Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

1301302304306307337

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭...Ghost...


    Yesterday I received a reply from McAfee. I repsonded within minutes, but have yet to receive a reply to that.

    Dear Mr Ghost

    Sorry for the delay in getting back to you as I was on PTO.

    With respect to your query, I can confirm if an individual is legally recognized as female, they are eligible to apply for the scholarship.

    Regards,

    SNIP.


    My Reply:

    Dear SNIP,

    My question was not about the gender legal status. I asked if a person born as a male, but identifies as a female, would they then qualify in the "female only" criteria. I am making a bold assumption that you are not requiring applicants to supply a birth certificate, or a legal document to prove ones identity, but I may be wrong and perhaps you do request documentary proof of gender?

    I am hopeful you will answer my reasonable question about those who identify as women, but may not have been born into a womans body. These questions are important if you are excluding applicants based on gender.

    Regards,

    Ghost


    It may look like I am clutching at straws, but I don't like the way my question was answered with fluff. They are very aware that they are discriminating based on Gender.

    Stay Free



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,873 ✭✭✭iptba


    Calhoun wrote: »
    This has been doing the rounds back and forth the past few days, our minister of social protection seems to think that men just need to get over themselves and take paternity leave ect.

    Screw your mortgage or rent because apparently women get along just fine on the basic rate. This could be due to the fact the father/partner supports the mother. They did an analysis in the examiner where it was shown that for both parents to take paternity and maternity leave it could cost 2 months rent. Imagine what it would be like when that's bumped up to 7 weeks.

    The sexist attitude here is the whole approve and dismissal of argument put forth that men just don't want to do it because they don't care about their children .
    Doherty under fire for suggesting cash isn't cause of low paternity leave rates

    Minister accused of 'gross insult' to men who can't afford time off

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/doherty-under-fire-for-suggesting-cash-isnt-cause-of-low-paternity-leave-rates-38048847.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,873 ✭✭✭iptba


    Figures show that around 60pc of men already don't avail of existing paternity leave and Social Protection Minister Ms Doherty made some pointed remarks about men not taking up the options. She claimed there's "a narrative that the value of money associated with the scheme isn't enough for men to take off work". Ms Doherty added: "It doesn't seem to have stopped women from taking maternity leave for time immemorial."

    [..]

    Last night, Ms Doherty responded to the criticism, saying: "I've never claimed that new fathers don't want to spend time with their children - most do - but I have said that we need to have a conversation in this country around gender roles."
    But who are enforcing these gender roles? Perhaps it is not men ...
    Unemployment Can Spell Divorce for Men, But Not Women
    https://www.livescience.com/14705-husbands-employment-threatens-marriage.html
    Perhaps it shows that women in a relationship are freer not to always provide financially.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,838 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    where propaganda meets reality lol

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,289 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    The reality of paternity pay is that it is only €144 per week net. If your employer will pay your normal salary then it would be crazy not to take it but if I only got €144 for 2 weeks in a month there would be bills unpaid at months end.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭H3llR4iser


    iptba wrote: »
    But who are enforcing these gender roles? Perhaps it is not men ...

    Perhaps it shows that women in a relationship are freer not to always provide financially.


    It's hardly news if one has a bit of an objective eye to the world's reality, at least for what we call "western society".



    Perhaps the aspect most closely linked to this finding is the well known and documented difference that exists between the likeliness of women and men to "marry up" in the social ladder - the classic "Cindrella" story retold over and over, adapted for current times, with the rich and successful dude going for the humble girl (today, it'd be a less romantic "male CEO marries female barista"...but hey).

    As a man, certain things are expected of you: success, money, stability, fortitude, selflessness, even leadership in certain instances. Connected and often underestimated fact, across most languages the vast majority of insults that can specifically only be directed at men revolve around doubting one's virility, social or physical standing.

    And to be honest...it wouldn't even be a problem, if we didn't now live in a social climate where the idea most paraded around is that by virtue of having a d1ck, everything in life is served to you on a silver platter; With a bit of cash on the side for bothering.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,645 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    Calhoun wrote: »
    This has been doing the rounds back and forth the past few days, our minister of social protection seems to think that men just need to get over themselves and take paternity leave ect.

    Screw your mortgage or rent because apparently women get along just fine on the basic rate. This could be due to the fact the father/partner supports the mother. They did an analysis in the examiner where it was shown that for both parents to take paternity and maternity leave it could cost 2 months rent. Imagine what it would be like when that's bumped up to 7 weeks.

    The sexist attitude here is the whole approve and dismissal of argument put forth that men just don't want to do it because they don't care about their children .

    No mention about the discrimination in not topping up paternity pay while topping up maternity pay...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,645 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    The reality of paternity pay is that it is only €144 per week net. If your employer will pay your normal salary then it would be crazy not to take it but if I only got €144 for 2 weeks in a month there would be bills unpaid at months end.

    Are there any employers who wouldn't top up maternity pay (other than in roles where the social welfare benefit covers the full pay)?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,289 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    McGaggs wrote: »
    Are there any employers who wouldn't top up maternity pay (other than in roles where the social welfare benefit covers the full pay)?

    Yes loads. Most in my industry.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,289 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    McGaggs wrote: »
    No mention about the discrimination in not topping up paternity pay while topping up maternity pay...

    I would say you would have a good case for discrimination here.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,645 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    I would say you would have a good case for discrimination here.

    My own employers Decided to treat them the same. I'd say many wouldn't. What stopped me was my second being born in between the leave being announced and the department of social welfare updating their systems to allow it.

    The current unpaid parental leave I'm entitled to (and I believe the entitlement is to be extended), is unaffordable. Any proposed leave that is just a government payment will also be unaffordable unless it's topped up (and I don't see that happening).


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,645 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    Yes loads. Most in my industry.

    That can't make it an easy decision to have a kid. Would this be a well paid industry?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    McGaggs wrote: »
    That can't make it an easy decision to have a kid. Would this be a well paid industry?

    There's no top up in many jobs. A couple might be able to make it work on one reduced wage but who could survive on two? Legally women have to take some maternity leave and most need some recovery time but I think it would go a long way if there was an option to transfer it and a couple could make their own decision on how best to use it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,645 ✭✭✭The J Stands for Jay


    eviltwin wrote: »
    There's no top up in many jobs. A couple might be able to make it work on one reduced wage but who could survive on two? Legally women have to take some maternity leave and most need some recovery time but I think it would go a long way if there was an option to transfer it and a couple could make their own decision on how best to use it.

    That would also help with the issues that arise in the division of childcare. The mother has the maternity leave and ends up deciding how the child is looked after, where the child's clothes are kept, etc. Then the father is asked to get a clean vest for the baby one day, can't find it and you've suddenly got a case of sexism where the gather has no interest in childcare.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,873 ✭✭✭iptba


    H3llR4iser wrote: »
    It's hardly news if one has a bit of an objective eye to the world's reality, at least for what we call "western society".



    Perhaps the aspect most closely linked to this finding is the well known and documented difference that exists between the likeliness of women and men to "marry up" in the social ladder - the classic "Cindrella" story retold over and over, adapted for current times, with the rich and successful dude going for the humble girl (today, it'd be a less romantic "male CEO marries female barista"...but hey).

    As a man, certain things are expected of you: success, money, stability, fortitude, selflessness, even leadership in certain instances. Connected and often underestimated fact, across most languages the vast majority of insults that can specifically only be directed at men revolve around doubting one's virility, social or physical standing.

    And to be honest...it wouldn't even be a problem, if we didn't now live in a social climate where the idea most paraded around is that by virtue of having a d1ck, everything in life is served to you on a silver platter; With a bit of cash on the side for bothering.
    It's probably why phrases like "man up" and "be a (real) man" exist/sting more compared to the "woman up" and "be a (real) woman".


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,289 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    McGaggs wrote: »
    That can't make it an easy decision to have a kid. Would this be a well paid industry?

    Can be but very few women at the highest level for this very reason. Any woman with sense once she approaches child bearing age checks what the maternity benefits are and angles a move to a place that pays them. For paternity it is not worth enough to switch jobs completely. When you consider that you will be the sole bread winner for a period security is important.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    eviltwin wrote: »
    There's no top up in many jobs. A couple might be able to make it work on one reduced wage but who could survive on two? Legally women have to take some maternity leave and most need some recovery time but I think it would go a long way if there was an option to transfer it and a couple could make their own decision on how best to use it.

    Thats it exactly, there should be a mandatory recovery period for women as it is definitely needed and then after that they can both decide on how to use it. I would also say that increasing the amount you get to be closer to the average industrial wage would also go a long way.

    I recently took 2 weeks paternity leave because luckily my employer tops up, but if they didn't i recon we would have trouble meeting the mortgage that month.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Reviews and Books Galore


    As a man, certain things are expected of you: success, money, stability, fortitude, selflessness, even leadership in certain instances (qoute)

    I think men put themselves second best a lot. Provide for the family, defend women, and be morally upstanding.

    Its a shame about the current feminism. It seems to.be saying that women can be whatever they want, even if its toxic, but men should still perform gender roles.

    I was reading the thread on staring and it got me thinking how men argue with women. They keep their head down, their voice soft, and they avoid eye contact so as not to be seen as overly aggressive.

    I guess in the past a man overtly arguing with a women was seen as unmanly, and now he's seen as mysognistic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    It can be a two way street, they may say they want, x ,y and z but who gets everything they want?

    Its always a compromise when your in a relationship and men need to know what their lines are.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander and vice versa. I know we aren't talking about individual relationships above but thats what feminism comes back to at the end of the day.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭...Ghost...


    I received a response from McAfee today. I wasn't expecting one, but check it out below. It would have been better had they not replied, because it shows that they cannot provide clarification for fear of digging a deeper hole.


    Dear Mr. Ghost,

    Thank you for your interest in this program. We’d like to refer you to the information previously provided to you regarding your questions below.

    Regards,

    SNIP


    Their previous message was:
    Dear Mr Ghost

    Sorry for the delay in getting back to you as I was on PTO.

    With respect to your query, I can confirm if an individual is legally recognized as female, they are eligible to apply for the scholarship.

    Regards,

    SNIP



    I replied to that with:

    Dear SNIP,

    My question was not about the gender legal status. I asked if a person born as a male, but identifies as a female, would they then qualify in the "female only" criteria. I am making a bold assumption that you are not requiring applicants to supply a birth certificate, or a legal document to prove ones identity, but I may be wrong and perhaps you do request documentary proof of gender?

    I am hopeful you will answer my reasonable question about those who identify as women, but may not have been born into a womans body. These questions are important if you are excluding applicants based on gender.

    Regards,

    Ghost

    My Reply


    Dear SNIP,

    I sought clarification and you have directed me back to the answer which does not comprehensively answer the question. By refusing to clarify, one can only draw the conclusion that an individual, born as a male, identifying as a female would not be granted access to the scholarship. I wanted to know the exact gender criteria, which you have failed to clarify. In any case, the exclusion of any gender is a discriminatory act and not in line with your claims. Therefore, the McAfee anti-discrimination policy is nothing more than hot air and virtue signalling. I would very much like to know who signed off on the scholarship.

    It is abundantly clear that McAfee is indeed discriminating against males. McAfee is making a scholarship available to one gender and excludes the other. McAfee is making a financial incentive available to one gender and excludes the other. Using the excuse that more males study and work in STEM is not a justification for discriminating against males and I am quite appalled that McAfee actively discriminates against males.

    You have tried to assure me that McAfee is committed to non-discrimination and have pointed out that the criteria for the scholarship is set out in the official literature, which says that the applicants must be female. So you claim that McAfee are anti-discrimination, but will discriminate based on gender because you think it's a good idea. You reiterated that the initiative was "not at odds with our anti-discrimination statement or our values, but rather promotes them." You are effectively promoting discrimination and in my view, being disingenuous and evasive in your replies.

    McAfee claims to be anti-discrimination, but has discriminated based on gender in a very clear way. It is not possible to be committed to non-discrimination while discriminating against one gender. McAfee is abhorrent for behaving in this way and attempting to brush it off by stating an under representation in females for STEM. There are no restrictions to females in STEM. No females are refused entry to third level education based on their gender. I am not aware of any STEM employers actively discriminating against females. If there were barriers, I would be in favour of ripping them down. However, the only barrier is that females tend to choose STEM in low numbers and it is unfair to offer financial assistance to one gender due to a number disparity. More females are attending third level education. Should we now offer increased levels of financial assistance to males based on this difference of numbers? As long as there is equal opportunity, there should be no incentives given to one gender at the exclusion of the other.

    Can McAfee honestly say that it is following its own anti-discrimination policy while standing over such an exclusionary scholarship? McAfee should make available a male only scholarship, equal to the female only scholarship. This would allow an equal number of both genders to avail of the scholarships. Judging by the replies I have received over the course of a month, I would not be confident that opening the existing scholarship to males would result in males having a genuine chance of securing the scholarship. I would never seek to be employed, or associated with a company which actively discriminates against anyone, but I do believe that making a male only scholarship available would go some way to redeeming the company in the face of this pro-female/anti-male policy.

    Regards,

    Ghost



    Who would be best placed to make their discrimination known? I am not sure most media companies would be interested, because they are likely on the band-wagon of male bashing.

    Stay Free



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,289 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Here is probably as good as you are going to get. Media are disinterested in this type of discrimination.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,140 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    TBH, why would any IT student be interested in working / interning for McAfee anyway? Their anti-virus has been **** for decades and, honestly, the greatest surprise for me is that they're still a going concern. Most techies I know regard their software as malware...


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,148 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    There's a one on crimecall talking about the sale and supply of sex in Ireland and it's all being directed at men buy it.
    So, I take it women never buy sex?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    There's a one on crimecall talking about the sale and supply of sex in Ireland and it's all being directed at men buy it.
    So, I take it women never buy sex?

    Mostly men IF you look at the sites providing ads, but alot of professionals catering to couples.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭H3llR4iser


    Sleepy wrote: »
    TBH, why would any IT student be interested in working / interning for McAfee anyway? Their anti-virus has been **** for decades and, honestly, the greatest surprise for me is that they're still a going concern. Most techies I know regard their software as malware...

    Plenty - their biggest source of income isn't the consumer market but the business one; If things haven't changed since I worked there (yeah, the "friend" thing never works, does it? :D ), their main cashcow is a product called "ePolicy Orchestrator", which allows sysadmins to manage security policies across LANs and WANs. Also, they have contracts with a lot of OEM to include their products, just like Symantec does/did.

    In all fairness, plenty of good people worked with me in the Cork office back then, it's a few odd ones at the top which are the problem.
    There's a one on crimecall talking about the sale and supply of sex in Ireland and it's all being directed at men buy it.
    So, I take it women never buy sex?

    Well, like it or not, men are always going to be the main buyers of sex.

    A lot of people don't want to hear about this nor want to admit, but sex is easier to access for women; It doesn't matter an ounce how you look, what you wear, how old or how successful you are - if you're a woman and want sex NOW, there are plenty of guys out there ready to throw themselves at you for free; The whole "men are jerks who only look at perfect Victoria's Secrets Angel type girls" is just a myth, perpetrated by media mostly aimed at women, in order to play on their sense of guilt and coax them into buying sh1t they don't need like diet pills, "hot yoga" courses or plastic surgery.

    Heck, there's enough critical mass in variety of tastes to sustain very profitable specialized adult entertainment industries - there ARE such things as BBW, granny and even amputee porn!!!

    For men, the opposite is true - unless you are at the very top of your game, the choice and opportunity is limited if not non-existent. Sure, Chris Hemsworth can walk into any club and have every woman in there chasing after him, but the average bloke will go home alone most of the times.
    Not to mention the non-average guy: ft, short, with a disability? No chance for you.

    And before anyone goes on a crusade against the obvious, yes - this situation is just natural; It's not that "women are evil and superficial", quite the opposite: they stand to risk and lose more from having sex with the wrong person, so nature just put a "safety filter" in the form of selection.

    Whereas men, well, we're basically programmed to "spread the love" :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,148 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    H3llR4iser wrote: »
    Well, like it or not, men are always going to be the main buyers of sex.

    A lot of people don't want to hear about this nor want to admit, but sex is easier to access for women; It doesn't matter an ounce how you look, what you wear, how old or how successful you are - if you're a woman and want sex NOW, there are plenty of guys out there ready to throw themselves at you for free; The whole "men are jerks who only look at perfect Victoria's Secrets Angel type girls" is just a myth, perpetrated by media mostly aimed at women, in order to play on their sense of guilt and coax them into buying sh1t they don't need like diet pills, "hot yoga" courses or plastic surgery.

    Heck, there's enough critical mass in variety of tastes to sustain very profitable specialized adult entertainment industries - there ARE such things as BBW, granny and even amputee porn!!!

    For men, the opposite is true - unless you are at the very top of your game, the choice and opportunity is limited if not non-existent. Sure, Chris Hemsworth can walk into any club and have every woman in there chasing after him, but the average bloke will go home alone most of the times.
    Not to mention the non-average guy: ft, short, with a disability? No chance for you.

    And before anyone goes on a crusade against the obvious, yes - this situation is just natural; It's not that "women are evil and superficial", quite the opposite: they stand to risk and lose more from having sex with the wrong person, so nature just put a "safety filter" in the form of selection.

    Whereas men, well, we're basically programmed to "spread the love" :D

    I get what your saying.
    The person I heard speaking just came across as all men are bad,etc.
    Even the Gardai that spoke after her said "when people buy sex."


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭H3llR4iser


    The person I heard speaking just came across as all men are bad,etc.

    This literally dates back to the dawn of mankind - demonization of men buying sex with all possible excuses, like "ruining families" and other sh1t.
    I get it, there are some absolute gobsh1tes out there but really - the only valid, very valid arguments against sex work are those concerned about the health and safety of the workers themselves - especially when it comes to disease, human trafficking and assault; Issues which could be at least strongly mitigated by legalization and regulation. Active persecution of the "trade" will only push it further underground, with higher dangers for all involved.

    It won't "go away", even in the best case, "utopian society" scenario, there will always be a small but not insignificant portion of blokes who just can't access sex "normally" and will look into alternatives, no matter the risk/cost.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,140 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    H3llR4iser wrote: »
    Plenty - their biggest source of income isn't the consumer market but the business one; If things haven't changed since I worked there (yeah, the "friend" thing never works, does it? :D ), their main cashcow is a product called "ePolicy Orchestrator", which allows sysadmins to manage security policies across LANs and WANs. Also, they have contracts with a lot of OEM to include their products, just like Symantec does/did.

    In all fairness, plenty of good people worked with me in the Cork office back then, it's a few odd ones at the top which are the problem.
    Are there many software vendors (outside of gaming) that make most of their income from the consumer market these days? I'd never heard of ePolicy Orchestrator. Though, I've always worked more in data or business systems consulting rather than network security so not entirely surprising. Interesting to hear where they're focused as a company nowadays though!

    My comment was based on my observation that the only businesses I've seen using McAfee Antivirus products were public sector organisations where the IT staff would tend to be at the poorer qualified end of the scale (often legacy staff who joined after their leaving cert and placed into IT because they were hobbyists but even these days few top grads want to work for PS pay levels) .

    In that environment buying a "big name" is often more important than buying a good product (the "No-one ever got fired for buying IBM" strategy). The private sectors organisations I've worked with tended to go with Symantec / Avast or even the in-built Microsoft Security Essentials for desktop users and I don't think I've ever known a good techie who rated McAfee Anti-Virus.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,027 ✭✭✭H3llR4iser


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Are there many software vendors (outside of gaming) that make most of their income from the consumer market these days? I'd never heard of ePolicy Orchestrator. Though, I've always worked more in data or business systems consulting rather than network security so not entirely surprising. Interesting to hear where they're focused as a company nowadays though!

    My comment was based on my observation that the only businesses I've seen using McAfee Antivirus products were public sector organisations where the IT staff would tend to be at the poorer qualified end of the scale (often legacy staff who joined after their leaving cert and placed into IT because they were hobbyists but even these days few top grads want to work for PS pay levels) .

    In that environment buying a "big name" is often more important than buying a good product (the "No-one ever got fired for buying IBM" strategy). The private sectors organisations I've worked with tended to go with Symantec / Avast or even the in-built Microsoft Security Essentials for desktop users and I don't think I've ever known a good techie who rated McAfee Anti-Virus.


    You'd be surprised - plenty of giant tech enterprises are in their customers list, including names like NGK, Makino or Hitachi; Even a large military contractor in the US (one that makes fighter jets - you can figure it out) uses, or was using EPO back then. I think it's more popular in the US/Japan/Korea than it is here; Also, there were a plethora other B2B systems and services they developed/supported at the time.



    I've hardly ever seen a company using Avast or Microsoft SE (not that they ain't good - I've been using the second on my home workstation and laptops since Win 10 came out), but the other solutions I've seen (like, Sophos...) aren't really superior to ePO, and I'm not saying just because I worked on it. So yep, that's why they have market still.



    Back on topic - The Cork office ain't a bad place to work, as I said most of the people are great, I've had a good time there; Yet, some of the middle to top management are obsessed with virtue signaling and appearing in the media for "the right reasons", which can result in hilariously stupid initiatives like the one we're talking about :(


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,297 ✭✭✭✭fullstop


    Sleepy wrote: »
    TBH, why would any IT student be interested in working / interning for McAfee anyway? Their anti-virus has been **** for decades and, honestly, the greatest surprise for me is that they're still a going concern. Most techies I know regard their software as malware...

    Not to mention John McAfee is suspected of having done some very, very bad things.


Advertisement