Britains Biggest Sexist Programme On BBC iPlayer Is A Complete Joke

Was it Stacey Dooley again? I haven't watched it but she is just bad at documentary making/presenting.

Was it Stacey Dooley again? I haven't watched it but she is just bad at documentary making/presenting.

Ok? Your point being?

that's a lot of red OP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06nsk38/britains-biggest-sexists

Having watched this show yesterday, I was disgusted by the content and the approach of the way this programme was constructed. I have never seen such a level of poor journalism, lack of research and all round such poor use of logic and contradictions. Men and women are physically different which is a fact. I believe men and women are of equal worth to society, however I also believe they are different in and some cases they should do different things. For example why would you want equality between men and women in say boxing, I don't want to see men boxing women, I think its distasteful.

This show was littered with contradictions.

A woman on the show claimed that girls at universities cannot go to cafes or libraries now which is a load of crap because our libraries and cafes are full of girls. She cited a photo of a girl who had her photo taken because she bent over and her thong was visible. If you are a bending down or reaching for something and your underwear becomes visible then your clothes are too tight.

What is infuriating is when it is the other way round its a completely different issue. I'm sure everyone has seen the picture below on Instagram at some point - and I have no problems with it as a male but I don't see where these feminists refute pictures like this. If they believe in equality, then both sexes should not be objectified. Double standards all round. When a male compliments a girl, its objectifying women, when its the other way round - nothing?

The programme also briefly mentioned some calendars being banned due to women appearing topless. I don’t understand this point as in one sense women are being told they are not to be objectified yet in another sense women are being told how to dress, how to behave, how to act – I thought the whole premise of their case was women have the choice? Clearly they do not in this scenario.

I saw a tremendous amount of hate towards these internet YouTube stars known as pick up artists. If they approach a girl and hug her, kiss her, hold her hands, her thighs, her arse and the girl gives the male her number, clearly she doesn't mind this and she is happy and it is all consensual and legal. Again this happens the other way round, I work behind a bar and girls now and then leave me their numbers. I don't have a problem with this - its called meeting people. What are these feminist's problems if a girl gives a guy her number? Who are they to tell her what to do and what not to do.

I thought the lowest point of the programming was the attack on children’s toys. In general its no secret women enjoy shopping for clothes, shoes, make up and men like gadgets and cars etc. That is being general, it is true in a general sense thats why companies target adds to them. There are exceptions, but I dont see the point they are trying to make. Are they saying men and women should buy the same things, dress the same, look the same? Would a make up company spend billions of pounds advertising to males where the market is limited? No, no and no.

I did note the issue raised with pregnant women in the workforce. Whilst I do agree women should not be subjected to any sort of discrimination in the workforce I would like to offer an opinion from the employer’s perspective. Many companies do not discriminate against women, it just financially they take into account cost of paying for her maternity leave, time of cost of training someone else, paying the new person, using more resources and time - that is all that is. Some companies simply cannot afford to pay 2 salaries because they are struggling due to the recession. This is not sexism.

The pay gap between men and women is also another issue they got wrong. Men and women earn same or very similar amount in the same job roles. Its just that higher payed jobs often require 50-60 hours a week and many women prefer to cut down their hours or work part time and concentrate on their children - This is their choice, who is anyone to tell any woman to work 50-60 hours if she doesn't want to - its her choice.

The journalism, if it can be called that, in this programme has to be one of the worst cases ever witnessed. A woman shouting obscene sexist remarks at innocent London City workers is not the quality of television that tax payers should be expecting. Distasteful language all round, "comedians" making "jokes" which have very little humor.

In physical activities of course, but most jobs that matter nowadays aren't hunter-gathering and war and actually involve mental tasks where men and women are thoroughly equal.



Except that was pretty much exactly not what she was said, she was referring to specific cases of women who felt that way because they'd been subjected to creepy or borderline stalkerish behaviour, such as, as you mentioned, having pictures of their thong taken.



Was that picture taken without his consent, and in an embarrassing situation like the other example? No.



Agree in the broad sense, but in this case they were referring to RyanAir which as far as I know doesn't exclusively serve a male clientele.



The problem is that you're relying on obtaining posthumous consent for what is, until that point, molestation. You have to wonder how many off-camera attempts these ****heads make which result in failure. Also, not sure about those referred to in the program but a lot of youtube videos that involve stunts like that are blatant fakes. I welcome you to try them out in real life and see how many bruises you have by the end of the day.



Really, the attack on children's toys, probably the part of the program exhibiting the most blatant contrasts. And no, the problem is not that girls might like different things, but that the toys being targeted towards them are anti-intellectual ****. No wonder there are so few women in science and mathematics when from a young age we have a dichotomy between 'Brilliant Boys' and 'Beautiful Girls', hilarious.



You're assuming that the only companies which are doing this are financially struggling which is not the case, and even if it is it doesn't change the fact that it's completely illegal. Apparently women spending one year of their life focussing on raising children should ruin the 40+ years of their entire careers. Makes perfect sense. Except it doesn't and the government knows it but employers are just flouting the law and doing whatever they want.



Highlighted everything which is simply unsubstantiated, ie. nearly all of that paragraph.


I do agree though, the program is pretty bad but this is the only paragraph you've highlighted actual criticism of the program. The rest of the post is just you whining about society trying to help women get

You didn't respond to the contradictions I raised and you also started talking about different things that the point I was making.

I said most of us, if not all of us, would not want to see men and women equal in every walk of life. I gave an example where I said we would find it distasteful if men and women were boxing together.

You went on to say most jobs that matter are mental based. Most jobs that matter. Are you this incredibly shallow, please do tell me how you define as a job that matters - and please give me examples a jobs that don't matter. Clearly you don't know a thing about economy, production, labor if you are making these comments.

So your point can be disregarded. Don't deviate points to suit you. You tell me, should we have equality with men and women with boxing? Yes or No, simple question.

Again you failed addressing my points. It was explained many times in the programme they they have a problem with women being objectified. Judged and commented on their looks. I then showed you an example of a man being objectified.

Why did you ignore that? Please explain to me why its wrong to say 'dam she's got one sexy body' about a woman, but not wrong when women talk about men in that way? Furthermore, is it now wrong to compliment women on their beauty because it means we are objectifying them? Please do tell.

I still don't understand your point about children's toys and marketing. So let me get this straight, its wrong that girl's toys should be pink and boys toys should be blue.

So extending on from that, you are suggesting that it is sexual discrimination to market different products to different genders?

So according to you all the millions of fashion companies should remove the male and female section of their website and market every piece of make up, clothing, accessories to male and females? Because *clearly* this is now sexism according to people with your beliefs.

I don't understand your point about pay. It is no secret that some women at a certain age lower their hours or work part time - you can't expect a part time staff to be on the same salary as a full time staff. Jobs are not advertised as 'we are looking for a male etc. Men and women in the same positions earn the same or similar.

Your point about men and women target market is complete nonsense. There are adverts on tv which market razers for women. Only women appear on the advert, it is targeted to women. However you must know men also have hair. Please again do tell, is this sexual discrimination towards men?

Please address all points raised here without twisting my words, otherwise please do not respond at all.

The problem is that you're relying on obtaining posthumous consent for what is, until that point, molestation. You have to wonder how many off-camera attempts these ****heads make which result in failure. Also, not sure about those referred to in the program but a lot of youtube videos that involve stunts like that are blatant fakes. I welcome you to try them out in real life and see how many bruises you have by the end of the day.