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

The equality that equality campaigners do not seek

Options
  • 27-11-2012 3:19am
    #1
    donfers
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭


    every day it seems the media is bombarded with righteous stories about how women should get greater representation in this area or that area - quotas for politicians, quotas for boardroom representation, demands for a set number of hours of broadcasting for women's sports, i even read an article last Sunday asking for a quota on the number of women appearing on tv - it's a bandwagon, it's popular and when this happens no matter how outrageous or illogical the demand, those who propose it know that

    a) they will not be critiqued

    because

    b) if they are critiqued then they can make the ad hominem accusation that the critic is sexist/misogynist/chauvinist etc etc

    it's a tiresome old pattern that is repeated ad nauseum

    anyway getting to the point, my main beef with the equality campaigners is the cherry-picking nature of their "equality" drive which of course, is not really about genuine equality at all, but rather about self privilege and self-serving avarice which insidiously hides itself under the equality mask so that it cannot be challenged - it is simply a toxic cocktail

    there are countless examples

    but a quick one

    the noise you hear in the media is all about quotas for female politicians and female bums on boardroom seats - how many trees have been cut down in the name of garbage propoganda articles written on these very topics.......

    yet I have not seen one article, one magazine column, one tv interview, one soundbite, one tiny little media snippet from any "equality" campaigner asking why 97% of deaths in the workplace are sustained by men

    why no massive media whorefest asking for more female representation as miners, electrical power line installers, iron and steel workers, mountain or sea rescue workers, farmers, roofers, loggers, fishermen, bomb disposal workers, riot police, garbage disposal workers, heavy machinery operators etc etc.?

    these jobs are kind of important I suppose, in terms of i don't know like, making life possible and liveable and convenient and comfortable for all of us

    I mean if we are truly for equality why not make some noise about more representation for women there?

    I know of course there are the usual societal and complex socio-political issues to overcome, blah blah blah but the equality campaigners love banging on about this stuff yet are strangely silent on these kinds of jobs despite the extremely low female representation

    it's a real mystery to me, one would be tempted to think that we need to create a new oxymoron to cater for this trend

    let's call it "selective equality" and thus their central argument is undermined at source

    Do you agree?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    They don't, because they'd have to admit a woman would require a genuine interest to pursue such career paths as well as to be successful in them. An argument which would be used to counter the quotas they are looking for.

    There is nothing to stop someone from pursuing a career once they have demonstrated an ability in it.

    There's plenty of women presenters on Irish TV along with women interviewed from "on the street" segments and around voting periods. But I've never considered that a win for equality/women's rights. Just a progression of society that isn't judging on gender.


  • Options
    #3
    fly_agaric
    Registered Users Posts: 4,809 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    donfers wrote: »
    it's a real mystery to me, one would be tempted to think that we need to create a new oxymoron to cater for this trend

    let's call it "selective equality" and thus their central argument is undermined at source

    There's no mystery imo. The people doing the campaigning are interested in women's representation in the careers/positions with the largest impact on society as feminism is basically a political movement. They focus on political or financial power (so focus on % of govt. ministers, politicians, company owners, ceos, directors etc). More recently there's been a focus on science and technology careers because it is now more obvious to everyone how much of an impact these areas have on society. They are seen as another nexus of power.
    These dangerous jobs you mention, all are vital and some are specialist and highly skilled so very well paid, but there's not much power and influence there, so any under-representation of women is not as big an issue for feminist campaigners.


  • Options
    #4
    Emeraldy Pebbles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 787 ✭✭✭Emeraldy Pebbles


    donfers wrote: »
    why no massive media whorefest asking for more female representation as miners, electrical power line installers, iron and steel workers, mountain or sea rescue workers, farmers, roofers, loggers, fishermen, bomb disposal workers, riot police, garbage disposal workers, heavy machinery operators etc etc.?

    these jobs are kind of important I suppose, in terms of i don't know like, making life possible and liveable and convenient and comfortable for all of us

    I mean if we are truly for equality why not make some noise about more representation for women there?

    I don't agree with making noise about reaching quotas of women, minorities etc. in any arena. Not in politics, not in any of the profession you listed above, nowhere. Meritocracy is where it's at. So, if more men are attracted to the list of dangerous jobs you gave, so be it! There's nothing stopping women going for them and I'm sure a small amount do, but there's nothing that can be done about the fact that more men seem to go for them. And for some of them, physical strength is important, and this is something that in general men have more of.

    If you don't agree with there being calls for quotas in the areas often bleated about in the media, then you shouldn't want quotas in any profession.

    I'm not sure what's wrong with featuring more women's sports on TV though. :confused:


  • Options
    #5
    heathersonline
    Registered Users Posts: 699 ✭✭✭heathersonline


    Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

    I don't agree with making noise about reaching quotas of women, minorities etc. in any arena. Not in politics, not in any of the profession you listed above, nowhere. Meritocracy is where it's at. So, if more men are attracted to the list of dangerous jobs you gave, so be it! There's nothing stopping women going for them and I'm sure a small amount do, but there's nothing that can be done about the fact that more men seem to go for them. And for some of them, physical strength is important, and this is something that in general men have more of.

    If you don't agree with there being calls for quotas in the areas often bleated about in the media, then you shouldn't want quotas in any profession.

    I'm not sure what's wrong with featuring more women's sports on TV though. :confused:

    If there's a genuine market and appetite for more women's sports on tv then by all means go for it. But don't pour licence fee payers money into it in the name of equality only to realise that no one watches, no advertising revenue generated etc, which I suspect might be the case


  • Options
    #6
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,875 ✭✭✭iptba


    donfers wrote: »
    every day it seems the media is bombarded with righteous stories about how women should get greater representation in this area or that area - quotas for politicians, quotas for boardroom representation, demands for a set number of hours of broadcasting for women's sports, i even read an article last Sunday asking for a quota on the number of women appearing on tv - it's a bandwagon, it's popular and when this happens no matter how outrageous or illogical the demand, those who propose it know that

    a) they will not be critiqued

    because

    b) if they are critiqued then they can make the ad hominem accusation that the critic is sexist/misogynist/chauvinist etc etc

    it's a tiresome old pattern that is repeated ad nauseum

    anyway getting to the point, my main beef with the equality campaigners is the cherry-picking nature of their "equality" drive which of course, is not really about genuine equality at all, but rather about self privilege and self-serving avarice which insidiously hides itself under the equality mask so that it cannot be challenged - it is simply a toxic cocktail

    there are countless examples

    but a quick one

    the noise you hear in the media is all about quotas for female politicians and female bums on boardroom seats - how many trees have been cut down in the name of garbage propoganda articles written on these very topics.......

    yet I have not seen one article, one magazine column, one tv interview, one soundbite, one tiny little media snippet from any "equality" campaigner asking why 97% of deaths in the workplace are sustained by men

    why no massive media whorefest asking for more female representation as miners, electrical power line installers, iron and steel workers, mountain or sea rescue workers, farmers, roofers, loggers, fishermen, bomb disposal workers, riot police, garbage disposal workers, heavy machinery operators etc etc.?

    these jobs are kind of important I suppose, in terms of i don't know like, making life possible and liveable and convenient and comfortable for all of us

    I mean if we are truly for equality why not make some noise about more representation for women there?

    I know of course there are the usual societal and complex socio-political issues to overcome, blah blah blah but the equality campaigners love banging on about this stuff yet are strangely silent on these kinds of jobs despite the extremely low female representation

    it's a real mystery to me, one would be tempted to think that we need to create a new oxymoron to cater for this trend

    let's call it "selective equality" and thus their central argument is undermined at source

    Do you agree?
    I remember hearing a rare outspoken guest on a BBC Radio Five Live discussion use the phrase, "Lies, damned lies and feminist statistics". Although, to be fair, it could possibly/probably be said about campaigners on many/most issues: the problem is, as you point out, that the points don't get rigorously assessed. If only one side, the defense or plaintiff, was represented in courts, the decision would much more often go to that side than it does currently: two sides are needed to get to the heart of issues. Also, as you point out, equality campaigners may not be a good term for them as they clearly are interested in one group.

    With regard to jobs, I'm amazed how little it is mentioned that pay isn't the only way to assess employment. Other metrics such as the danger one is exposed to are important. Basically, jobs have "pay and conditions".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    I personally don't know any women who are in favour of quotas and so-called "affirmative action" (where women or minorities are given priority).

    It's insulting, to be honest. If I am offered a job, I want to know I got it because I'm the most qualified and the best fit with the team. I would hate to think I would be hired over a more qualified man just so the company can look enlightened. I can do it without government "helping" me. If it's the case that a company would pass me over because I'm a woman, I wouldn't want to work for them anyway.

    The problem isn't generally the hiring system, it's the education system. Some subjects are still seen as "male subjects" and "female subjects". So, you end up with a skewed gender balance in certain areas.


Advertisement