Sexism taken too far?

[Ajhutch]

I think most of his stuff is designed for clinical psychology students which is why I find it hard to follow.

Makes sense that I can’t follow him also then!

 

[jceg316]

The worry is uninformed decisions and the complete lack of critical thinking which most people seem to suffer from, as well as the inability to listen outside their echo chambers. It happens on the right and left. Along with apathy to act when they come to a decision.

 

[Tau]

Who is offended exactly?
What people? I assume you mean posts in this topic?
Could you please quote multiple people which stated that they were offended here?

Thing is almost everybody is not actually offended, even those claiming offensive. As mentioned it is a conspiracy, but one that the pc lot have been trying to enforce legislation that has been in force for 40+ years and almost completely ignored by the the masses (look at the mobile phone use while driving made little difference as everybody still ignores it and rarely enforced.) the equality laws drafted in the 70's hardly made a difference in society. The new equal opportunities law brought in 2010 is an all encompassing law, were a white man in an all female environment is equally able to access the law as the opposite was in the previous law for just women. Media and marketing are the vehicles for promoting social awareness and brainwashing the population (as it were) so removing stereotyping adverts and programs, job adverts, interviews applications and workplace development programs are the tools that the pc lot use to bring into the collective consciousness of the population that there has been a change in the law.

People try to get around these all the time, example employers will circumnavigate these often by not using application forms and use word of mouth or cv's which can be hidden and destroyed, interviews are really an excuse to apply preduice preceived or actual. To us it seems like a constant barrage of moaning people being offended by this and that, racism, sexism, disability discrimination etc. What is really happening is that society doesn't reflect the law and these people are pointing out what is not complying. Annoying yes, but in the long run they see a social manipulation program to get us dinosuars in line with what's suppose to be happening and is not.

 

[Wouter]

Must be quite exciting to know of a conspiracy that most people don't or don't dare to say .

 

[jceg316]

Why is attempting to make society a fairer place for others a Marxist/PC brigade conspiracy? What is the PC brigade? Who actually is a Marxist pushing their agenda?

 

[Ajhutch]

Must be quite exciting to know of a conspiracy that most people don't or don't dare to say .

Dammit my crusade to implement a totalitarian brainwashing programme entirely through the medium of non-sexist beer labels has been rumbled.

 

[simon12]

Here is my brief and simplistic summary of the 2 main sides of the argument:
Leftist/PC/Marxist side
Men and women are exactly the same in every way (some go as far as adding men can have periods) so where there are and differences in the no of men and women in any job or pay scale it must be due to sexism inherent in society. Equality of outcome is the ideal and we need positive discrimination until all professions have equal numbers or men and women everywhere (though there less fussed about bin collection etc) and if you disagree your a far right Nazi.
Jordan Peterson/Nazi counter argument (note all this in on average no one is saying all men or all women):
Men and women are different in many ways beyond the physical ways. They have on average the same IQ but men deviate from this average more than women therefore you would expect more men to succeed and fail more often. Women are more agreeable and less competitive making them succeed or fail more in certain roles and also want to go into certain roles more or less. Equality of opportunity to do what you want is far more desirable than equality of outcome and makes everyone happier.

 

[Ciaran12s]

Why is attempting to make society a fairer place for others a Marxist/PC brigade conspiracy? What is the PC brigade? Who actually is a Marxist pushing their agenda?

I think it's anybody with so much of a hint of wanting a fairer more equal society. Or anybody without the "I'm alright jack" attitude.

 

[-Bezza-]

Here is my brief and simplistic summary of the 2 main sides of the argument:
Leftist/PC/Marxist side
Men and women are exactly the same in every way (some go as far as adding men can have periods) so where there are and differences in the no of men and women in any job or pay scale it must be due to sexism inherent in society. Equality of outcome is the ideal and we need positive discrimination until all professions have equal numbers or men and women everywhere (though there less fussed about bin collection etc) and if you disagree your a far right Nazi.
Jordan Peterson/Nazi counter argument (note all this in on average no one is saying all men or all women):
Men and women are different in many ways beyond the physical ways. They have on average the same IQ but men deviate from this average more than women therefore you would expect more men to succeed and fail more often. Women are more agreeable and less competitive making them succeed or fail more in certain roles and also want to go into certain roles more or less. Equality of opportunity to do what you want is far more desirable than equality of outcome and makes everyone happier.

I'm not sure that's quite captured the point as inherent in what you are saying on both sides is that men are better than women and that equality is about making women as good as men - or at least that's how I'm reading it.

The underlying issue is that society has developed in a way that has favoured and rewarded the traits/skills that are more commonly exhibited by men, whilst undervaluing and therefore not rewarding those more commonly exhibited by women. Further, if women do display these "good" characteristics they are often interpreted negatively.

Emma Watson put it quite well once when she said that when she was on the set of Harry Potter, the boys were seen as motivated, confident and competitive but if she showed the same behaviours, she was seen to be argumentative or a diva (not the exact example but the gist was the same).

 

[Tau]

Must be quite exciting to know of a conspiracy that most people don't or don't dare to say .

Conspiracy in that they are trying to promote their agenda (not always in an organised fashion so to speak), which just happens to be the country's law...lol

 

[simon12]

I'm not sure that's quite captured the point as inherent in what you are saying on both sides is that men are better than women and that equality is about making women as good as men - or at least that's how I'm reading it.

The underlying issue is that society has developed in a way that has favoured and rewarded the traits/skills that are more commonly exhibited by men, whilst undervaluing and therefore not rewarding those more commonly exhibited by women. Further, if women do display these "good" characteristics they are often interpreted negatively.

Emma Watson put it quite well once when she said that when she was on the set of Harry Potter, the boys were seen as motivated, confident and competitive but if she showed the same behaviours, she was seen to be argumentative or a diva (not the exact example but the gist was the same).

I don't think you are disagreeing with me but raising another 3rd point of view, I was not making either point just summarising them like I said in a simplistic way. If you are making the point "The underlying issue is that society has developed in a way that has favoured and rewarded the traits/skills that are more commonly exhibited by men, whilst undervaluing and therefore not rewarding those more commonly exhibited by women. Further, if women do display these "good" characteristics they are often interpreted negatively." this is totally different to the men and women are totally the same argument and completely inline with the Jordan Peterson one. The Emma Watson part is an feelings only based argument and at best if it applied all the time would mean women prefer to be liked or care more about how others see them than success and if this is the case there is no solution or problem its what women want.

 

[-Bezza-]

I don't think you are disagreeing with me but raising another 3rd point of view, I was not making either point just summarising them like I said in a simplistic way. If you are making the point "The underlying issue is that society has developed in a way that has favoured and rewarded the traits/skills that are more commonly exhibited by men, whilst undervaluing and therefore not rewarding those more commonly exhibited by women. Further, if women do display these "good" characteristics they are often interpreted negatively." this is totally different to the men and women are totally the same argument and completely inline with the Jordan Peterson one. The Emma Watson part is an feelings only based argument and at best if it applied all the time would mean women prefer to be liked or care more about how others see them than success and if this is the case there is no solution or problem its what women want.

I understood that you weren't conveying either side of the argument as your point of view. :thumb:

I'm not sure if I'm trying to show a third point of view - I think I was more implying this is what you have labelled as the "leftist/PC" point of view. It's perhaps easy to label something as the "PC brigade" interfering because there's been a tendancy for the press to imply that anything that challenges the status quo for the good must inherently be PC meddling. Whilst some things undoubtedly are taking offence just for the sake of it, other times it will be because there is something happening beyond what you immediately see. But it's a fine line at times, no doubt!

The point I was making with Emma Watson is that where a man and a woman have the same trait, it is often seen as a positive thing in men and a negative thing in women. I don't think it's a case of being liked or caring what others think - it's not that the men are immune to what others think, more that society doesn't so readily label men negatively. For example, if a bloke throws a **** fit down the pub on a Friday evening it'll be because he's had a tough week at work and needed to let off steam; if a woman did the same, it's because she was being hormonal and can't handle the pressure. Entirely anecdotal in this case but I've often noticed in my own behaviour how easy it is to treat women differently or chalk things down to biological differences, when that's completely unfair or unfounded. It's just the things I've been exposed to through my life that are hard to unlearn.

 

[Pavros]

Back to sexism and advertising:
I've read through this thread and my own view is...I couldn't care less but, respect my decision to not buy a product if I am put off by the advertising/bottle label etc.

For instance, I have ordered twice now from Beerwulf. I usually go through the listings and see which beers I want to try and which look or sound interesting. One beer in the list is Frankandael Three Idiots Tripel Spiced (T.I.T.S) with Barbara Windsor/ Carry On style label. Nope, not for me, thanks. It smacks of someone trying too hard and ending up looking like a schoolboy who thinks it's clever to say a rude word. It might be the best beer in the world and I am missing out but I'm comfortable with my decision.

At the end of the day, if a company wants to carry out an advertising campaign which is based on selling a product by objectifying half their potential customer base, they won't stay in business too long

 

[simon12]

OK I think I see your point, the way I see your point is this men and women behave differently in our society which has led to some negative behaviour to be more expected and therefore more accepted from men and this puts more pressure on women not to try to compete in ways that they think (correctly or not) are for want of a better word unladylike. Is this your point? If so do you see a solution outside of beer labelling?

 

[Saisonator]

I think it's anybody with so much of a hint of wanting a fairer more equal society. Or anybody without the "I'm alright jack" attitude.

I think it's more to do with people wanting to feel and appear more virtuous. More so that any real care about outcome.

 

[-Bezza-]

OK I think I see your point, the way I see your point is this men and women behave differently in our society which has led to some negative behaviour to be more expected and therefore more accepted from men and this puts more pressure on women not to try to compete in ways that they think (correctly or not) are for want of a better word unladylike. Is this your point? If so do you see a solution outside of beer labelling?

My points are:
- Where two people display the same traits, those traits should be viewed as equally positive/negative irrespective of gender, sexuality etc.
- As a society, we should do more to recognise the role all personality traits play in society, not just those that are traditionally more masculine (for example inclusiveness, compassion and empathy should be just as represented at senior management level in our big companies as decision making, challenge, competition etc).

Coming back to the original point on this thread, I can see why some object to things like naked ladies on beer bottles, tyre calendars etc - they cause harm by reinforcing regressive views on women's role in society and what they are capable of doing.

 

[-Bezza-]

On a different note, this is one of my favourite pictures ever to do the rounds on the internet:

 

[Linalmeemow]

I think it's more to do with people wanting to feel and appear more virtuous. More so that any real care about outcome.

What makes you think this? I'm genuinely interested to know where this has come from as a concept - I keep reading about "virtue signalling" but I don't think I've ever seen a genuine example of it with my own eyes.

 

[BarnBrian]

Ding ding. Last orders.

 

[simon12]

Where two people display the same traits, those traits should be viewed as equally positive/negative irrespective of gender, sexuality etc.
Unless you are going to force men and women to act the same different behaviour will be expected of them assuming you agree traits lead to behaviour

As a society, we should do more to recognise the role all personality traits play in society,
Yes we should but some traits are always going to be more suited to different aspects .

not just those that are traditionally more masculine (for example inclusiveness, compassion and empathy should be just as represented at senior management level in our big companies as decision making, challenge, competition etc).
Why would you want someone with traits that aren't suite to a role being represented in a role, you may as well say people naturally good at painting should be represented more in management. The person with the best traits (and skill and experience) for the job should be doing whatever the job is.