Feminism and a world designed for men

[friedaweed]

Is it really still fair game to troll and insult in this way because it's Friday and people are probably on the sauce or whatever? Are women's lives and challenges really so fucking irrelevant that this kind of divide and ridicule, goal post moving, man as authoritative hero nonsense is something I need to accept?

No, not at all. Not ever really.

He’s a fucking sexist twat, & always has been.

This ^^^^

 

[Mr.Bishie]

But we all make more sense in person.

Then maybe really think before you post

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Then maybe really think before you post

My views are less harsh in person mate. It’s the medium rather than what is expressed. Hopefully. Honestly. Just speak to people.

 

[bluescreen]

My views are less harsh in person mate. It’s the medium rather than what is expressed. Hopefully. Honestly. Just speak to people.

And maybe listen to them too, eh?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

And maybe listen to them too, eh?

Fair enough.

 

[JudithB]

Has there seriously been a study in bog throughput or are you just making this up?

The fair thing to do would be to make all the loos single-sex, thus slowing everyone down equally, If the most important thing is throughput then the sensible thing to do would be to make all the male loos unisex and keep some female only ones, but that means effectively giving women special privileges in the interests of mutual efficiency and I'm sure there will be people ranting about that as well (females outnumber males 2 to 1 in the Q household so personally in favour).
No matter what I suspect I will always end up queueing at the bar because my wife is still queueing at the ladies.

Really don't be silly

The sensible thing to have done was to honour what they crowd funded for and given women more of their own exclusive toilets. If they had crowd funded for unisex toilets, then they should have been honest about that.

 

[JudithB]

Am I right in thinking there are now no men's or women's toilets, such that (in principle) anyone can use any stalls, but that, in reality women are unlikely to use the stalls in the room where there are urinals, and will now have to compete with men to use the stalls elsewhere? Practically speaking, that's not really any improvement in the provision of facilities women (which was the basis of the fundraising) is it?

No. There are urinals for men and the cubicles are all unisex

 

[JudithB]

It is likely the remit got widened after doing an equality impact assessment.

The equality impact assessment has been requested. So far it appears no women's groups were consulted. Not even the WI

 

[JudithB]

Yes, safety concerns too. Because men just wouldn't be able to stop themselves from giving in to their primordial urges and it would be women's own fault if that happened also. Women were unsafe and held completely responsible for their lack of safety.

Considering rape has been pretty much decriminalised in Yorkshire and women's rights are being ignored. For godssake can't we just pee in peace?

 

[JudithB]

In today's How Women are Ignored and Fucked Over news

F.D.A. Approves New H.I.V.-Prevention Drug, but Not for Women

And the name of the maker

 

[Proper Tidy]

Considering rape has been pretty much decriminalised in Yorkshire

Can I ask what this refers to?

 

[JuanTwoThree]

Perhaps to something like this.

No, rape has not been ‘decriminalised’

Luke Gittos, who specialises in defending rape and sexual assault cases, fails to convince me with this article. The statistics are there though, to be interpreted in different ways.

 

[JudithB]

Or this 3,000 rapes reported in West Yorkshire - but only 143 people charged

Or this Rape is "effectively decriminalised" campaigners say, as prosecutions for sexual offences drop 20 per cent in Yorkshire

 

[Poot]

Perhaps to something like this.

No, rape has not been ‘decriminalised’

Luke Gittos, who specialises in defending rape and sexual assault cases, fails to convince me with this article. The statistics are there though, to be interpreted in different ways.

Spiked is horrible. I hadn't heard of it until recently but it makes very grim reading. I particularly hate the way that it pretends to be defending women.

 

[polly]

Spiked is horrible. I hadn't heard of it until recently but it makes very grim reading. I particularly hate the way that it pretends to be defending women.

Yeah Spiked is really vile - might not be a good idea to link to it. Interesting article though.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Spiked is horrible. I hadn't heard of it until recently but it makes very grim reading. I particularly hate the way that it pretends to be defending women.

A bit like some of the men that routinely come on these threads to sow division/discord and tell us where we are going wrong.

 

[Red Cat]

Spiked is horrible. I hadn't heard of it until recently but it makes very grim reading. I particularly hate the way that it pretends to be defending women.

I think part of its premise is that the idea of people needing to be defended or protected makes them into powerless victims. It's a thread that runs through all the stuff of theirs I've read.

 

[polly]

I think part of its premise is that the idea of people needing to be defended or protected makes them into powerless victims. It's a thread that runs through all the stuff of theirs I've read.

That is a really sinister take on it. And probably spot on. Yuck.

 

[Poot]

I think part of its premise is that the idea of people needing to be defended or protected makes them into powerless victims. It's a thread that runs through all the stuff of theirs I've read.

Yes, exactly this.

 

[friendofdorothy]

In today's How Women are Ignored and Fucked Over news

F.D.A. Approves New H.I.V.-Prevention Drug, but Not for Women

And the name of the maker

thanks for posting - this is a good example of how average human = male human and testing on /for women is an after thought.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

There are a few issues there. Firstly the decision by the drug company to test only with men and trans women - this is not normal (I used to work in pharma r&d; studies are more complex and potentially harder to recruit for the more variables you include, sure, but not that much more and some variables are pretty obviously necessary like sex).

Secondly the decision by the FDA to approve anyway but just for men, rather than reject because of incomplete testing. FDA approval is widely known to be politically related - sometimes it is very exacting, sometimes it is very lax, depending on who is running the show. With the current US regime this doesn't surprise me.

And thirdly of course the general issue of a drug that's no better than another one that's just about to come out of patent being approved, falsely marketed as being better, and sold at an insane price. But that's not a gender issue, that's a US healthcare issue.

 

[Manter]

There are a few issues there. Firstly the decision by the drug company to test only with men and trans women - this is not normal (I used to work in pharma r&d; studies are more complex and potentially harder to recruit for the more variables you include, sure, but not that much more and some variables are pretty obviously necessary like sex).

Secondly the decision by the FDA to approve anyway but just for men, rather than reject because of incomplete testing. FDA approval is widely known to be politically related - sometimes it is very exacting, sometimes it is very lax, depending on who is running the show. With the current US regime this doesn't surprise me.

And thirdly of course the general issue of a drug that's no better than another one that's just about to come out of patent being approved, falsely marketed as being better, and sold at an insane price. But that's not a gender issue, that's a US healthcare issue.

I mostly agree apart from your secondly. I think what is more normal is drugs to be tested on men and then approved. It’s relatively unusual for drugs to be only licensed for a single gender where the condition being treated is not also affecting a single gender, I believe.

 

[Manter]

Eg The medical research gender gap: how excluding women from clinical trials is hurting our health | Health & wellbeing | The Guardian

(This focuses on cardiovascular disease)

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I mostly agree apart from your secondly. I think what is more normal is drugs to be tested on men and then approved. It’s relatively unusual for drugs to be only licensed for a single gender where the condition being treated is not also affecting a single gender, I believe.

With #2 I'm just pointing out that the approval is a political decision rather than being something set in stone; I wanted to break the whole thing down a bit into the stages involved. It would be quite possible for a regulator to simply reject anything not tested across sexes, and you can bet that the drug companies would absolutely jump into line - the money involved in delaying an approval by even a day is extraordinary. (We used to joke that we should get a cut of what the company earned if we got a study out of the door a bit early.) That IMO is the part that is best to try to address in campaigns etc. But pharma corps also lobby massively to make sure that the regulatory regime is favourable to them, and they would be happy to use sexism as part of that.

 

[TopCat]

So far it appears no women's groups were consulted. Not even the WI

How do you know who they consulted?

 

[TopCat]

A bit like some of the men that routinely come on these threads to sow division/discord and tell us where we are going wrong.

A bit like.

 

[Athos]

I mostly agree apart from your secondly. I think what is more normal is drugs to be tested on men and then approved. It’s relatively unusual for drugs to be only licensed for a single gender where the condition being treated is not also affecting a single gender, I believe.

What conditions affect a single gender (as distinct from a single sex)?

 

[Manter]

What conditions affect a single gender (as distinct from a single sex)?

Not a clue mate. Not a doctor.

 

[Athos]

Not a clue mate. Not a doctor.

Do you believe there are some? Because I got the impression from your comment that you think the only time it would be usual for drugs to be licensed for a single gender would be in respect of a condition which affects a single gender. In any event, are there any drugs that are licensed for a single gender?

 

[Manter]

Do you believe there are some? Because I got the impression from your comment that you think the only time it would be usual for drugs to be licensed for a single gender would be in respect of a condition which affects a single gender. In any event, are there any drugs that are licensed for a single gender?

Oh, is this you point scoring about the fact i inadvertently used the wrong language? Well done you. Have a sticker