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

smash · 27-01-2016 3:02pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No he wouldn't, not unless he was actually being, y'know, a sex pest.

Don't be so sure. There have been reports in the past of police being called on men who've had cameras in playgrounds, even though their children were there...

Carlos Orange · 27-01-2016 4:00pm

No

smash wrote: »

Don't be so sure. There have been reports in the past of police being called on men who've had cameras in playgrounds, even though their children were there...

There was that guy who had pictures of him posted on social media with accusations of being a child abuser for taking a selfie in front of a Star Wars poster.

smash · 27-01-2016 4:01pm

Also the case in a UK supermarket where security were called because a guy was taking a photo of his daughter on a Thomas the tank engine ride.

silverharp · 27-01-2016 4:44pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No he wouldn't, not unless he was actually being, y'know, a sex pest. No more than a woman would be arrested for walking around in knickers and a half open dressing gown unless she was being a sex pest (she might be done for indecent exposure if she were just walking around in her knickers though, where a man wouldn't be!).

You appear to have noticed from your research that women aren't sexist. That kinda flies in the face of the theme of this thread. I'm not being awkward here but the complaint that something isn't sexist, is just very odd, especially when there are many, many examples in everyday life of blatant sexism against men. I don't have to go googling for it either!

I think its fair to say that men are treated with more suspicion compared to women. As for your main point if we are talking about parents not many things are binary , so sending out a letter as generic parents or some parents is fine. In this case it is in the realms of addressing a letter to parents about breastfeeding protocols on school premises. Or if a school has had a problem with fathers disrupting soccer games for example, I have no problem with them using the term "some fathers" , it would only be wrong if mothers were known to attack the ref on occassion but they only wanted to blame the men . I just think we have a public narrative that will happily shame men or groups of men but switches track very quickly when talking about women or groups of women. Its going to be deadbeat dads dont pay maintenance whereas "single-parent families cause juvenile crime" .

newport2 · 27-01-2016 5:36pm

silverharp wrote: »

I just think we have a public narrative that will happily shame men or groups of men but switches track very quickly when talking about women or groups of women. Its going to be deadbeat dads dont pay maintenance whereas "single-parent families cause juvenile crime" .

It's socially unacceptable to criticise women as a group, but perfectly acceptable to lambast men for anything. That's just the way things are at the moment. I expect that's why the article is phrased as it is, walking on eggshells, using gender-neutral words and all that. It's obvious who it's aimed at, but call a spade a spade and the principle would have come under fire and probably have been treated to a Guardian article about herself after the twitter storm. In fairness to the BBC, the picture above the article is quite clearly a woman in PJs.

One eyed Jack · 27-01-2016 6:44pm

silverharp wrote: »

I just think we have a public narrative that will happily shame men or groups of men but switches track very quickly when talking about women or groups of women. Its going to be deadbeat dads dont pay maintenance whereas "single-parent families cause juvenile crime" .

That's the exact reason why I was left scratching my head when you said this -

silverharp wrote: »

I'm sure there are men walking around these areas in mouldy old tracksuit bottoms , flip flops and a string vest that is a couple of days overdue for the wash but Its not an attempt to trun being utterly lazy into a fashion statement.

What's that, if it's not contributing to a public narrative of shaming men or making them out to be 'deadbeat dads'?

There are plenty of 'public narratives' where women are shamed as a group. First one off the top of my head is women that drink and smoke during pregnancy, or even to use your own example, women and groups of women are shamed for breastfeeding in public, or shamed for not breastfeeding at all, the list is bloody endless and has absolutely nothing to do with sexism against men.

The reason I didn't understand where sexism against men was supposed to come into the article is because in my experience at least, I've never seen the pyjama wearing phenomenon when I'm dropping my child and my neighbours children off at school, and there are plenty more men at the school dropping off children, it's a pretty even split between men and women, so the Principal addressing 'parents', didn't faze me in the slightest -

"I'm not trying to tell people what to do with their lives, but I just think having a really good role model first thing in the morning, getting yourself up, getting yourself dressed, ready for business, out to school is a really good example to set.

"I'm afraid wearing pyjamas, going to school, maybe doesn't reinforce that somehow."

In her letter, Ms Chisholm wrote: "If we're to raise standards it's not too much to ask parents to have a wash and get dressed.

"I have had loads of support from the community and people saying it's about time something was done. I have had far more positive responses than negative," she said.

"If I get the parents on board then we often get the children too and in order to get the best chances for the children we have to raise the bar with the parents."

You'll have to forgive me if the 'sexism', against men, wasn't immediately apparent in that article.

Wibbs · 27-01-2016 6:59pm

maybe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You'll have to forgive me if the 'sexism', against men, wasn't immediately apparent in that article.

TBH I'm with Cyclops Jack here. Maybe it is there, but it takes some digging to find it IMHO.

As a broader aside, I do feel that the one thing any dialogue by men (and women) about sexism aimed at men must avoid at all costs is to repeat the often hysterical hair trigger ism finding that some feminism comes out with.

silverharp · 31-01-2016 1:35pm

BuzzFeed's thinly vailed 2 minutes of hate :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_J0Ng5cUGg

ancapailldorcha · 31-01-2016 1:37pm

maybe

I got through about a minute of that. Fairly typical for Buzzfeed though.

py2006 · 31-01-2016 2:11pm

silverharp wrote: »

BuzzFeed's thinly vailed 2 minutes of hate :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_J0Ng5cUGg

Typical condescending feminist bull****.

BrianD3 · 31-01-2016 3:07pm

Looking at that video the demeanor of the third woman (the blonde woman who asks the question about The Notebook) is something that I come across quite regularly. Obnoxious and slightly aggressive, exaggerated facial expressions and speech, uses finger quotes, knows it all, thinks she's funny. Annoying cow, basically.

IMO women who have this kind of demeanour are influenced by obnoxious female characters and man bashing in TV progammes, TV advertisments and films (eg the same "romcoms" that they criticise men for not watching)

ahnowbrowncow · 02-02-2016 1:11pm

No

Bad news today as Brian Mohan's gender quota challenge is dismissed, hopefully he'll appeal but the judgement is stating that only a political party can take this case against the state.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0202/764747-gender-quotas-challenge/

The Black Oil · 02-02-2016 11:13pm

eviltwin wrote: »

I've been raped by a man, I've had a man punch me in the face on a night out, been felt up, was randomly punched in the head by a man....what has that got to do with men as a whole? Every man I've told has been angry, disgusted and sympathetic towards me. That's all they can do. They are as powerless to do anything as we are. A scumbag is no more likely to listen to some man just because he's male. Plenty of men are abused by men too.

I've been hurt by men but they've also been my biggest allies. I'm married to a man, I have a son,my best friend is a man. Don't hold them all to account for the actions of a view.

Thank you for sharing what happened to you. I'm sorry that those incidents became a part of your life. A story like yours is important for several reasons, not least because, imo, we need to hear more of them. If we, as a society, are to pursue a more productive debate about rape and sexual assault, then such stories need to be front and centre. The other issue is the criminal justice system and its response to this particular area. Certainly how abuse of all stripes has been dealt with in this country gives one very little hope, at times. Shameful. So yeah, onwards with empathy and empowerment for people who have otherwise received very little in that direction. Down with entrenched ideology and gender divisiveness from certain newspaper voices, I think.

Pawwed Rig · 02-02-2016 11:28pm

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

the judgement is stating that only a political party can take this case against the state./

So the discriminator has to take a case rather than the person who is being discriminated against?? That can't be right can it?
Is that not the same as saying the student excluded from a school due to race cannot contest it as it needs to be the school? Strange one

newport2 · 03-02-2016 9:20am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So the discriminator has to take a case rather than the person who is being discriminated against?? That can't be right can it?
Is that not the same as saying the student excluded from a school due to race cannot contest it as it needs to be the school? Strange one

It's not the party that's discriminating though, it's the quota imposed on the party. So I guess the party is the one that needs to contend this if it wants to. I get what you're saying though, I suppose you could argue that the party had an option and to avoid losing funding, it opted to discriminate.

kazamo · 03-02-2016 10:43am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

So the discriminator has to take a case rather than the person who is being discriminated against?? That can't be right can it?
Is that not the same as saying the student excluded from a school due to race cannot contest it as it needs to be the school? Strange one

He made have had more success if he had taken the case against the political party rather than the state but it would have ended his relationship with that party.

Imo, it is not the 30% rule that causes the issue but rather how the parties chose the method of implementation. In theory for complete equality, each party would end up having to run two candidates in each constituency, one male one female. It wouldn't suit any party to do this, but perhaps that's the route we end up going down as the quota for female candidates increases over time.

matrim · 03-02-2016 10:55am

newport2 wrote: »

It's not the party that's discriminating though, it's the quota imposed on the party. So I guess the party is the one that needs to contend this if it wants to. I get what you're saying though, I suppose you could argue that the party had an option and to avoid losing funding, it opted to discriminate.

I think part of it is that the quota doesn't mandate that a party has to run 30% female candidates. Just that they lose money by not doing so. Because of that it's the party that chose to discriminate to make more money.

Pawwed Rig · 03-02-2016 12:12pm

kazamo wrote: »

He made have had more success if he had taken the case against the political party rather than the state but it would have ended his relationship with that party.

That is a fair point alright. Makes sense. So he should take the case against the party and the party should take the case against the State.

Yep. Mind has changed. I think the judge is correct then.

03-02-2016 12:17pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is a fair point alright. Makes sense. So he should take the case against the party and the party should take the case against the State.

Yep. Mind has changed. I think the judge is correct then.

Wait what??? Internet discussion changes mind of poster shocka!!!!

Pawwed Rig · 03-02-2016 1:00pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait what??? Internet discussion changes mind of poster shocka!!!!

Noone more surprised than me;)

gizmo555 · 03-02-2016 3:16pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is a fair point alright. Makes sense. So he should take the case against the party and the party should take the case against the State.

Yep. Mind has changed. I think the judge is correct then.

What about the ordinary citizen, who might have no ambition to stand for election, but objects to the state coercing political parties in this way, using taxpayers' money?

Personally, I find it very difficult to accept the court's position that the plaintiff in this case had no standing.

Pawwed Rig · 03-02-2016 4:08pm

What about them?
Use your vote wisely.

I am not arguing for the law in question. My (new and revised) point is that the judgement was correct in this case as the guy claimed he was being discriminated against by the State whereas he wasn't. He was being discriminated against by Fianna Fail. Presumably if he had taken the case against FF the judgement would have been different. If Brian Mohan* has any moral courage then he will refile his discrimination case against Fianna Fail. If FF lose their funding then they can presumably take a case against the State.
I would guess though that he will quickly fall into the FF party line. That seems to be how these guys are programmed.

*name included for google search purposes;)

gizmo555 · 03-02-2016 7:01pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What about them?
Use your vote wisely.

I think there's a strong comparison to be made with the McKenna judgement. If it's wrong for the state to spend public money to try to achieve its preferred result in a referendum, why isn't it wrong for it to spend public money to achieve its preferred result in an election? No matter how wisely voters in Mohan's constituency use their votes, they can't vote for him as a FF candidate, as a direct result of this law.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If Brian Mohan* has any moral courage then he will refile his discrimination case against Fianna Fail. If FF lose their funding then they can presumably take a case against the State.

I think he already showed a lot of courage taking his case - unlike FF.

Zulu · 04-02-2016 10:08am

No

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

...the judgement was correct in this case as the guy claimed he was being discriminated against by the State whereas he wasn't. He was being discriminated against by Fianna Fail...

Woah woah woah there; back up the horse.

[the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:]

The state are using taxpayers money to influence the % gender difference of representatives of the citizen.

So is it "just" that the state are influencing the political parties to select candidates based solely on gender? I'd suggest not.
Does that have a direct impact on the citizen? I reckon so.

Wibbs · 04-02-2016 10:12am

maybe

Zulu wrote: »

So is it "just" that the state are influencing the political parties to select candidates based solely on gender? I'd suggest not.
Does that have a direct impact on the citizen? I reckon so.

Yeah, TBH I was a bit back and forth on this issue, but more and more I'm heading towards Zulu's take.

JRant · 04-02-2016 11:31am

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah, TBH I was a bit back and forth on this issue, but more and more I'm heading towards Zulu's take.

I can see both sides here. Technically there is nothing stopping him from running as an independent. It's FF policy that is preventing him from running under their banner and as such should be taken up with them.

However, this is the problem with quotas/positive discrimination as it leads to a legal quagmire.

kazamo · 04-02-2016 12:25pm

JRant wrote: »

I can see both sides here. Technically there is nothing stopping him from running as an independent. It's FF policy that is preventing him from running under their banner and as such should be taken up with them.

However, this is the problem with quotas/positive discrimination as it leads to a legal quagmire.

In theory there is nothing wrong with the legislation, it is how the parties decided to implement it, that created the issue.
They just shoe horned the 30% requirement into their existing constituency machine and some discrepancies were bound to emerge.

It is now up to the excluded candidates to bring a court case against their own party to get themselves on the party convention ballot paper and as the basis for exclusion is sexuality then I can't see a challenge not suceeding.
The parties themselves would have to tweak their list of candidates nationwide to get back to 30% and if it happened often enough, a full overhaul on how they select candidates would quickly become the easier option.

I can't see any political party challenging the legislation as all other parties would quickly label them as anti women and that isn't a vote getter. As FF have no women serving at the end of the last Dail they would be especially reluctant.

So what started as a political stunt to curry favour with half of the electorate has the potential to turn most constituencies into one male\one female candidate per party each election. But we are currently short of that scenario as candidates inside parties seem reluctant (bar one) in going after their own party.

05-02-2016 9:21am

For a nice little bit of balance. Actually hit me in the feels.
http://rosie-writes.com/2016/02/04/dumb-ass-stuff-we-need-to-stop-saying-to-dads/

I basicly got this treatment in work this week. I mentioned how a meeting could not run over as my wife was on call (we usually work it that whomever finishes first collects Exile Jr., while the other darts home to prep dinner etc).
With her on call it means that I'm the only one who can collect.

I got the "look" and the "babysitting tonight so" comment, from two women there.
In fairness it was called out by another parent there, she put them in their place with "I think the term which you're looking for is 'parenting'..."

um7y1h83ge06nx · 05-02-2016 11:25am

Of course I'm only speculating here but they could be the same type of people that like to b*tch about fathers that shun their responsibilities and don't do their fair amount of parenting.

smash · 05-02-2016 12:01pm

Darren Incalculable AcrossL wrote: »

Of course I'm only speculating here but they could be the same type of people that like to b*tch about fathers that shun their responsibilities and don't do their fair amount of parenting.

On a number of occasions I've considered writing a post on the reality of fatherhood in Ireland following a failed marriage, but I've stopped myself. Mainly because it's a public forum and also because every case is different and I like to come to boards to let my hair down, have a laugh and act the bollox, not write a life blog. All I'll say is that even though I'm in what the state would consider to be a very very good situation regarding access, it's damn tough to find any support services for fathers, and actually just as hard to find any for children. The legal process is extremely expensive, and lengthy. And no matter what the situation is, the mother is always looked at as the one who's hard done by. In Ireland at least, Fathers are an accessory.

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