To think it really is a man's world?

[TreatTreat]

We all know it is, but itv1 confirmed it even more for me today by calling the Euros tournament the 'women's euro tournament'. TV stations sure as hell don't introduce men's tournaments with their gender in the introduction.

Well I am on holiday and everyone is watching the women’s World Cup! On in every pub crowds in the street cheering.

My dinosaur boss does this...I re-type it as Dear Madam/Sir.

he always addresses letters to male clients as 'Esq'. Weird.

If separate letters (with same info - don't go there) are sent, he'll put them in one envelope with the letter addressed to Mr at the top so it's the man's name visible through the envelope window...if I get hold of the envelopes, I open them and either send letters separately or put the female addressed letter visible.

🙄
Pathetic I know but it makes me feel better

Really? I spoke to our local who said they would be showing all games they’d just not got round to promoting it as the landlord has been on holiday.

They’ve got an outdoor bar set up for it and it was busy for the two England games. They’re anticipating another busy one for Sundays game.

It might not be as popular as the men’s game but a decent number of people do want to watch it.

Although I will say they are one of only two pubs in the area showing it and they’ve not decorated the pub like they do when the men’s tournament is on.
My DS pointed that out (he’s 10) and has started bringing his own England flag out 😂

Fascinating thread. It does make you think. But most of all, I'm grateful to Eagle for trying to present the counter-argument. It's only in setting his posts against the replies addressing the issue he raises that it really becomes apparent how much inequality there still is. Comparing the wide-ranging facts and stats his opponents provide - and their readiness to really drill down into his claims - with his (proportionately) reductive generalisations and assertions (and occasional rather delightful misuse of words) is very revealing.

My favourite of his responses was the one that started "Look lady...." Pretty much sums up his approach and attitude. Tells you all you needed to know.

That one did make me laugh, and when he called me a tool 😂😂

Indeed. He made a powerful statement, just not the one he intended.

We’ve been told not to do this at work - we have to day “good morning” or “good afternoon” if we don’t know who we’re addressing.

I liked "paragon".

Edited to add: I wouldn't usually highlight errors like this - just rather quietly enjoy them - but when the context is multiple pages of often rather offensively expressed (and ironically "debunked" 😂) pretensions to superior knowledge...

I really would recommend Invisible Women to anyone who's not read it. Here's an article that gives a taste of its 300+ pages of quiet fury. Brace yourself - it's a distressing read.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes

Excerpt:

Men are more likely than women to be involved in a car crash, which means they dominate the numbers of those seriously injured in them. But when a woman is involved in a car crash, she is 47% more likely to be seriously injured, and 71% more likely to be moderately injured, even when researchers control for factors such as height, weight, seatbelt usage, and crash intensity. She is also 17% more likely to die. And it’s all to do with how the car is designed – and for whom... The reason this has been allowed to happen is very simple: cars have been designed using car crash-test dummies based on the “average” male.

Can you imagine reading that about any other demographic? Society not only accepting, but normalising and rationalising it for them?

It's the very invisibility of women's oppression - so helpfully exemplified in Eagle's replies - that highlights its severity.

Invisible Women is such a fabulous book. I recommend it to everyone!
I love her newsletter too.

It does make you notice things you've been taught to accept unquestioningly.

Right Now

Breakfast - hard-to-open jar (default male strength)
Cupboards - can only use lower shelves (default male height)
Microwave - can't see progression of cooking (default male height)
Air con unit - blasts air at point just over my head (default male height)
Alexa - have to repeat most orders, forcing a lower pitch (default male voice)
News - X3 about sexual violence (male sexual aggression)
Sports - wohoo!: just over half on male sport, WAY better than usual (Euros!!!)
Mobile phone - smaller than I'd have liked (default male hand-size)

Later Today?

Apartment doors - can't open from wheelchair (default male strength & height)
Daytime "walk" - yelled at by male c. every 2 weeks (weird sexist aggression)
Evening "walk" - cut-off point after which I don't, for safety (male aggression)
Nighttime heat - keep windows closed for safety (male violence)
Admin. calls - dismissed & patronised (cf. Eagle's posting style!)
Taxi rides - inappropriate comments/attitude (weird sexism)
TV - SO few women my age, & MANY men much older (male gaze)
Hobbies - keyboard: hand-size stole Grades 7 & 8 from me (lifelong regret!)

Upshot

Less comfort, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, efficiency & safety

Day-to-day impact

Minimised - we learn to accept it unquestioningly. We shouldn't.

Cumulative impact

Immense. Draining. Bloody unfair.

That's an interesting set of statistics.

However, without trying to debunk another 'us poor women' myth, might the fact that more women get injured, perish, etc in car accidents not be far more likely due to the fact that on average that a man is simply significantly physically stronger, & hence far more robust, than the average woman, and so women are therefore far more likely to get hurt or worse in car collisions??

I don't know anything about this area, but that just seems logical to me.

P.s. and to test this hypothesis, you could quite easily compare the level & severity of injuries among the sexes from say horse riding accidents, or other accidents that involve a similar l level of physical trauma as that associated with car accidents. (E.g. fair ride accidents or whatever)

I wonder whether the authors considered this at all.

P.s. cos frankly, even if the average crash dummy was say solely designed on the average male, which I sincerely doubt, would that really make such a significant difference to the level of injury incurred as the above stats appear to indicate it might have.

I.e. Say if you're already designing a car to protect an average male, I.e say a 5'9" ,75kg person & you're allowing for a range around this as the design has to anyways, wouldn’t this offer nearly just as good protection for say the average female at say 5'5" & 50kg say!?

I'm not at all convinced of the 'thesis' presented in this book in this case. It looks like they sought a reason for a statistical anomaly & simply jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Tbf, they're probably just aggrieved women & we all know what they're like hey!? ;)

P.s. I mean look at the clear examples posting on this very thread for instance :)

Couldn't agree more @Catiette

I travel internationally for my job and it costs my employer more to send me compared to my male colleagues becuase in many of the countries I travel to it's is not safe for a solo female traveller to use taxi's or public transport. I pointed out that women have to think about this wherever they are in the world!

I'll never forget a male friend of mine telling me he'd slept during a long taxi ride back home after a night out and thinking women just wouldn't do that.

You've not read the book and you nothing about this subject but you've decided you know better? Because you're a man and she's a women?

You've dismissed an entire book which happens to be well researched and draws from a range of robust evidence, becuase it's written by a woman. What a joke you are.

@ThatDaringEagle but you literally did the exact same thing upthread..although worse as you got your stats from AI. You went looking for some figures to prove your theory, sorry, thesis. Everyone does. I would say that any individual area, taken in isolation could be questioned and challenged as regards how far it proves or disproves the original idea of the thread but if you take thousands of different areas, including anecdotal experience overall, I think there's be an undeniably clear pattern of advantage to males that is different baked in it's not even noticed, especially by men. Lets take one example of going out for a run, or returning home from a night out. How many men do you think consider their personal safety before deciding how and when to do those things? How many men do you think get up and move train carriages if a bunch of lads get on and are a few beers down? These might seem like small things but you add it all up together and it becomes something. Not everything is about a single statistic and a "gotcha".
No-one denies that men face challenges. I have teenage son who is somewhat socially vulnerable and I have a huge fear about how he will navigate the adult world. I teach lovely young men who tell me they are uncertain how to proceed if they like a girl for fear of being accused of something nefarious. They absolutely now face more competition and a higher bar from women who will no longer accept a certain type of lazy entitled selfish behaviour on the home front, who expect more from a father than just earning money, but weigh that against the systemic, endemic bias against women that is still there and it's very clear who still has the upper hand. Some of it is unavoidable biology sure, but a lot of it isn't.

This article was written by a man @ThatDaringEagle
Perhaps you'll take it more seriously?

Although some fo the research used was conducted by women. I mean they all have related PhD's and are experts in their field but we should probably still dismiss them as hysterical women and listen to a man with no qualifications or knowledge on the subject.
A Crash Test Bias Puts Female Drivers at Risk - Consumer Reports

No, I've not read the book and know nothing about the area.

However, I am a qualified engineer and refuse to suspend my common sense when being presented with "evidence" indicating X, when it was actually probably due to Y all along.

I'm not debunking this instance from the book cos it was written by a woman at all, but I am questioning the logic applied here, cos common sense would tell anyone who can retain even some of their objectivity in this case that maybe men being physically more robust is simply a far more logical reason that they incur less injury & physical trauma due to car accidents.

Try to think before you type in future pls.

@ThatDaringEagle see you did quite well there I til that last patronising, sneering line. What prompts you to do that?

Fuck off with your patronising 'think before you type'. Who do you think you are?

Genuinely interested @ThatDaringEagle - how did your resentment towards women begin?

That will be the result of the sterling work being done by Caroline Criado Perez, perhaps?

But it don’t mean nothing without a woman or a girl

The irony!

And interesting. A poster with a very similar posting style hurled a slew of insults at me on a separate thread when I made an observation (he) didn't like. Seems a very MRA thing to do - and most Mumsnetters know this site is crawling with those.