Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland
Options
Comments
-
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 49073
Crony-ism shouldnt happen in politics but it happens, what you describe is a mandated legal corny-ism, and worse again legal mandated crony-ism for a hate movement. I view quotas for rad fems as no better or worse than quotas for taliban or nazis.
My point wasn't about cronyism, it was about the ability of a democratically elected politician to bring about a change of mind set such as would benefit his/her views.
Radical feminists can be both male and female
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Radical feminism is a hate movement that carries a belief in innate female moral and spiritual superiority, legal inequality and some of its proponents have called for a cull of men so yes, it is akin to nazism and thats how history will record it.
Radical looney fringe feminism does not equal all feminism.
Trying to say that is does is like trying to say some men are rapists, all men are rapists, it's utter clap trap.Radical feminism is a hate movement akin to nazism.
Goodwin's law means you loose.0 -
-
-
Radical looney fringe feminism does not equal all feminism.
Trying to say that is does is like trying to say some men are rapists, all men are rapists, it's utter clap trap.
Goodwin's law means you loose.
I never said that radical feminim equals all feminism, not once.
As for godwins law, it doesn't really count in this case because radical feminism is actually a hate group that conforms to the definition and characteristics of a hate group complete with a superiour and inferiour group and so is genuinely comparable to nazism.
Patriarchy is radical feminisms international jewry, men and masculinity are radical feminisms jew, herstory the revisionist history that is used to "prove" the conspiracy theory.
Same crap different group.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
What?
Reward wrote:I never said that radical feminim equals all feminism, not once.
This entire debate was fuelled by your claim that female politicians that considered themselves feminists were nothing but radical feminists sneaking their radical policies in - you have been continually linking feminists with radical feminism, it's completely dishonest to suggest otherwise.Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.
You exalt patriarchy while considering the attack on those who wish female subordination to be akin to Nazism? Patriarchy is the flip side of the gender extremist coin - no better than any of the worse exponents radical feminism has to offer.0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »What?
This entire debate was fuelled by your claim that female politicians that considered themselves feminists were nothing but radical feminists sneaking their radical policies in - you have been continually linking feminists with radical feminism, it's completely dishonest to suggest otherwise.
You exalt patriarchy while considering the attack on those who wish female subordination to be akin to Nazism? Patriarchy is the flip side of the gender extremist coin - no better than any of the worse exponents radical feminism has to offer.
No, I said that gov quotas are designed by radical feminists for radical feminists. The posters here keep claiming I'm saying that all feminists are radical feminists but thats just something that they are saying.
Non radical feminists might support quotas because they don't understand their meaning or realise that they are not really invited, but thats just a mistake on their part.
However, I do think that most feminists enable radical and gender feminists and have let the lunatic fringe steal the movement.
Taliban is the flip side of radical feminism, patriarchy is not.
"Those who wish female subordination" who are you talking about exactly?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 49073
None of the above links work getting page error, page not found or page does not exist. 0 -
-
-
-
Feminist education is provided in a womb, protected from outside peer review. It will equip you with an ideology, lots of rhetorical tricks and fallacies and a distorted view of the nature of reality, but it will not protect you from things like peer review, logic and facts in the outside world.
Source? It's exactly these unsubstantiated claims of truth-hood that make your posts look like nothing more than hyperbolic flimflammery. You say X, Y or Z as if it were fact, provide no source of evidence as to where you got the information to make such a claim and then blame everyone else for refusing to get involved in debating such subjective allegories with you.
It's also why your posts sound so irrational - claiming that feminist education is provided in a womb? What does that even mean? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds and how such dismissive, fallacious and emotive language regarding any topic immediately renders it's claimant as biased and prejudicial, especially when espousing such nuggets without providing any verifiable evidence to back up the specific claims being made. If you claim feminism is taught in a womb then you need to show how you reached that conclusion and provide evidence to convince everyone else you are making the claim with good authority and balanced consideration and not lashing out with emotionally driven illogicality.Ive somethings to add about the dictionary definition of feminism.
I thought you might - when all else fails in defining something the way you want it to, change the definition.Also, the recent well publicized feminist celebrations and acceptance of education inequality in favour of women, pay inequality in favour of women and the disproportionate job losses for men (they haven't realised yet that the private sector pays for the public sector) and hostility towards mens, fathers and the rights of politically incorrect abuse victims is a far cry from the much relied upon dictionary definition of feminism.
Source? Again, without sources it is just politicised personal ramblings. By well publicised are you referring to the Daily Mail again?I disagree with your saying that radical feminism is the flip side of patriarchy, rad feminism to my mind is a hate movement, it has more parallels with the definition and characteristics of a hate movement than it does patriarchy, patriarchy is not hate, there are hate movements that have been patriarchal, but that doesn't make patriarchy a hate movement.
You don't view an andocentric movement that relies on female subordination and males as the primary authority figure and subjugators as being a hate movement - a movement that is inherently unequal and unjust between the sexes proposal male dominance and female subservience and yet you think radical feminism which would seek to have female dominance and male subjugation is wicked and terrible - and you can't see why you may look irrational or blindly vitriolic? Seriously now?And I stand by my initial assertions.
I was never so optimistic as to presume anything anyone is saying could possibly get through.There is no glass celing for women in irish politics for women, the number of women in politics v's men is proportional to the number of women that seek jobs in politics and work as hard and as long to get there v's that of men.
If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know you were repeating what I and others have already stated - although we somehow managed to do so in a less hysterical, dispassionate manner.Quotas are designed by a radical feminists for radical feminists to circumvent and subvert democracy, Conservative feminists and non feminist women are not included and Labour party feminist quotas resulted in a glut of radical women in the Labour party and they have committed various well publicized frauds, deceptions and lobby for legal injustice against men. (see links I provided).
Still awaiting the sources for that - first it was a glut of radical feminists in the labour government magically independently passing legislation, now it's female only labour politicians committing frauds, deceptions and legal injustice against men - do you have any sources other than a conservative american politician and a trashy tabloid to back up your assertions because repeating them while still refusing to provide respectable sources is making your arguments look foot-stompingly infantile.Go to www.saveindianfamily.org to see the same pattern happening in India.
There are women's groups campaigning against men and anti-female legislation or legislative proposals just as there are men's groups campaigning against women and anti-male legislation/legislative proposals. I'm not sure why you think presenting one half of that fact equates to a well presented and balanced argument. I would much rather be in the rational middle ground looking for equal rights and legal protection for everyone rather than looking cock-eyed at a complicated situation; putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with an enraged 5.My "vitrolic resentment of women"
when all else fails, go with a false accusation of misogyny. I know these arguments backwards. What next, wife beating and rape?
Look back over your posts, your language, your tone and the way you present your points compared with everyone else - can you see a difference? You have steadfastly avoided answering the questions put to you on this thread while demanding everyone else follow your postings on other threads. You have cherry-picked replies that you found easier to respond to and repeatedly padded out your replies with over-emotional non sequiturs and deductive fallacy after deductive fallacy to the point that any logical point you may have been trying to reach is rendered impotent.
As KOtJ states, you take a group of politicians who refer to themselves as feminists and fallaciously try to pin legislative moves that are debated and passed by a majority male house of commons as the actions of radical feminists - which is nothing short of paranoid fantasy. You demand democratic election of politicians while demanding that feminists should be kept out of government - a complete contradiction, made more absurd by citing a female politician democratically elected continuously for nearly 20 years as the epitome of all that is evilly undemocratic.
Okay, that really is my last. I would respectfully suggest you read up on both debate methodology and source provision - and would also make the observation that sometimes when it's everyone else, it's worth looking a bit closer to home. All the best. :cool:0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »Source? It's exactly these unsubstantiated claims of truth-hood that make your posts look like nothing more than hyperbolic flimflammery. You say X, Y or Z as if it were fact, provide no source of evidence as to where you got the information to make such a claim and then blame everyone else for refusing to get involved in debating such subjective allegories with you.
It's also why your posts sound so irrational - claiming that feminist education is provided in a womb? What does that even mean? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds and how such dismissive, fallacious and emotive language regarding any topic immediately renders it's claimant as biased and prejudicial, especially when espousing such nuggets without providing any verifiable evidence to back up the specific claims being made. If you claim feminism is taught in a womb then you need to show how you reached that conclusion and provide evidence to convince everyone else you are making the claim with good authority and balanced consideration and not lashing out with emotionally driven illogicality.
I thought you might - when all else fails in defining something the way you want it to, change the definition.
Source? Again, without sources it is just politicised personal ramblings. By well publicised are you referring to the Daily Mail again?
You don't view an andocentric movement that relies on female subordination and males as the primary authority figure and subjugators as being a hate movement - a movement that is inherently unequal and unjust between the sexes proposal male dominance and female subservience and yet you think radical feminism which would seek to have female dominance and male subjugation is wicked and terrible - and you can't see why you may look irrational or blindly vitriolic? Seriously now?
I was never so optimistic as to presume anything anyone is saying could possibly get through.
If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know you were repeating what I and others have already stated - although we somehow managed to do so in a less hysterical, dispassionate manner.
Still awaiting the sources for that - first it was a glut of radical feminists in the labour government magically independently passing legislation, now it's female only labour politicians committing frauds, deceptions and legal injustice against men - do you have any sources other than a conservative american politician and a trashy tabloid to back up your assertions because repeating them while still refusing to provide respectable sources is making your arguments look foot-stompingly infantile.
There are women's groups campaigning against men and anti-female legislation or legislative proposals just as there are men's groups campaigning against women and anti-male legislation/legislative proposals. I'm not sure why you think presenting one half of that fact equates to a well presented and balanced argument. I would much rather be in the rational middle ground looking for equal rights and legal protection for everyone rather than looking cock-eyed at a complicated situation; putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with an enraged 5.
Look back over your posts, your language, your tone and the way you present your points compared with everyone else - can you see a difference? You have steadfastly avoided answering the questions put to you on this thread while demanding everyone else follow your postings on other threads. You have cherry-picked replies that you found easier to respond to and repeatedly padded out your replies with over-emotional non sequiturs and deductive fallacy after deductive fallacy to the point that any logical point you may have been trying to reach is rendered impotent.
As KOtJ states, you take a group of politicians who refer to themselves as feminists and fallaciously try to pin legislative moves that are debated and passed by a majority male house of commons as the actions of radical feminists - which is nothing short of paranoid fantasy. You demand democratic election of politicians while demanding that feminists should be kept out of government - a complete contradiction, made more absurd by citing a female politician democratically elected continuously for nearly 20 years as the epitome of all that is evilly undemocratic.
Okay, that really is my last. I would respectfully suggest you read up on both debate methodology and source provision - and would also make the observation that sometimes when it's everyone else, it's worth looking a bit closer to home. All the best. :cool:
Im not going to go through all that.
I will answer this
"claiming that feminist education is provided in a womb? What does that even mean?"
It means, as I said there is no peer review outside of the ideology, like having Christian creationism sciences reviewed by creationists only.
Ive backed up all my original assertions about labour quotas, the deceptions and frauds and legal inequalities. I think that you should accept that and move on. There is more to this thread and conversation than you repeatedly going after me caliming that I didnt back up what I said when I did.
Now your friends are moving to ban me if is don't stop countering your claims and pointing out your fallacious arguments.
If I re-publish my original statements about labour gov, quotas and the frauds along with the sources, can you just move on and accept them because this has being going on for pages and its nothing but harassment because I provided sources for information that you didn't like.
or
we delete our four pages of my defending myself from your false assertions and fallacious arguments.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement