Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

Reward · 19-12-2010 3:08am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, no I'm not aware, enlighten me please. It's a simple question to a specific claim you made - if you can't support the claim then stop being intellectually dishonest - verging on paranoid fantasy land - and retract it.

No, I won't be doing that because of your tone and you're being deliberately obtuse, if not get on google and find out who the labour women were behind the move to have womens prisons shut down or follow up on one of the other examples I gave you.

73% of the women in the recent New Labour government are feminists http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/PONL0263-3957~21~3~149/149.pdf

Quotas in gov. usually mean positions for radical feminists and radical feminists represent the views of a tiny minority and seek to represent women as opposed to the people.

Ickle Magoo · 19-12-2010 10:27am

You are still quite deliberately shirking away from answering a very simple question based on the specific claims that you brought to this discussion. If you make the claim the onus is on you to support that claim, instead you are embarrassing yourself by insisting I research the claim you made.

If offering up a single hastily snatched paper from 2001 in which a number of female politicians identify themselves as feminists (proponents of sexual equality) and beyond your own hysterical gibbering there is no mention of "radical" anything is the best you can do when making outlandish hyperbolic claims about female politicians in the Ladies Lounge, kindly refrain from posting.

Reward · 19-12-2010 12:52pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You are still quite deliberately shirking away from answering a very simple question based on the specific claims that you brought to this discussion. If you make the claim the onus is on you to support that claim, instead you are embarrassing yourself by insisting I research the claim you made.

If offering up a single hastily snatched paper from 2001 in which a number of female politicians identify themselves as feminists (proponents of sexual equality) and beyond your own hysterical gibbering there is no mention of "radical" anything is the best you can do when making outlandish hyperbolic claims about female politicians in the Ladies Lounge, kindly refrain from posting.

Ickle Magoo

Thats twice now you have tried to use, "if you don't fulfill x goal for me than y is invalid", you claim Ive embarrassed myself by publishing a source thats backs up what I said and you are making veiled personal attacks and threats of censorship. You are demonstrating another reason why I think that feminists should not be in gov.in influential numbers- the over reliance on fallacious arguments.

Look, a quick goggle revealed the media embarrassing itself by reporting facts and outlandish hyperbole..

Quotas that have benefited mainly feminists

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvon/2010/09/labour-mps-vote-to-enforce-31-quota-of-women-for-shadow-cabinet/

Move to shut down female prisons

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6444961.stm

Sex trafficking fraud

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227418/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-The-myth-Britains-foreign-sex-slaves.html

Low rape conviction rate fraud

http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/how-panic-over-rape-was-orchestrated

Wage gap fraud

http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/gender-inequality-its-jungle-out-there

Feel free to make irrational arguments - attack the source, move the goal posts, personal attack .. you know yourself.

Lockstep · 19-12-2010 1:10pm

Reward wrote: »

No, I won't be doing that because of your tone and you're being deliberately obtuse, if not get on google and find out who the labour women were behind the move to have womens prisons shut down or follow up on one of the other examples I gave you.

73% of the women in the recent New Labour government are feminists http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/PONL0263-3957~21~3~149/149.pdf

Quotas in gov. usually mean positions for radical feminists and radical feminists represent the views of a tiny minority and seek to represent women as opposed to the people.

Feminism and radical feminism are completely separate things. If 73% of politicians are feminists, that's great (although ideally it would be 100%)
If 73% are radical feminists that's a bit dodgy.

Ickle Magoo · 19-12-2010 1:13pm

Oh goody, generic googled sources and the daily mail, no less - none of which mention anything regarding that glut of female politicians acting improperly...and then the hilariously ironic accusation that others are using fallacious argument. :pac:

Reward, to further embarrass yourself and to ensure I don't write your posts off as rabid misogynistic hyperbole once and for all - perhaps you could read a source of my own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Reward · 19-12-2010 1:26pm

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Feminism and radical feminism are completely separate things. If 73% of politicians are feminists, that's great (although ideally it would be 100%)
If 73% are radical feminists that's a bit dodgy.

Yeah, a section of the labour gov. is openly hostile to the rights of men. Another controversial move was undoing the crime of passion defense in spousal murder for men while introducing a spousal homicide defense for women that can be used if she claims that she "felt fear". No evidence is necessary or actual physical abuse has to have taken place to use the defense.

Sorry about the source (daily mail) there is a bit about that and other bigoted policies that labour feminism supports.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039445/Erin-Pizzey-champion-womens-rights-says-radical-feminist-plans-let-victims-domestic-abuse-away-murder-affront-morality.html

India has a quota system in place, 33% of gov seats are not going to a broad range of women, but radical feminists.

Ickle Magoo · 19-12-2010 1:39pm

Reward wrote: »

Yeah, a section of the labour gov. is openly hostile to the rights of men.

"The labour government"?

Hint: The UK doesn't have a labour government.

Reward · 19-12-2010 2:05pm

kickoutthejams wrote: »

. If 73% of politicians are feminists, that's great (although ideally it would be 100%)

If 3/3 of politicians are gynocentric and believe in myths like gendered abuse and so on it and would be great and if all politician were it would be ideal?

Thats like saying that we should a 100% catholic, scientologist or muslim government. Governments should be democratic and secular. We cant have governments that run on dogmatic ideology, we should resist that all costs. What you are talking about is a dictatorship.

Lockstep · 19-12-2010 2:25pm

Reward wrote: »

If 3/3 of politicians are gynocentric and believe in myths like gendered abuse and so on it and would be great and if all politician were it would be ideal?

Thats like saying that we should a 100% catholic, scientologist or muslim government. Governments should be democratic and secular. We cant have governments that run on dogmatic ideology, we should resist that all costs. What you are talking about is a dictatorship.

You really need to learn the difference between feminism and radical feminist.
I'm a male and a feminist. I'm not a radical feminist.

If 100% of government officials believe in the need for establishing and protecting the rights of women, are you honestly comparing that to them needing to be 100% Catholic or Muslim?

Lockstep · 19-12-2010 2:30pm

Reward wrote: »

Yeah, a section of the labour gov. is openly hostile to the rights of men. Another controversial move was undoing the crime of passion defense in spousal murder for men while introducing a spousal homicide defense for women that can be used if she claims that she "felt fear". No evidence is necessary or actual physical abuse has to have taken place to use the defense.

Sorry about the source (daily mail) there is a bit about that and other bigoted policies that labour feminism supports.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039445/Erin-Pizzey-champion-womens-rights-says-radical-feminist-plans-let-victims-domestic-abuse-away-murder-affront-morality.html

India has a quota system in place, 33% of gov seats are not going to a broad range of women, but radical feminists.

First of all, Labour aren't in government. the Tories/Liberals are.

Secondly, that's a section who believe in the *need* for protecting the rights of women. That doesn't mean a section believe that these need to be established at the expense of men. That's an extre e form of feminism.

Also; the Daily Mail? My personal favourite headline of theirs was "Asylum Seekers...living in our trees" when I read it in February. Then again, it was once a supporter of fascism so I still have little time for it.
At any rate did you notice it kept referencing "extreme feminism","radical feminism" and so on. Even the Daily Fail recognizes the distinction between 'feminism' and 'extreme feminism'.

For example, I believe in gay rights, that doesn't mean I want their rights at the expense of everyone else. But you seem to lump in everyone on the same political spectrum.

Reward · 19-12-2010 3:02pm

kickoutthejams wrote: »

First of all, Labour aren't in government. the Tories/Liberals are.

Secondly, that's a section who believe in the *need* for protecting the rights of women. That doesn't mean a section believe that these need to be established at the expense of men. That's an extre e form of feminism.

Also; the Daily Mail? My personal favourite headline of theirs was "Asylum Seekers...living in our trees" when I read it in February. Then again, it was once a supporter of fascism so I still have little time for it.
At any rate did you notice it kept referencing "extreme feminism","radical feminism" and so on. Even the Daily Fail recognizes the distinction between 'feminism' and 'extreme feminism'.

For example, I believe in gay rights, that doesn't mean I want their rights at the expense of everyone else. But you seem to lump in everyone on the same political spectrum.

I'm not lumping everyone in on the same political spectrum. When Im talking about keeping feminist bigotry out of government I'm not talking about you personally and women generally have more rights and services than men in the west.

I'm simply saying that there shouldn't be quotas (extreme feminism) and pointing to the fact that in other countries these quotas that are billed as being about getting equal representation for women have resulted in unequal representation for radical feminists and calls for the sort of legal inequality and human rights violations that we would expect to see only in muslim countries.

As for the daily mail. Even if the DM wasnt making a clear distinction between "feminism" and "extreme feminism" it wouldn't change the fact that ideological feminist bigots are imposing their dogma on the UK legal system and labour party quotas gives these bigots disproportionate political power that they are using to attack human and civil rights. Should we give quotas to Islamists because not all Islamlists are at the extreme end? No is the answer, if an Islamist wants to run and gets elected, thats fine but we shouldn't mandate that a glut of them accumulate power in politics.

We don't want or need quotas or feminists in power. We want democratically elected politicians to represent the interests of all.

Ickle Magoo · 19-12-2010 5:24pm

Reward wrote: »

I'm simply saying that there shouldn't be quotas (extreme feminism) and pointing to the fact that in other countries these quotas that are billed as being about getting equal representation for women have resulted in unequal representation for radical feminists and calls for the sort of legal inequality and human rights violations that we would expect to see only in muslim countries.

Suppose it's too much to request a source for this beyond the now familiar ignoratio elenchi?

And just how do you propose to marry:

Reward wrote: »

When Im talking about keeping feminist bigotry out of government

With

Reward wrote: »

We want democratically elected politicians to represent the interests of all.

Surely by definition democracy does not work by "keeping out" groups or people from politics. For instance, Harriet Harmen, the MP in your DM article has been duly elected by democratic process to return to represent her constituents since 1982.

Reward wrote: »

We don't want or need quotas or feminists in power.

Who's this "we" you refer to? Are you assuming to speak for Ireland or the world in general? This thread is/was a discussion about quotas for female politicians in Ireland; that is female politicians, women in politics - not carte blanch for extreme feminists. Worryingly, however, you appear to conflate all women with feminists and all feminists with dogmatic radical feminists.

Reward · 19-12-2010 5:45pm

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You really need to learn the difference between feminism and radical feminist.
I'm a male and a feminist. I'm not a radical feminist.

If 100% of government officials believe in the need for establishing and protecting the rights of women, are you honestly comparing that to them needing to be 100% Catholic or Muslim?

If thats the definition we are using the government is already 100% feminist, and anyway women on average in western countries tend to have more rights, legal advantages, services, education and access to money than men so why would we need a gov. thats 100% focused on women?

No, I'm not comparing protecting the rights of women or anyone else to catholicism and Islam, I'm comparing feminism to catholicism and islam.

You need to learn the difference between womens rights and feminism.

Ickle Magoo · 19-12-2010 5:51pm

Reward wrote: »

You need to learn the difference between womens rights and feminism.

Feminism refers to movements aimed at establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.[1][2][3] Its concepts overlap with those of women's rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

You are losing any credibility you brought to the table by blithely clinging onto your own warped definitions.

Reward · 19-12-2010 5:57pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Suppose it's too much to request a source for this beyond the now familiar ignoratio elenchi?

And just how do you propose to marry:

With

Surely by definition democracy does not work by "keeping out" groups or people from politics. For instance, Harriet Harmen, the MP in your DM article has been duly elected by democratic process to return to represent her constituents since 1982.

Who's this "we" you refer to? Are you assuming to speak for Ireland or the world in general? This thread is/was a discussion about quotas for female politicians in Ireland; that is female politicians, women in politics - not carte blanch for extreme feminists. Worryingly, however, you appear to conflate all women with feminists and all feminists with dogmatic radical feminists.

There are no glass celings for women in politics, quotas are undemocratic and a vehicle created by radical feminists for slotting radical feminists who would otherwise not be elected into power and legalizing discrimination.

I dont conflate all feminists with radical feminists, I like certain feminists, but they are ostracized from the sisterhood for not group thinking along with the sheep and saying the same sort of things that I do. I call gluts of radical feminists in power through quotas designed by radical feminists that are openly attacking human and civil rights ... gluts radical feminists in power through quotas designed by radical feminist that are openly attacking human and civil rights, among other things.

"but not all feminists are like that"

Quite right not all feminists are gluts radical feminists in power through quotas designed by radical feminist that are openly attacking human and civil rights.

Should we try and stop unelected bigots gaining power through quotas designed by bigots?

Yes.

If the electorate votes radical feminists into gov in the same what they do other people that fine. If radical feminist were wanted in power by the people, there would be no need for quotas, we would just vote them in.

Ickle Magoo · 19-12-2010 6:11pm

Reward wrote: »

...and a vehicle created by radical feminists for slotting radical feminists who would otherwise not be elected into power and legalizing discrimination.

Source?

Reward wrote: »

but they are ostracized from the sisterhood for not group thinking along with the sheep and saying the same sort of things that I do.

Source?

Reward wrote: »

I call gluts of radical feminists in power through quotas designed by radical feminists that are openly attacking human and civil rights ... gluts radical feminists in power through quotas designed by radical feminist that are openly attacking human and civil rights, among other things.

Still awaiting that list of the glut of UK female politicians and direct examples of the radical feminism that they are pushing...

Reward wrote: »

"but not all feminists are like that"

Quite right not all feminists are gluts radical feminists in power through quotas designed by radical feminist that are openly attacking human and civil rights

Source?

Reward wrote: »

Should we try and stop unelected bigots gaining power through quotas designed by bigots?

Yes.

If the electorate votes radical feminists into gov in the same what they do other people that fine. If radical feminist were wanted in power by the people, there would be no need for quotas, we would just vote them in.

Source, again? Your only named politician to date accused of such radicalism was democratically elected. Many posters, some female, on this very thread are against quotas but are able to make their point without resorting to embittered generalisations about women or women politicians.

Seriously Reward, you have to provide legitimate sources (ie not tabloid hacks) or random internet statistic sites to back up the claims you are making if you expect them to be taken seriously. When asked about quotas in irish politics you make unverified claims about UK politicians, when asked to address that claim you quote articles that make no mention of female politicians beyond those which are democratically elected and start making claims about politicians in other countries all the while repeating your own dogmatic mantras.

It's less credible debate and more tin-foil hat stuff at this stage.

Reward · 19-12-2010 6:20pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Source?

Source?

Still awaiting that list of the glut of UK female politicians and direct examples of the radical feminism that they are pushing...

Source?

Source, again? Your only named politician to date accused of such radicalism was democratically elected. Many posters, some female, on this very thread are against quotas but are able to make their point without resorting to embittered generalisations about women or women politicians.

Seriously Reward, you have to provide legitimate sources (ie not tabloid hacks) or random internet statistic sites to back up the claims you are making if you expect them to be taken seriously. When asked about quotas in irish politics you make unverified claims about UK politicians, when asked to address that claim you quote articles that make no mention of female politicians beyond those which are democratically elected and start making claims about politicians in other countries all the while repeating your own dogmatic mantras.

It's less credible debate and more tin-foil hat stuff at this stage.

You are not a credible debater, your thing is demanding sources, then ignoring them, then demanding sources again and personal attacks, and little else. An ideologue doggedly supporting the party line.

Stheno · 19-12-2010 6:31pm

Reward wrote: »

You are not a credible debater, your thing is demanding sources, then ignoring them, then demanding sources again and personal attacks, and little else. An ideologue doggedly supporting the party line.

But you are unable to back up your claims regarding radical feminists etc and it makes some of your points non sensical.

E.g. If as you say

gluts of radical feminists in power through quotas designed by radical feminists that are openly attacking human and civil rights ... gluts radical feminists in power through quotas designed by radical feminist

do actually exist, how do they manage to force these "quotas" through in parties which are mostly a majority of men?

The radical feminists can't change the rules or implement quotas without party support, both male and female.

Ickle Magoo · 19-12-2010 6:38pm

Reward wrote: »

You are not a credible debater, your thing is demanding sources, then ignoring them, then demanding sources again and personal attacks, and little else. An ideologue doggedly supporting the party line.

The problem being, you haven't provided credible sources for the questions posed to you in order to have intelligent debate. You have desperately plucked tabloid articles and random internet stat site articles on what you perceive to be a move by a glut of female politicians - ignoring the fact that the source you were asked for was to support the claim that;

a glut of ideology driven feminist women in government like in the UK

Baring in mind you don't appear to know what party currently governs the UK and seem content to post decade old articles and tabloid head-liners as relevant and convincing sources always accompanied by the "radical feminist" drum banging, it's difficult to see any serious point being made.

There appears, to me at least, to be little of substance in your posts beyond an inherent dislike of female politicians and any politics or politicians that would seek to benefit women in general.

Reward · 19-12-2010 6:40pm

Stheno wrote: »

But you are unable to back up your claims regarding radical feminists etc and it makes some of your points non sensical.

E.g. If as you say do actually exist, how do they manage to force these "quotas" through in parties which are mostly a majority of men?

The radical feminists can't change the rules or implement quotas with party support, both male and female.

Not true go back through the thread and see the sources I provided. Here is Phyllis Schlaflys op on quotas in india.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2010/08/18/the_feminist_left_goes_global_on_our_money

Challange

Demonstrate how political quotas are not mainly for radical feminists to circumvent democracy, show me on international example of quotas for women that were not mainly about slotting women of a certain political pov (radical feminism) into power, show a liberal or Conservative feminist that supports quotas.

There is no glass ceiling is Irish politics and radical feminist designed quotas serve to get extremists that otherwise wouldn't be elected into power.
The only feminists that support quotas are extremists themselves and the naive that believe that its all just about fairness.

Stheno · 19-12-2010 6:47pm

Reward wrote: »

Not true go back through the thread and see the sources I provided. Here is Phyllis Schlaflys op on quotas in india.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2010/08/18/the_feminist_left_goes_global_on_our_money

Challange

Demonstrate how political quotas are not mainly for radical feminists to circumvent democracy, show me on international example of quotas for women that were not mainly about slotting women of a certain political pov (radical feminism) into power, show a liberal or Conservative feminist that supports quotas.

There is no glass ceiling is Irish politics and radical feminist designed quotas serve to get extremists that otherwise wouldn't be elected into power.
The only feminists that support quotas are extremists themselves.

I was referring to your posts in relation to women politicians in the UK Labour Government

Why not take up the challenge yourself and demonstrate valid sources to back up your claims?

Ickle Magoo · 19-12-2010 6:54pm

Townhall.com is a web-based publication primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townhall.com

Phyllis McAlpin Stewart Schlafly ( /ˈfɪlɪs ˈʃlæfli/; born August 15, 1924) is a politically conservative American activist and constitutional attorney known for her opposition to feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

Is that what passes for unbiased source unlikely to be pushing a prejudicial agenda these days?

Reward · 19-12-2010 7:13pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The problem being, you haven't provided credible sources for the questions posed to you in order to have intelligent debate. You have desperately plucked tabloid articles and random internet stat site articles on what you perceive to be a move by a glut of female politicians - ignoring the fact that the source you were asked for was to support the claim that;

Baring in mind you don't appear to know what party currently governs the UK and seem content to post decade old articles and tabloid head-liners as relevant and convincing sources always accompanied by the "radical feminist" drum banging, it's difficult to see any serious point being made.

There appears, to me at least, to be little of substance in your posts beyond an inherent dislike of female politicians and any politics or politicians that would seek to benefit women in general.

Just no, this is typical feminist, logical fallacy and misrepresentation of what was said and posted. You argument above is constructed out of attacking the sources, implying that the date a study was published invalidates the information it contains and framing me as being against women, saying that http://www.straightstatistics.org/about-us is just a random site and little else presented in an angry and unconvincing condescending tone. You cant debate, you can only use logical fallacy and I'm better sourced.

So perhaps you can start providing sources yourself.

Show me a reasonable % of woman that are not aligned with radical or left wing feminism that has gained from political quotas.

Or even some liberal or moderate feminists that support quotas...

Lockstep · 19-12-2010 7:26pm

Reward wrote: »

If thats the definition we are using the government is already 100% feminist, and anyway women on average in western countries tend to have more rights, legal advantages, services, education and access to money than men so why would we need a gov. thats 100% focused on women?

No, I'm not comparing protecting the rights of women or anyone else to catholicism and Islam, I'm comparing feminism to catholicism and islam.

You need to learn the difference between womens rights and feminism.

If you believe in women's rights then you are a feminist.

Noone is saying that a government needs to 'focus' on women, but as women are the majority of population, the government needs to keep their problems and tribulations in mind.

That's not *my* definition of feminism. It's an objective definition of feminism, which you seem utterly unable to distinguish from extreme feminism.

Lockstep · 19-12-2010 7:36pm

Reward wrote: »

I'm not lumping everyone in on the same political spectrum. When Im talking about keeping feminist bigotry out of government I'm not talking about you personally and women generally have more rights and services than men in the west.

Yes you are. You keep complaining about feminism and feminists without making the distinction between feminism and extreme feminism.

For example, I believe that fathers should have more access to their children (a form of male rights) as would members of the Taliban. And yet, the Taliban are misogynists and I am not. While our views form the same spectrum (men's rights) there is a difference between the extremists and moderate.

Reward wrote: »

I'm simply saying that there shouldn't be quotas (extreme feminism) and pointing to the fact that in other countries these quotas that are billed as being about getting equal representation for women have resulted in unequal representation for radical feminists and calls for the sort of legal inequality and human rights violations that we would expect to see only in muslim countries.

I fully agree; I don't support gender quotas either.
Are you *honestly* saying that the legal inequality in places like Scandinavia are what we expect to see in Muslim countries?
I have a newfound pity for my Swedish neighbour, who must have been subjected to genital mutilation, forbidden from attending school and gets flogged for being raped.

Reward wrote: »

As for the daily mail. Even if the DM wasnt making a clear distinction between "feminism" and "extreme feminism" it wouldn't change the fact that ideological feminist bigots are imposing their dogma on the UK legal system and labour party quotas gives these bigots disproportionate political power that they are using to attack human and civil rights. Should we give quotas to Islamists because not all Islamlists are at the extreme end? No is the answer, if an Islamist wants to run and gets elected, thats fine but we shouldn't mandate that a glut of them accumulate power in politics.

Yes it did. It made numerous references to "extreme feminism" rather than say feminism was inherently wrong.
Again, I don't support gender quotas either.

Reward wrote: »

We don't want or need quotas or feminists in power. We want democratically elected politicians to represent the interests of all.

Yes, I don't support gender quotas either. However, if a politician represents everyones interests, then they will be a feminist which you seem to think involves a hatred of men.

Ickle Magoo · 19-12-2010 7:42pm

Reward wrote: »

Just no, this is typical feminist, logical fallacy and misrepresentation of what was said and posted. You argument above is constructed out of attacking the sources, implying that the date a study was published invalidates the information it contains and framing me as being against women, saying that http://www.straightstatistics.org/about-us is just a random site and little else presented in an angry and unconvincing condescending tone. You cant debate, you can only use logical fallacy and I'm better sourced.

Using crass generalisations such as "typical feminist" yet again completely ignoring the points I'm making while suggesting anyone else is presenting in an angry, unconvincing or condescending tone is frankly laughable.

See, this is where you start to loose credibility again; I'm repeating points and requests made by several posters now - of both genders. You were clearly asked for a source to a point you made about female politicians in the UK government - you provided a paper from ten years ago based on what is now the opposition party - I wonder if you could tell me how many of the female politicians in such a paper would be in politics today, how many are one of these radical feminists you keep referring to, far less swapped parties and are currently in government? Surely not a glut?

You also provided a tabloid article regarding a politician that has been returned to the house in a democratic election since 1982 and various statistics articles which mention nothing more that generic policies and objectives that would first have to be agreed and passed by a majority male house of commons.

Likewise with references to other countries - cries of radical feminism without source thrown in on the back of a daily mail article. Questioning your sources or your methods of supporting claims is hardly rocket science.

Reward wrote: »

So perhaps you can start providing sources yourself instead if this

show me a reasonable % of woman that are not aligned with radical or left wing feminism that has gained from political quotas.

Or even some liberal or moderate feminists that support quotas...

Stop trying to move the goal-posts, the discussion in general and to ice the cake have everyone else do your homework - you made the claim - the onus is on you to prove to me that what you claimed is fact, though I would suggest the difficulty you are having in providing suitable sources for the actual points you are making is evidence aplenty for their non-existance.

By the bye, I fail to see how anti-feminist politicians in conservative america pushing their own agenda are any different to any other political motivation driving a politician and the policies they propose...other than in the apparent esteem you hold them in, of course.

Reward · 19-12-2010 8:02pm

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If you believe in women's rights then you are a feminist.

Noone is saying that a government needs to 'focus' on women, but as women are the majority of population, the government needs to keep their problems and tribulations in mind.

That's not *my* definition of feminism. It's an objective definition of feminism, which you seem utterly unable to distinguish from extreme feminism.

That's a very broad definition of feminism. And if we use that definition we already have a 100% feminist government in which there are obviously no glass ceilings for women. Feminism is a gynocentric, it keeps the "trials and tribulations of women in mind" only and it contains misandric beliefs, gendered domestic abuse for example, feminism protects certain abusers and oppresses certain abuse victims by playing down their existence, which is a pretty serious crime in my book.

Its also not entirely true and its often used as a rhetorical trick and fallacy by feminists in debate. eg.

"I disagree with radical feminist bigot X"

"Oh so you are against women's rights, because feminism is about the rights of women therefore you hate women etc"

also

the idea that only people that align themselves with feminism can support the rights of women is nonsense. Thats like saying only Nazis supported the rights of german people, or only one religion holds the correct path to god or whatever.

Take me for example, I believe in equal human rights for all, that includes women but not the exclusion of or expense of other groups, I don't see women as a priority that makes me what feminists call "anti feminist".

Stheno · 19-12-2010 8:12pm

Reward wrote: »

That's a very broad definition of feminism. And if we use that definition we already have a 100% feminist government in which there are obviously no glass ceilings for women. Feminism is a gynocentric, it keeps the "trials and tribulations of women in mind" only and it contains misandric beliefs, gendered domestic abuse for example, feminism protects certain abusers and oppresses certain abuse victims by playing down their existence, which is a pretty serious crime in my book.

Its also not entirely true and its often used as a rhetorical trick and fallacy by feminists in debate. eg.

"I disagree with radical feminist bigot X"

"Oh so you are against women's rights, because feminism is about the rights of women therefore you hate women etc"

also

the idea that only people that align themselves with feminism can support the rights of women is nonsense. Thats like saying only Nazis supported the rights of german people, or only one religion holds the correct path to god or whatever.

I think you've completely missed KOTJ's point that if a belief in women's rights is feminist. Nowhere did he say that 100% of the government are feminist. And yet again you seem to have completely failed to differentiate against feminism versus radical/extreme feminism.

Finally one of the tenets of feminism is that supporting the equal rights of women is feminist, one does not need to align onself with feminism to do so, but can be percieved/seen to be feminist in supporting womens rights to equality.

Reward · 19-12-2010 8:22pm

Stheno wrote: »

I think you've completely missed KOTJ's point that if a belief in women's rights is feminist. Nowhere did he say that 100% of the government are feminist. And yet again you seem to have completely failed to differentiate against feminism versus radical/extreme feminism.

No you are missing the point.

According to his definition of a feminist, someone that believes in womens rights, we to the best of my knowledge have a 100% feminist government, as its very unlikely that we have politicians that don't believe in womens rights so by his standards, we already has a 100% feminist government.

But, as feminism is a political movement and the definition that he gave us is an obvious fallacy, because the majority of non feminists, egalitarians and anti feminists also believe in womens rights, we in reality don't have a 100% feminist gov, nor should we.

Reward · 19-12-2010 9:05pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Using crass generalisations such as "typical feminist" yet again completely ignoring the points I'm making while suggesting anyone else is presenting in an angry, unconvincing or condescending tone is frankly laughable.

See, this is where you start to loose credibility again; I'm repeating points and requests made by several posters now - of both genders. You were clearly asked for a source to a point you made about female politicians in the UK government - you provided a paper from ten years ago based on what is now the opposition party - I wonder if you could tell me how many of the female politicians in such a paper would be in politics today, how many are one of these radical feminists you keep referring to, far less swapped parties and are currently in government? Surely not a glut?

You also provided a tabloid article regarding a politician that has been returned to the house in a democratic election since 1982 and various statistics articles which mention nothing more that generic policies and objectives that would first have to be agreed and passed by a majority male house of commons.

Likewise with references to other countries - cries of radical feminism without source thrown in on the back of a daily mail article. Questioning your sources or your methods of supporting claims is hardly rocket science.

Stop trying to move the goal-posts, the discussion in general and to ice the cake have everyone else do your homework - you made the claim - the onus is on you to prove to me that what you claimed is fact, though I would suggest the difficulty you are having in providing suitable sources for the actual points you are making is evidence aplenty for their non-existance.

By the bye, I fail to see how anti-feminist politicians in conservative america pushing their own agenda are any different to any other political motivation driving a politician and the policies they propose...other than in the apparent esteem you hold them in, of course.

LOL

You are an ideologue. Any convoluted source that confirms your belief system is valid and any one that doesn't is not and should be silenced.

Quotas are an example of extreme feminism. Moderate and liberal feminists don't support them, quotas are created by radical feminists and quotas are what are used to get extremists into politics. Rational women that chose to go into politics use the same channels as men and don't need quotas to circumvent democracy.

All sources that I posted on the over representation of feminists in Labour via quotas, their various well publicized frauds and deceptions and bigoted legislation are valid. Radical feminists should run for elections and compete like everyone else, if they need quotas, the electorate have already spoken.

Reward · 19-12-2010 9:37pm

If we have a group in society that say for example, con the public into believing that domestic abuse is gendered and support an apartheid system for abuse victims and legislate accordingly they should be on that one basis alone a no-no for automatic positions of power in democratic governments.

The research on family abuse that is not carried out by feminists indicates that women commit at least half of spousal abuse and most of the child abuse, a political organisation that denies that reality for political, financial and ideological reasons should IMO be sidelined by the rest of us and certainly not be given automatic positions of power.

A belief is patriarchal abuse theory is like a belief in creationism, our governments and systems should be secular and free from magical thinking.

Ickle Magoo · 20-12-2010 1:31am

Reward wrote: »

LOL

You are an ideologue. Any convoluted source that confirms your belief system is valid and any one that doesn't is not and should be silenced.

That sounds remarkably like your own view on "radical" feminists rather than anything I've suggested.

Reward wrote: »

Quotas are an example of extreme feminism. Moderate and liberal feminists don't support them, quotas are created by radical feminists and quotas are what are used to get extremists into politics. Rational women that chose to go into politics use the same channels as men and don't need quotas to circumvent democracy.

Quotas could not be introduced without being passed by a majority of male politicians - I appreciate you like nothing more than foaming at the mouth while chanting feminism but debate in the Dáil means between both male and female politicians - if gender quotas are brought into other political establishments it is not magically done by radical feminists sneaking in to the chambers and passing law when everyone else is in bed. This idea that women and feminists are the sole proponents of evil gender quotas is just complete fallacy - the polls even show that the majority of female TD's object to gender quotas.

Reward wrote: »

All sources that I posted on the over representation of feminists in Labour via quotas, their various well publicized frauds and deceptions and bigoted legislation are valid. Radical feminists should run for elections and compete like everyone else, if they need quotas, the electorate have already spoken.

Could you highlight to me the parts of your sources - not including tabloid sensationalism - that show female politicians are radical feminists and are entirely responsible for "frauds and deceptions and bigoted legislation" without the input from the rest of the house - I'd be fascinated to see how they did it.

Reward · 20-12-2010 1:56am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That sounds remarkably like your own view on "radical" feminists rather than anything I've suggested.

Quotas could not be introduced without being passed by a majority of male politicians - I appreciate you like nothing more than foaming at the mouth while chanting feminism but debate in the Dáil means between both male and female politicians - if gender quotas are brought into other political establishments it is not magically done by radical feminists sneaking in to the chambers and passing law when everyone else is in bed. This idea that women and feminists are the sole proponents of evil gender quotas is just complete fallacy - the polls even show that the majority of female TD's object to gender quotas.

Could you highlight to me the parts of your sources - not including tabloid sensationalism - that show female politicians are radical feminists and are entirely responsible for "frauds and deceptions and bigoted legislation" without the input from the rest of the house - I'd be fascinated to see how they did it.

Well this is just moving the goal posts and passing the book, every one of your rebuttals has been a logical fallacy of one sort or another.

What is this latest one? Unless I can prove that only radical feminists and radical feminist alone were involved in the various feminist frauds, deceptions and bigoted legislation that the labour party instigated rather than them just being the source, my points are invalid and if an action is reported in a tabloid it didn't really happen and even though your position is that weak that fallacies are making up the bulk of your response and I'm clearly better sourced, you keep shifting the burden of proof on to me.

You can see more details on feminist instigated fraud and deception that lead to bigoted legislation on my thread called "How we have been stereotyped" in the "Gentleman's Club".

Stheno · 20-12-2010 2:06am

Reward wrote: »

A belief is patriarchal abuse theory is like a belief in creationism, our governments and systems should be secular and free from magical thinking.

I don't agree with this, taking the BNP as an example, their politics may be abhorrent to many, but if they get a seat in a democratic election they are entitled to take their place.

Also independant politicians often run on fringe issues and win due to the importance of those issues to their communities.

At the end of the day that's what democracy is all about, it's the electorate chosing who will represent them, and if the views expressed by candidates are compelling enough then they will succeed regardless of how one might disagree with them

We've TD's in the Dail who've stood up against e.g. drink driving limits personally I find that appalling

Stheno · 20-12-2010 2:12am

Reward wrote: »

Well this is just moving the goal posts and passing the book, every one of your rebuttals has been a logical fallacy of one sort or another.

What is this latest one? Unless I can prove that only radical feminists and radical feminist alone were involved in the various feminist frauds, deceptions and bigoted legislation that the labour party instigated rather than them just being the source, my points are invalid and if an action is reported in a tabloid it didn't really happen and even though your position is that weak that fallacies are making up the bulk of your response and I'm clearly better sourced, you keep shifting the burden of proof on to me.

But you've not proven any of your arguments, you are skilled at avoiding providing any links to back up your arguments while at the same time attempting in a rather fallacious manner to goad those arguing against you into doing so.

You've given us one link ref. India from a right wing activist, but little else to back up your claims.

And going back to the original topic, what relevance has this to Irish politics? Can you give even one example of how the topic you so endorse has affected Irish politics?

Reward · 20-12-2010 2:18am

Stheno wrote: »

I don't agree with this, taking the BNP as an example, their politics may be abhorrent to many, but if they get a seat in a democratic election they are entitled to take their place.

Also independant politicians often run on fringe issues and win due to the importance of those issues to their communities.

At the end of the day that's what democracy is all about, it's the electorate chosing who will represent them, and if the views expressed by candidates are compelling enough then they will succeed regardless of how one might disagree with them

We've TD's in the Dail who've stood up against e.g. drink driving limits personally I find that appalling

Yeah, the bnp are entitled to their seats because they were elected, rad feminists (which the worse of the two IMO) want to circumvent the democratic and competitive process with quotas mandating that irrational bigots with an agenda based in hateful ideology and gynocentricism get seats in gov, we shouldn't entertain that on the other hand, if rad fems are elected by the public, then they would deserve their seats.

Stheno · 20-12-2010 2:23am

Reward wrote: »

Yeah, the bnp are entitled to their seats because they were elected, rad feminists (which the worse of the two IMO) want to circumvent the democratic and competitive process with quotas mandating that irrational bigots with an agenda based in hateful ideology and gynocentricism get seats in gov, we shouldn't entertain that on the other hand, if rad fems are elected by the public, then they would deserve their seats.

So if the voting population vote in a radical feminist and the radical feminist then uses that opportunity to bring in quotas to enable more radical feminists to get involved in politics and the majority of the goverment/party agree is that acceptable given that they have gone down the democratic route and used it to promote their agenda as politicians of all colours do ?

Reward · 20-12-2010 2:27am

Stheno wrote: »

But you've not proven any of your arguments, you are skilled at avoiding providing any links to back up your arguments while at the same time attempting in a rather fallacious manner to goad those arguing against you into doing so.

You've given us one link ref. India from a right wing activist, but little else to back up your claims.

And going back to the original topic, what relevance has this to Irish politics? Can you give even one example of how the topic you so endorse has affected Irish politics?

If you read through the whole thread you will see that Ive backed up everything that I've said, the frauds and deceptions and bigoted legislation and its source, labour feminism. I don't have anything on quotas in irish politics because we have got them, yet and because Ive been away for years. I do have the inequality in Irish AOC laws that feminists pushed through as example of fem bigots creating legal inequality in the Irish system. The AOC is 17 for girls and 16 for boys now, I believe.

Reward · 20-12-2010 2:32am

Stheno wrote: »

So if the voting population vote in a radical feminist and the radical feminist then uses that opportunity to bring in quotas to enable more radical feminists to get involved in politics and the majority of the goverment/party agree is that acceptable given that they have gone down the democratic route and used it to promote their agenda as politicians of all colours do ?

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.

Stheno · 20-12-2010 2:35am

Reward wrote: »

If you read through the whole thread you will see that Ive backed up everything that I've said, the frauds and deceptions and bigoted legislation and its source, labour feminism. I don't have anything on quotas in irish politics because we have got them, yet and because Ive been away for years. I do have the inequality in Irish AOC laws that feminists pushed through as example of fem bigots creating legal inequality in the Irish system. The AOC is 17 for girls and 16 for boys now, I believe.

Apart from a few links from straight statistics, you've used right wing conservative views, and daily mail links to back up your views.

What feminist pushed through the AOC laws here? Can you please provide her details?

We don't have a tradition here of labour being in a position of power in Ireland traditionally so how is that relevant to quotas for Irish politicians? Actually on that note, would you be happy with female quotas for countries that have traditionally had a right wing view?

Finally there are NO quotas to ensure certain amounts of female politicians in Ireland.

Stheno · 20-12-2010 2:40am

Reward wrote: »

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

Ickle Magoo · 20-12-2010 2:47am

Reward wrote: »

Well this is just moving the goal posts and passing the book, every one of your rebuttals has been a logical fallacy of one sort or another.

What is this latest one? Unless I can prove that only radical feminists and radical feminist alone were involved in the various feminist frauds, deceptions and bigoted legislation that the labour party instigated rather than them just being the source, my points are invalid and if an action is reported in a tabloid it didn't really happen and even though your position is that weak that fallacies are making up the bulk of your response and I'm clearly better sourced, you keep shifting the burden of proof on to me.

Avoiding the question regarding providing a distinct lack of evidence by accusing others of shifting the burden of proof onto you? I've seen it all now. :pac:

And now, despite using an anti-feminist conservative politician to argue that feminists use personal agenda within politics, feminists are akin to a group of people who wanted to exterminate a race of people. The mind boggles. Do you seriously believe you are making intelligible points?

Reward · 20-12-2010 2:51am

Stheno wrote: »

Apart from a few links from straight statistics, you've used right wing conservative views, and daily mail links to back up your views.

What feminist pushed through the AOC laws here? Can you please provide her details?

We don't have a tradition here of labour being in a position of power in Ireland traditionally so how is that relevant to quotas for Irish politicians? Actually on that note, would you be happy with female quotas for countries that have traditionally had a right wing view?

Finally there are NO quotas to ensure certain amounts of female politicians in Ireland.

We are talking about quotas in ireland.

When you say female quotas in countries that traditionally have a right wing view, by female quotas do you really mean quotas for leftist feminists?

Here is an article about feminist installed legal inequality in irish AOC laws - http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-stupid-laws-make-sex-a-crime--if-youre-male-1927435.html

Reward · 20-12-2010 2:59am

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Avoiding the question regarding providing a distinct lack of evidence by accusing others of shifting the burden of proof onto you? I've seen it all now. :pac:

And now, despite using an anti-feminist conservative politician to argue that feminists use personal agenda within politics, feminists are akin to a group of people who wanted to exterminate a race of people. The mind boggles. Do you seriously believe you are making intelligible points?

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.

"A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility or violence towards a group of people or some organization upon spurious grounds, despite a wider consensus that these people are not necessarily better or worse than any others. Hate groups usually asserts that the targets of their attacks are harmful to society, malicious, less fit to be members of society, or operating some hidden cabal, and their "evidence" boils down to an assertion that people sharing some characteristic such as religion, belief, race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability are for the most part guilty or involved in such activities.
Some hate groups try to reduce criticism by saying that "not all" individuals in their target groups are this way, or that they do not "hate" or wish to hurt them. But they still assert that for whatever reason they view all members of the target group, and the group itself, as a "problem".

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Hate_group

Radical feminism is a hate movement akin to nazism.

Nevyn · 20-12-2010 3:02am

Reward wrote: »

Here is an article about feminist installed legal inequality in irish AOC laws - http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-stupid-laws-make-sex-a-crime--if-youre-male-1927435.html

Please explain how feminists made this happen.

The notion that young women need to be protected and that the loss of their virginity is to be considered a greater loss then that of a young man goes back to them being property and inheritance rights. That notion in law treats a young woman as property of her parents and the parents have to press the charges not her.

The fact that if the genders were reversed the case would be thrown out shows how unequal and archaic the system of law is. Faminists have not made this happen, and where are all the men who should be taking action on this?

Stheno · 20-12-2010 3:05am

Reward wrote: »

We are talking about quotas in ireland.

When you say female quotas in countries that traditionally have a right wing view, by female quotas do you really mean quotas for leftist feminists?

Here is an article about feminist installed legal inequality in irish AOC laws - http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-stupid-laws-make-sex-a-crime--if-youre-male-1927435.html

No I mean quotas that require a minimum represantation of women regardless of political leaning.

What feminist installed that law if you don't mind me asking?

Note I'm against quotas each to their own in terms of ability and ambition would be my view.

Nevyn · 20-12-2010 3:08am

Reward wrote: »

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.

Reward wrote: »

Radical feminism is a hate movement akin to nazism.

Goodwin's law means you loose.

Reward · 20-12-2010 3:10am

Thaedydal wrote: »

Please explain how feminists made this happen.

The notion that young women need to be protected and that the loss of their virginity is to be considered a greater loss then that of a young man goes back to them being property and inheritance rights. That notion in law treats a young woman as property of her parents and the parents have to press the charges not her.

The fact that if the genders were reversed the case would be thrown out shows how unequal and archaic the system of law is. Faminists have not made this happen, and where are all the men who should be taking action on this?

The feminist lobby are responsible for AOC laws, that goes back to the US progressive social and racial hygiene movements. I'm assuming that the journalist is not just making things up the truth when is says that the feminist lobby is responsible for the legal inequality in our aoc laws.

Ickle Magoo · 20-12-2010 3:12am

Reward wrote: »

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.

I don't think anyone is arguing against your views on certain sects of radical feminism, the issue is your apparently insurmountable inability to separate feminism and those who call themselves feminists from radical feminism and those who are proponents of behaviour so extreme and ridiculous that a cull of men is even a consideration. Jumping between the two, using the same hysterical tone and language interchangeably with both and using your hatred of one to justify your outlandish and completely unsubstantiated claims regarding the other is what is causing the issue here...

Reward · 20-12-2010 3:16am

Thaedydal wrote: »

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.

Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

Comments