

Morag · 17-02-2012 02:13AM

hardbackwriter wrote: »

That's what I've been saying all day, it's a war about much more than giving women equal opportunities as men have , it's also about deconstructing traditional definitions of masculinity and restructuring men as they see fit

/facepalm

Challenging how society treats women and how soceital attitudes limits women does not equal breaking down men. :rolleyes:

Morag · 17-02-2012 02:31AM

smash wrote: »

But these people are idiots. Why give them the time of day?

Because those idiots often end up on juries of rape and sexual assault trials.

smash · 17-02-2012 02:42AM

Often? I wouldn't have said it was often. And that's a fault on the legal system, it is up the to solicitors to screen who is on the jury.

K-9 · 17-02-2012 02:54AM

dark crystal wrote: »

Well I remember the police advising people to stay indoors after dark during the riots as well (again for their own safety, not as any sort of prohibitive measure).

The reason women were advised to stay indoors after dark during the ripper period, was simply because that's specifically who he was targetting - women. No conspiratorial chauvinistic agenda there at all on the part of police.

I don't think it was an agenda then, sure it's 30 years ago and we had Brixton, the West Midland Police, the Miners, Hillsborough etc. etc.

I was just trying to point out that logically a curfew on women doesn't make that much sense at all, same as men, which is why they don't issue them. Neither probably makes sense, it did then, but society has changed.

Went for a bit of shopping this evening and coming back the underage disco was on. Must have been 25% of girls wearing short mini skirts. Going on recent surveys, young lads see that as still asking for it apparently. I see that as a shame.

These attitudes are coming from somewhere.

17-02-2012 02:55AM

.[/QUOTE]

No, but there is most certainly something wrong with denying others' discrimination or claiming that, in every single area, you are the one who is the victim. It would be nice to hear feminists acknowledge that in some areas, men get a shockingly bad deal, and argue against them - instead of ridiculing and sarcastically putting down posters such as myself.quote

in fairness this whole thread contains numerous people on the femmnist stance condoning sexism against men . And again the sarcasm nit picking has come from both sides and sadly may contain ad infinitum . Dog with a bone syndrome.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 03:01AM

smash wrote: »

Often? I wouldn't have said it was often. And that's a fault on the legal system, it is up the to solicitors to screen who is on the jury.

I'm sorry but that is a complete cop-out IMO - barristers not solicitors represent people in court and as the jury is selected once the trail has begun there is no opportunity for a solicitor to ever interfere in the jury selection.
Nor does the victim have any legal representation. They are a witness for the prosecution and can answer only the questions put to them and give a victim impart statement after conviction but before sentencing. The victim may also find their sexual history is brought up by the defence and discussed in open court.
Barristers are allowed a few questions and a few vetos - but do you seriously believe anyone would sit on a jury panel and announce they believed a woman in a mini skirt was raped because she was asking for it? Or that a barrister would ask a potential juror if they believed rape was understandable in certain circumstances?

These idiots can be any where. Sometimes they really surprise you as you would never have thought they felt that way. They can be on the jury, or part of the legal team, or a member of the gardaí or even in your own family.

smash · 17-02-2012 03:04AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is a complete cop-out IMO - barristers not solicitors represent people in court and as the jury is selected once the trail has begun there is no opportunity for a solicitor to ever interfere in the jury selection.
Nor does the victim have any legal representation. They are a witness for the prosecution and can answer only the questions put to them and give a victim impart statement after conviction but before sentencing. The victim may also find their sexual history is brought up by the defence and discussed in open court.
Barristers are allowed a few questions and a few vetos - but do you seriously believe anyone would sit on a jury panel and announce they believed a woman in a mini skirt was raped because she was asking for it? Or that a barrister would ask a potential juror if they believed rape was understandable in certain circumstances?

These idiots can be any where. Sometimes they really surprise you as you would never have thought they felt that way. They can be on the jury, or part of the legal team, or a member of the gardaí or even in your own family.

As I said, it's a fault in the legal system. It's also a fault within the people who think like they do. I don't really know what you want me to say, you're pointing out the obvious and I agree with you. All I said was that surely it doesn't happen that often that they end up on a jury.

SheFiend · 17-02-2012 03:07AM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ok this may seem like a trolling attempt (but as in my previous post I think the WAG idea is messed up, though more a social than sexism issue) ,

But could a WAG not be considered the definition of the empowered post feminist woman in that simply using her sexuality she achieves an extremely comfortable lifestyle and position in society without having to make the considerable sacrifices necessary to achieve this lifestyle by other means (look at the training, diet and match schedule of a prof footballer and you can see what I mean).

The WAG is completely at odds with feminism. That's the very stereotype that feminism is opposed to, and rather strives to encourage women to develop their minds and self reliance, rather than settle for making themselves look beautiful. Hence the burning of bras.

Sorry folks. I didn't realise I still had ten pages of catching up to do when I left that reply. I didn't mean to derail the thread by bringing it up now.

I find it sad that there is the impression amongst some that men's reports of sexism have been dismissed. As I've just read apron. 20 pages I can vouch that very few people have mentioned cases of sexism towards men, but when they have they have been discussed and agreed with! Im surprised anyone could think otherwise!

I can't mutiquote as Im using an android , but off the top of my head I've seen instant and emphatic support for such cases from Dudess and Millicent. I certainly have not seen anyone claim that sexism against men doesn't exist.

Bannasidhe · 17-02-2012 03:30AM

smash wrote: »

As I said, it's a fault in the legal system. It's also a fault within the people who think like they do. I don't really know what you want me to say, you're pointing out the obvious and I agree with you. All I said was that surely it doesn't happen that often that they end up on a jury.

They shouldn't exist at all - no-one has the right to think rape is acceptable under any circumstance - but they do sadly and more often then is acceptable victims of rape come into contact with them.

I have been deliberately gender neutral as I know that the rape of males does occur (1 out of every 8 rape victims is male) and I know this may seem a strange thing to say but I think - due to the kind of masculine/feminine gender stereotyping we have been discussing here - it may be 'worse' (not the best word but it's late and I'm tired - I apologise if anyone find it offensive) for men - and I say that as a rape victim myself.

There is a part of women that is always aware of the possibility - we have been warned our whole lives that if we are not careful.... We read about rape trials, we see rape and it's aftermath on prime time TV (and not just CSI) and the victims are nearly universally female. To an extent we are conditioned to accept the possibilty so we guard ourselves.

Men and boys just don't get those warnings. They get warned about physical violence - but the possibility they may be raped? Rarely.

Once a man is fully grown I imagine the rape of men is something you see on 'hard hitting' prison dramas - not something that could ever happen John Murphy - but it does.

As hard as it is for a woman to report rape, I think it must be a hundred times worse for a man. To walk into a garda station as a fully grown man and tell a male officer 'I have been raped'. The psychological repercussions of having to do that are mind boggling.

No woman I know who was the victim of rape ever said they felt like they had been robbed of their very identity as a woman- they felt violated, invaded, stripped of power/ownership over their body, dignity and security, but never of their womanhood.

For men it can often mean the destruction of their sense of self as all of their concepts of what it means to be a man have been destroyed.

That for me is a way society discriminates against men - it doesn't allow them to conceive of themselves as victims of sexual assault and so if it does occur they have no mechanism to deal with it - and quite often they are not believed, are ridiculed in a way no female rape victim would be and find themselves no longer conforming to whole concept of what it means to be a man in our society.

Millicent · 17-02-2012 03:32AM

smash wrote: »

As I said, it's a fault in the legal system. It's also a fault within the people who think like they do. I don't really know what you want me to say, you're pointing out the obvious and I agree with you. All I said was that surely it doesn't happen that often that they end up on a jury.

It does though. We also have a severely low conviction rate for rapes and judges who show leniency because the rapist is of "good character", who suspend parts of rape sentences because the rapist was drunk, or criticising a woman who didn't report the rape sooner and finding the accused not guilty because of it.

Then you have a TD writing letters to a judge asking for leniency for a rapist who raped a 14 year old and 16 year old girl because he came from a good family.

Then you have that disgusting case where dozens of people lined up to shake the hand of a Listowel man who was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman.

These attitudes exist in juries, the judiciary and in the general public. It is important that they are challenged.

Millicent · 17-02-2012 03:40AM

For the record, Smash, I think it's because of your good character and that of people like you, that you might not be aware that this sort of thing is not confined to a few "idiots". It says volumes about your decency that you would never think this way, but sadly the same cannot be said of too many people in society.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 07:43AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The people on this thread, and others, who claim men are not seriously discriminated against under the law.

And of course the Irish legal system, which apparently doesn't afford young boys the same sympathy as young girls.

Not according to the Irish statute books.

100% agreed.

Who on this thread said there were not instances where the law discriminates against men?

I honestly haven't seen anyone say this - but I am open to correction as I sometimes speed read and may have missed it - what I have seen is people who identify as feminist say their primary focus is women's issue but this does not for a second imply there are not issues facing other sections of society.

I have inundated TDs with letters and collared them in person on a wide range of subjects including the Romeo and Juliet Law and unmarried father's rights.

You are making some sweeping assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever. Can you supply any evidence of any feminist supporting the Romeo and Juliet Law or saying that unmarried father's shouldn't have legal rights to their children?

The evidence of feminists who agree with you that there is discrimination against men is amply supplied in this thread alone.

Actions speak louder than words.

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 07:48AM

Feathers wrote: »

later12 wrote: »

Sorry but no; that's quite explicitly not a case of someone defining feminism as something pursued in a female's interest.

I asked who had defined feminism as the promotion of gender equality without reference to sex?, to which you said many

OK, I'm not 100% on the difference that you're drawing between gender & sex here, so I probably read your first post wrong, sorry. Though I'm unclear as to how you can have gender equality in favour of someone.

later12 wrote: »

For example?

As has been said extensively, we are not dealing with a rights issue, we are predominantly dealing with an issue of social structures & social norms.

These can affect men and women, indeed, but often in different ways. And again, it is natural that those individuals whose interests have been shaped by the societal deficiencies pertaining to one specific grouping will feel more passionate toward the cause of that group than any other.

We were talking about rights in the bit that you quoted me on, but even in a wider issue on perception, surely gender stereotypes affect both genders — like children playing with toys as was mentioned earlier.

I'm still failing to see how ironing out the inequality against one group is not doing the same for both.

People may feel more passionate for their group, but it depends on how they define their groups to begin with.

Exactly, equality is symmetrical, by definition you can't be be concerned with the equality of women without men.

17-02-2012 08:47AM

toppar wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Exactly, equality is symmetrical, by definition you can't be be concerned with the equality of women without men.

that's true.[/Quote
isnt sexism about inequality though? Nice phrasing though

Scanlas The 2nd · 17-02-2012 09:12AM

Roy Yummy Grenade wrote: »

toppar wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Exactly, equality is symmetrical, by definition you can't be be concerned with the equality of women without men.

that's true.[/Quote
isnt sexism about inequality though? Nice phrasing though

By seeking to make women equal to men you are seeking to make men equal women. It's the same thing. How can you not be interested in laws such as underage sex laws for example if you want women equal to men. I think more people would take "feminists" seriously and view them with more integrity if they tackled situations where women had the unfair advantage in the name of giving women equality.

Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Comments