Another bastion bites the dust?

RichmondPark1

mansplaining - the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.

Telling us that Gransnet is not just for women and not just for grandmothers is definitely a man telling us something that we all already know.

I wrote The name Gransnet is misleading as Gransnet is for people over fifty years of age, not just people who are grandmothers.

That is, I expressed an opinion that the name Gransnet is misleading, and, having expressed that opinion, I stated my reasons for my having of that opinion.

Mattsmum2

So what’s it called when a women explains something to a man in a patronising way? Womensplaining?

No a bloody nagging repetitive hag. I was called this by a male colleague whom I then called a Chocolate Tea pot{Learned I might add from DH] he disappeared into the loos I hope to have a good cry.

StarDreamer

RichmondPark1

"When you write we, please remember that Gransnet is not a women only space."

Someone up thread asked what mansplaining is. Please see above.

No, that was not mansplaining.

A woman posted about "we" in a manner that implied that "we" as in people participating in Gransnet, are all women.

My statement was therefore justified as such, it was not mansplaining simply because it was written by a man to a woman.

The name Gransnet is misleading as Gransnet is for people over fifty years of age, not just people who are grandmothers.

This is priceless.

"That's not mansplaining. Let me explain it to you because you don't understand."

Maw Careful! You'll be accused of being "woke".

mansplaining - the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.

Telling us that Gransnet is not just for women and not just for grandmothers is definitely a man telling us something that we all already know.

StarDreamer

I am male and I have been discriminated against, by people who had never met me, but not because I was male, but because I was "not representing an organisation".

If that felt bad, imagine being paid less for your entire life because of the shape of your genitals.
Now that would really smart.

RichmondPark1

"When you write we, please remember that Gransnet is not a women only space."

Someone up thread asked what mansplaining is. Please see above.

No, that was not mansplaining.

A woman posted about "we" in a manner that implied that "we" as in people participating in Gransnet, are all women.

My statement was therefore justified as such, it was not mansplaining simply because it was written by a man to a woman.

The name Gransnet is misleading as Gransnet is for people over fifty years of age, not just people who are grandmothers.

"When you write we, please remember that Gransnet is not a women only space."

Someone up thread asked what mansplaining is. Please see above.

MawtheMerrier wrote Roe v Wade anybody?

Yes.

The issue of abortion raises very strong polarised opinions.

Some declare it as a woman's "right" but not everybody agrees that is a "right".

Some media reporting in the United Kingdom seems to be conveying the opinions of the presenters rather than reporting the news.

Something that needs to be considered is the legal structure of the United States.

I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but as I understand it, the rule is that if something is in the Constitution, as ammended by its Ammendments, or ruled by the Supreme Court, then that is what happens in all fifty States, but if it is not in the Constitution, as ammended by its Ammendments, or ruled by the Supreme Court, then it is a matter of the law of the particular State that is the case. There also some things that are reconised nationally if they happen in a State and it is legal there - for example, unless changed recently, marriage laws are State laws, but a marriage that lawfully happens in a State according to the laws of that State is recognised as a legal marriage in all States. So this system of a Federal Law and State Law is why some States allow casinos.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court overturning of Roe vs Wade does not ban abortion, it removes it from being a Federal ruling on allowing it, and reverts it to being governed by State law in each State.

This State's rights situation is a very different situation to the United Kingdom system, the closest the United Kingdom gets to it is things like Free prescriptions for all in Scotland but not in England, and the like.

On Roe vs Wade itself, it was only recently that I learned that Roe is a pseudonym, to protect identity.

The unborn baby in the Roe vs Wade case was, in fact, born and survived, having been adopted and loved.

LINK > www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwpbZqSdzb4

I agree nanna8 and I do not believe that I have encountered any suggestion of that here on GN.
However two facts remain- women are speaking up (#meToo) , also BLM - Black Lives Matter - as the norms of the past are seen as flawed and I admit we are possibly learning the hard way. All of us women who have the vote have reason to be grateful for the Suffragist movement 100 years ago, and there were plenty of naysayers then. When I visited Bletchley Park with my GS recently, he was incredulous that Alan Turing was prosecuted for being gay.
The evils of racial discrimination in one form or another have similarly continued until the present day. Caring is not enough, being well-meaning is not
enough. We (men and women) have to recognise wrong for what it is and strive to overcome it.

It's ridiculous mokryna.

StarDreamer

Yearsb ago, 1970s, I was at a social event and a man of about my then age was saying that he had moved to the area because hec worked for a bank and had been posted to the area.

He explained that, for the bank at which he worked, all men joining and women joining had to be willing to go where posted, except that a woman could opt to stay permanently at the branch where she joined but if she did she had to accept that she would never be promoted above being a cashier at the counter.

At that time, males were expected to do banking exams to qualify them for higher pay grades.
Females were not expected to do that.

If a male did not pass any exams he still went onto a pay grade higher than females, but lower than other males, after the first couple of years.

Kate1949

I feel rather sorry for men these days. My lovely nephew was told by a female colleague during a discussion 'As a white heterosexual male, your opinion is irrelevant.'

Working for the Gas Company, I was told years ago, ‘ you would have got the job but because you are a one parent family we can’t give it to you’ . Another time, when asking for a wage increase suggesting I could change my work hours I was told ‘ those hours are for the men’.
However, both my French and English SiLs have suffered blatant discrimination, when women were put in to keep the status quo concerning gender equality.

I find I am using that word a lot.

Crikey.

I think that phrase being bandied about ‘white,male and stale’,is appalling. Racist, sexist and judgemental. Imagine if it was said about females who are not white. They would probably cop a hefty fine. Personally I think some females are every bit as bad as some males and from personal experience I have found a bad female boss far worse than any male. Usually you can communicate with a male , frequently not the case with females

uk.news.yahoo.com/hailing-frequencies-open-tributes-flow-100552669.html

Some bastions get pushed over by people who change things for the better.

Knittingnovice

Girls outperform boys at school due to changes in education. Qualifications were purely exam based, now they are mainly coursework based.

Exams went through a coursework phase, but they're mainly exam-based now.

I am male and I have been discriminated against, by people who had never met me, but not because I was male, but because I was "not representing an organisation".

StarDreamer

MawtheMerrier wrote The FA even banned the womens’s game for 50 years, apparently because they feared its popularity!

Here is a link to a web story from Sky News.

The title on the page is different from the address of the page.

The title on the page is as follows.

> Euro 2022: Only in 1971 FA lifted half-century ban on women's organised football, now England are champions - what's next?

LINK > news.sky.com/story/euro-2022-the-glamour-and-national-focus-on-the-lionesses-should-not-mask-the-fact-that-challenges-remain-12663298

What I do not understand is on what basis the Football Association purportedly banned women's organised football.

They might have been able to say that the Football Association would not have anything to do with organising women's organised football. But as far as I am aware they had no right to ban it.

What is the history of this? Did they have rules such that no club that was holding Football Association membership could allow women to play on their football pitches, and restricttions of that nature?

I am wondering whether women were allowed to attend men's football matches as spectators.

I think this answers your question
The money raised that day was the equivalent of about £140,000 today. This focused the minds of those watching the Dick, Kerr Ladies and other women’s teams with mistrust and trepidation. It would be this hugely successful match that would trigger the devastation of the women’s game.
The FA and the political establishment were not blind to the growing popularity and success of women’s football. The huge sums of money being raised were outside their jurisdiction and control. Worse still, that money was no longer being raised to support the war wounded but was being channelled into political and working-class causes – causes antithetical to the establishment
I think the Guardian article is quite comprehensive on the (shameful) background to the story.
As I said - it was in danger of becoming too popular and the FA instead of harnessing the growing popularity of the game among women, instead tried to strangle it at birth.
Not the first or indeed last time women’s rights to equality have been cut off by the patriarchy.
Roe v Wade anybody?

Yearsb ago, 1970s, I was at a social event and a man of about my then age was saying that he had moved to the area because hec worked for a bank and had been posted to the area.

He explained that, for the bank at which he worked, all men joining and women joining had to be willing to go where posted, except that a woman could opt to stay permanently at the branch where she joined but if she did she had to accept that she would never be promoted above being a cashier at the counter.

It must be borne in mind that women have been discriminated against for ( ever) a very long time so if some men feel just a bit of the same now, then it gives them a taste of what we have had and still have to deal with on a day to day basis.
Ultimately equality is the goal but that is still way off.
I am not a football supporter but congratulate the women who won yesterday amidst an atmosphere which lends itself to families enjoying matches, unlike some of the men’s matches when the atmosphere is often aggressive and unpleasant and therefore unwelcoming to people just wanting to enjoy a well played match.

MawtheMerrier

But isn’t it wonderful that the world can be anybody’s oyster- boy or girl.
One film I have always loved is “Hidden Figures”in which 3 female African-American mathematicians play a pivotal role in astronaut John Glenn's launch into orbit, facing and overcoming the racial and gender workplace discrimination of the period.
Inspirational.
But it has taken nearly 60 years to get to this point today.

We were just talking about this film the other day, and the one about Marie Curie after watching the film "The wife", with Glen Close. Well worth a watch and came recommended by DD.
Women can now participate and excel in most sports or careers they want to and does it antagonise some men.
This weekend she recommended 'The Nest", about the banking world which she has close knowledge of, we were wondering if she was trying to tell us something and women certainly don't seem to have broken the glass ceiling there. I wonder why?

Thank you, FarNorth.

I notice that the ladies in the 1922 photograph each have a hat that matches her football shirt.

There is absolutely zero chance of us being able to forget that.