President McAleese: Irish current economic woes are "pretty much testosterone driven"

iptba

President McAleese: Irish current economic woes are “pretty much testosterone driven”

Speaking at the launch, Mrs McAleese said the current economic situation was “pretty much testosterone driven”.

“We are still living with the downstream consequences of what happens when you are given a bird with two wings and you insist on flying with one,” she told guests at the symposium.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0415/1224268372322.html

This was at a launch of a Woman's Fund:

The Women’s Fund for Ireland aims to address problems facing women and girls in Ireland including poverty, violence and improving access to healthcare and education. It will also support grassroots projects in areas such as the arts, literacy and support for carers

metrovelvet

That's right. Because women dont use credit cards.

krudler

Wait.....Ireland has a president?! ha, you learn something new every day, whats she done exactly?


oh...

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

That's right. Because women dont use credit cards.

She was referencing the banks and financial institutions which have most male decision makers.

iptba

Thaedydal wrote: »

She was referencing the banks and financial institutions

Can you give a reference or are you just inferring it? Some people might say that those aren't the only reasons for the problems we are in.

What she seemed to be clearly doing was blaming men at this launch of a fund for women.

Would people be happy if Heads of State and others said any particular problems/etc "are pretty much oestrogen driven" particularly at a launch for a fund for men? I reckon there might be some complaints.

Nevyn

If you have a problem with the quote you can always email her press sectary and lodge a complaint. http://www.president.ie/

Herbal Deity

I have no respect for that woman.

I don't recall ever hearing her say anything of substance.

schween

I've read about this before, how male testosterone levels affect the markets, economy etc.

Hazys

Thaedydal wrote: »

She was referencing the banks and financial institutions which have most male decision makers.

So?

If banking industry had mostly female decision makers, we wouldnt be in this mess? because women would have done the right thing and dont have greed in their genes. Women would have spent the money helping out orphanages, hospitals and homeless shelters. Women have no interest in having a bigger house, a newer car or that extra holiday in Spain. If it had been mostly women in charge Ireland would have been immune to the financial crisis around the world that affected us.

Retarded statement by the President to try and blame the state of the country on one sex.


By the same logic the Celtic Tiger, getting out independence and other significant movements in Ireland were driven by men only, which is not true either. Women represent 50% of the population, if they dont have any impact on the state of the country that is pretty much downplaying the importance of women in society.

I think the statement is more condesending towards women more than anything.

Nevyn

Men take bigger risks, this has been proven both on the road and in business while at times it may pay off there are times when it doesn't and that is where we are now.

rjb80

I wouldn't get worked up over such a disengenuous statement (sounds like she was just playing to the gallery tbh).

Also, we're not in this situation because of some men who took a risk, it's becuase they behaved extremely unethical and possible illegally.

All business is risk taking, if we didn't have risk takers in our industry we wouldn't have much of an industry. Just look at the company you work for and chances are it was started by a man brave enough to take a risk and create employment.

Bottle_of_Smoke

rjb80 wrote: »

I wouldn't get worked up over such a disengenuous statement (sounds like she was just playing to the gallery tbh).

Also, we're not in this situation because of some men who took a risk, it's becuase they behaved extremely unethical and possible illegally.

+1. This is the same women who compared Protestants in Ulster to Nazis.

Herbal Deity

Thaedydal wrote: »

Men take bigger risks, this has been proven both on the road and in business while at times it may pay off there are times when it doesn't and that is where we are now.

I vehemently disagree with the sentiment that strictly male risk taking is the sole or even a significant reason for where we are now, but lets say there's some truth in the idea, you generally don't say things in public which are massive generalisations and reenforce stereotypes.

In saying what she said she has damned every intelligent Irish male who was sensible with his finances.

The same way the "slow down boys" or "he drives, she dies" ads are damning of sensible, responsible male drivers.

keane2097

Thaedydal wrote: »

If you have a problem with the quote you can always email her press sectary and lodge a complaint. http://www.president.ie/

:rolleyes:

Dave!

Thaedydal wrote: »

Men take bigger risks, this has been proven both on the road and in business while at times it may pay off there are times when it doesn't and that is where we are now.

That's a gross simplification, but it does give me an opportunity to use this for the first time:

Dyr

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

+1. This is the same women who compared Protestants in Ulster to Nazis.

Outrageous comparision, they are obviously more like the ku klux klan

Wicklowrider

Thaedydal wrote: »

Men take bigger risks, this has been proven both on the road and in business while at times it may pay off there are times when it doesn't and that is where we are now.

Can you name any Women who identified the risks prior to the crash and who took steps to avert the situation we are now in or are you just mouthing off like our worthless president?

keane2097

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Can you name any Women who identified the risks prior to the crash and who took steps to avert the situation we are now in or are you just mouthing off like our worthless president?

Mouthing off imo.

the_syco

This is the same wan who is giving a 2 million euro prize for "good ideas"?

Her head seems to be in the clouds.

Dr Galen

ooooooooooooo controversial stuff.

We shouldn't shy away from talking about the big issues out there in the real world. I say that, but then I read some of the responses in this thread, and I think about closing this thread.

Last time I checked, this wasn't the "lets all have a bitch about women forum" or the "here's another excuse to vent against the opposite sex(female) forum". Either we keep it civillised, with less of the ranting or we don't keep it at all.

Recently there in this forum there has been quite a lot of agenda stirring and soapboxing going on. Its been said before, but I'll repeat it again, thats not the purpose of this forum. We are not a home for the one trick pony show lads/ladies. It puts people off posting here, and was not for the forum was set up for, or is its raison d'etre. If people want to do that sort of thing, then I suggest you start a forum request thread (here) or start a social group (here)"]here[/URL]).

This topic, while worth discussion, is treading a line shared by the Humanities forum tbh. The notion that a male controlled upper tier of the finance and political world had a large hand in the present financial worldwide is not a new one, and as I say may be suited to a proper discussion in that forum.

Cheers

MM

As I often say, lets leave it here for the minute, see what develops and comes from it and have another look based on further discussions.

Herbal Deity

Dr Galen wrote: »

ooooooooooooo controversial stuff.

We shouldn't shy away from talking about the big issues out there in the real world. I say that, but then I read some of the responses in this thread, and I think about closing this thread.

Last time I checked, this wasn't the "lets all have a bitch about women forum" or the "here's another excuse to vent against the opposite sex(female) forum". Either we keep it civillised, with less of the ranting or we don't keep it at all.

Recently there in this forum there has been quite a lot of agenda stirring and soapboxing going on. Its been said before, but I'll repeat it again, thats not the purpose of this forum. We are not a home for the one trick pony show lads/ladies. It puts people off posting here, and was not for the forum was set up for, or is its recent d'etre. If people want to do that sort of thing, then I suggest you start a forum request thread (here) or start a social group (here)"]here[/URL]).

This topic, while worth discussion, is treading a line shared by the Humanities forum tbh. The notion that a male controlled upper tier of the finance and political world had a large hand in the present financial worldwide is not a new one, and as I say may be suited to a proper discussion in that forum.

Cheers

MM

As I often say, lets leave it here for the minute, see what develops and comes from it and have another look based on further discussions.

Could you indicate what you're unhappy with. I completely agree with this not being a woman bashing forum, but I have read through this thread and I can't see any posts that are bashing women for simply being women.

The responses are largely criticising our president for making an extremely generalising and misandric remark.

How this is "bitching about women" is beyond me.

keane2097

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Could you indicate what you're unhappy with. I completely agree with this not being a woman bashing forum, but I have read through this thread and I can't see any posts that are bashing women for simply being women.

The responses are largely criticising our president for making an extremely generalising and misandric remark.

How this is "bitching about women" is beyond me.

If anything the blanket generalisations in this thread have been that men ruined the economy

Dr Galen

Hey Herbal

I'd be more than happy to discuss with you via PM good sir. As you know, we don't discuss moderation decisions etc in-thread.

Cheers

MM

donfers

Thaedydal wrote: »

She was referencing the banks and financial institutions which have most male decision makers.

oh I see, so should all men feel responsible, what with all that testosterone flowing through us?

jeez, another thing I should feel guilty and responsible for, let me add the recession to the "you are a bad because you are a man" list which by the way is an incredibly long list....the funny thing though is I don't think I have actually personally contributed to any of the stuff on the list, but I am male so guilty as charged your honour, take me away!

BumbleB

She's just another phony like Hilary Clinton.

deadhead13

Our current economic woes were driven by greed and stupidity, neither trait is gender-specific. It doesn't necessarily follow that an estrogen driven financial sector would have resulted in a different outcome.

Nevyn

I agree is a gross simplification there were many factors in play, would things have gone differently if there were more women in those jobs at the top? Guess we will never know.
Will having more women in those jobs makes difference? Only only way to find out and that is to try and level the playing fields (re childcare, paternity leave) and encourage more women to go into those areas.

theg81der

Here, here, blame the men! Coluldn`t agree more. Boys club sucks.

metrovelvet

If its any consolation I recall in the 1990s The Wall Street Journal came out with an article or editorial which blamed the stock market crash in 199? on more women entering the work force and making stupid incompetant and emotionally motivated decisions when they had pmt.

LostinBlanch

Dr Galen wrote: »

Cheers

MM

DG surely? Or are you having an identity crisis?

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

She was referencing the banks and financial institutions which have most male decision makers.

The consumers are the decision makers.

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

The consumers are the decision makers.

I very much doubt that the person the street who has a bank account was part of the decision making process which gave the loans to Anglo's golden circle.

iptba

Thaedydal wrote: »

If you have a problem with the quote you can always email her press sectary and lodge a complaint. http://www.president.ie/

Ok. I would prefer to be spending my time on other things and I have no idea whether it will make any difference (the comment has been made after all and perhaps complaints to the wrong person can be easily ignored) but I sent in the following to webmaster@president.ie which is given on the website as the "Office of the President of Ireland".

I'm sure other people could come up with better letters of course and indeed perhaps I could come up with something better with more time, but here it is for what it's worth. It doesn't say that much new.

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to complain about recent comments by President McAleese at the launch of a Women's Fund where she is reported as saying the current (bad) economic situation was “pretty much testosterone driven”. The basic message from this is that men caused the problem we are in - this is certainly how many people will interpret it.

I do not think such comments are suitable for the Head of State to be making in her public capacity during her tenure.

It comes on the back of an offensive letter in the Irish Examiner last Saturday (I'm not sure if the President was influenced by this or not):

---

Men only

Saturday, April 10, 2010

ISN’T it interesting that in addition to being the ones who caused the banking crisis, men are the only ones commenting on it and its solutions?

Rarely, if ever, does one see a woman on current affairs panels when NAMA is being discussed. The duality of patriarchy is such that only men can provide the solutions to the problems they cause in the first place.

<name and address>

---

If this logic was followed through, it could potentially lead to individual men being excluded from positions or from speaking because they were male, when they might not have had anything to do with the initial problems.

There could be other consequences also. The letter seems to verge on incitement to hatred of men.

The following letter was published in reply:

---

Women’s role in failed financial institutions

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

IN her letter (April 10), <name> asserts that men caused the banking crisis.

But a few moment’s research on my part revealed women on the boards of most of the Irish banks and a little further probing found women on the consultative panels of the Financial Regulator. It was then the work of mere minutes to find women also in senior positions in stockbrokers, hedge funds, governments — even the board of Lehman Brothers at the time it went bankrupt was not all-male. Doubtless Ms <name> draws comfort from the idea that all men are bad and all women are good — and why let the facts spoil this?


<name and addresss>

---

This country is at a very sensitive time at the moment. A lot of people in Ireland are very angry about the situations they find themselves in personally as well as the overall situation in the country now. They are also angry and anxious about what will happen in the future (including the large debts that now exist).

I do not think it is helpful for the Head of State to be pointing fingers in this way. It is not simple to disentangle what or who caused the problem and who are completely "blame-free".

If the President wants to start a discussion about potential differences between men and women, I think it could be done in a less accusatory and less negative manner.

I recall from my school history that in the early part of the 20th century in Germany, fingers were pointed at Jews for the economic position the country found itself in. Look what happened there! Of course, hopefully Ireland would never get to that stage but a Head of State should be very measured in what they say when tensions are high.

It would now seem acceptable for future Presidents of Ireland to blame problems on women if they feel like that at any moment in time - they can say that X problem is “pretty much oestrogen-driven”. Similarly, Heads of State in other countries can also make similar statements and point to Ireland if they are challenged.

An apology would be welcomed.

Thanking you,

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

I very much doubt that the person the street who has a bank account was part of the decision making process which gave the loans to Anglo's golden circle.

No but part of the reason this crisis is happenning is because consumers accepted and agreed to these insane house prices and took out loans to buy 12 square inches of dirt in dalkey for 300k.

Delirium

She was speaking at a function for a group that is solely for improving the lives of women.

The "pretty much testosterone driven" isn't just a comment directed at men. I take it to mean that she wants women to have more positions in the areas that she was referring to with that comment.

She wants to have a better balance of decision making roles shared between both genders.

She knew her audience and used language to appeal to them. If it was an all male group, it's highly unlikely she would have used the same phrases.

metrovelvet

koth wrote: »

She was speaking at a function for a group that is solely for improving the lives of women.

The "pretty much testosterone driven" isn't just a comment directed at men. I take it to mean that she wants women to have more positions in the areas that she was referring to with that comment.

She wants to have a better balance of decision making roles shared between both genders.

She knew her audience and used language to appeal to them. If it was an all male group, it's highly unlikely she would have used the same phrases.

It probably depends on the level of irony imbued into the tone, etc. Women have never liked having their decisions be accused of being hormone driven, so if someone blamed the health crisis on a hormonal, obese premenopusal women, you would hear about it.

donfers

theg81der wrote: »

Here, here, blame the men! Coluldn`t agree more. Boys club sucks.

She can blame the men all she wants, the men involved deserve to be blamed and a lot more

....but the testosterone comment implies that she is blaming men as a gender for the crisis which is a shocking thing for a head of state to say...funnily enough I had a lot of respect for McAleese up to this point, unlike the appallingly populist Mary Robinson she didn't play the gender card at every opportunity but that comment was deplorable

If a man in an elected position made a public comment about some disaster/crisis being down to an oestregen overload he'd be savaged and possibly lose his position, other way round and no one blinks an eyelid

Mrmoe

I have to agree that this is a poorly worded statement. It conveys the fact the the people in charge just by being men infused with testosterone caused this economic fall. That is false logic. It was greed and criminal actions from a select few who instigated this. To suggest that testosterone was the cause is to lay the blame at the feet of all men which is simply not true.

iptba

Thaedydal wrote: »

If you have a problem with the quote you can always email her press sectary and lodge a complaint. http://www.president.ie/

Well, did that as you may have seen http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65425173&postcount=33 .

Here's the reply - doesn't feel that reassuring.

16 April, 2010


<mispelt my name, taking out a letter and moving another one>,

My E-mail address

Dear Mr. <mispelt my name, taking out a letter and moving another one>,

Thank you for your recent email letter, the contents of which have been noted.



Yours sincerely,


Denise Lynch
Secretariat

CDfm

Nuances and irony my arse.

How could a country overspending and not regulating the lending of its domestic banks in keeping with their financial resourses be testosterone driven. Bollocks.Regulatory incompetence.

If you have single mothers on benefit and housing and medical cards does that make it oestergen driven.

She was there as President to represent everyone and not in her capacity as a woman and her soundbite was crass

I would have a lot more respect for her if she pointed out that because a recession is on and women benefit disproportionately from government expenditure that she was not going to sign any more laws in place until expenditure was more gender balanced.

I wonder if there is anyway her point can be tested -like on take income tax revenue by gender and government expenditure by gender. It would be a bit of an un-pc laugh but I imagine we would find a huge inequality on the spend by government per capita.

SugarHigh

Thaedydal wrote: »

encourage more women to go into those areas.

I hate this crap of seeing an occupation with less then 50% females and thinking oh we better do something to make it 50/50.
Why? There clearly isn't a large interest in politics amongst women so does that mean we should have to change politics to make it more appetising to women?

There are less women than men in politics because there are less women than men interested in politics.

Galvasean

I don't know where this notion about having more women in politics will make it better comes from. I look at the likes of Mary Coughlan and Mary Harney and am not filled with confidence. They don't seem any better than their male counterparts.
There should never be a push to getting more of a specific sex into top jobs. If they are good enough, they will get in. You should always pick the best person for the job regardless of gender. Gender quotas solve nothing.

iptba

koth wrote: »

She knew her audience and used language to appeal to them. If it was an all male group, it's highly unlikely she would have used the same phrases.

Saying what people want to hear is a pretty weak excuse. Another way of saying it might be to say it is acceptable for the President to appeal to an audience's prejudices.

A comparable situation might be if the President went to a meeting of nationalists or republicans in N. Ireland (say) and said: this is a problem caused by people because they have "orange blood" (I know the wording might be better but basically something intrinsic to them that they can't change); that is what the people attending might want to hear; she also might not say it to a group of unionists. Doesn't mean it's right just because no unionists are there. (maybe that's not the best example)

Other comparable/better examples could be given. Lots of groups of people feel superior to other groups of people. Doesn't mean the President should go around making statements agreeing with such a sentiment and saying your problems are caused because of this other (inferior) group of people. But when it's said about men, many see it as acceptable. It should also be remembered that a President has choice about which functions such as this she attends.

CDfm

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't know where this notion about having more women in politics will make it better comes from. I look at the likes of Mary Coughlan and Mary Harney and am not filled with confidence. They don't seem any better than their male counterparts.
There should never be a push to getting more of a specific sex into top jobs. If they are good enough, they will get in. You should always pick the best person for the job regardless of gender. Gender quotas solve nothing.

Its a valid point as if you take the gender arguments to their extreme and this is the best thats on offer - it hardly bears thinking about.

And I am pro-equality.

Originally Posted by koth
She knew her audience and used language to appeal to them. If it was an all male group, it's highly unlikely she would have used the same phrase

As President she should be above that sort of thing. Previous President's would never have said that.

It looks like Mary McAleese wants to come accross as a Princess Di figure and be "President of Hearts" not "President of Ireland".

I mean what the President does is vet laws according to the constitution and sign them into law. They also oversee the change over of Governments etc. Our President inherited the role of the British Governor General. So here she seems to have taken her cue from what British Royals do as Patrons of charities rather than how Irish Presidents behave.

Its interesting to see the number of women who have come out and defended her statements and one wonders if that is because she is a Woman rather than discussing whether or not she has behaved properly for someone in her position as President.

You dont become President to be liked and she will not be going for election at the end of her next term. So why behave this way???

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

I hate this crap of seeing an occupation with less then 50% females and thinking oh we better do something to make it 50/50.
Why? There clearly isn't a large interest in politics amongst women so does that mean we should have to change politics to make it more appetising to women?

There are less women than men in politics because there are less women than men interested in politics.

Its also a question of why push one demographic over another? For example, why not encourage more itinerants to go into politics? More lithuanians? More .....

myflipflops

I'm male and I see no issue with the comment.

Firstly, she didn't state that the economic woes were 'male driven'. Using the term 'testosterone' is not a particualry inaccurate way of putting it.

The inital development of out 'Celtic Tiger' (i f**king hate that term) economy was in a major way generated from the 1980's by people like Pauric White and Ray MacSharry in organisations like the IDA. They had a very sensible approach to initiate long term, sustainable econmic development. The main part was to attract large MNC's to Ireland creating high spec jobs and kicking the economy from there.

People forget in the current climate that our inital economic boom was built on solid business principles. It was also male driven in the majority as men were the majority stakeholders in the decision making process at the time. Note - it was male drive, not 'testosterone driven'. We never flew too close to the sun. Sensible decision making ruled the day. Among others, these men rejected an approach to build the Delorean factory in Dublin. The British Government jumped at it, costing themselves millions and millions of ponds as the project flopped. It is one example of the smart decisions being made. If a similar offer was made in the early 2000's, Bertie and his publicity hungry cronies would have eaten it whole. His testosterone driven male ego could not have turned down a chance in the spotlight. A small number of people would have been made rich and the country as a whole would have been out of pocket.

Move forward to the early years of this millenium. The econmy is stalling slightly. High in the good times, a bunch of bankers, politicians and gamblers (property investors) decide to play with the econmic stability of the country by creating this hugely false property boom. Loans were out of control, regualtion was non existant, politicians ineffective (and complicit). The decision making process of the late 80's and early 90's was out the window. This was one massive gamble that was huge odds to work for the country. It was testosterone fueled business. People were acting with their impulses.

The inital boom was mainly men acting with their heads. The false economy created over a whole nation was mainly men acting with their egos.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its also a question of why push one demographic over another? For example, why not encourage more itinerants to go into politics? More lithuanians? More .....

so how does this relate to what Mary McAleese said in her capacity as President??

@myflipflops - the tax revenue fueled the spending that caused a boom and increased wages, civil servant salaries and social welfare payments. Men werent the only beneficiaries of that. You cant blame developers or bankers for that.

myflipflops

CDfm wrote: »

You cant blame developers or bankers for that.

I can blame them for giving/taking the massive loans to purchase land. The guys in Anglo who turned their bank into an unstable house of cards by lending to fund share purchasing also get some blame.

I complete agree that the person on the street has to take a portion of the blame. We are one of the most re-active societies in existance. We just want to apportion blame and ask questions after the event has happened. If you live in a house worth 250k paying a 500k mortgage, go to a mirror to find somebody to blame.

CDfm

myflipflops wrote: »

I can blame them for giving/taking the massive loans to purchase land. The guys in Anglo who turned their bank into an unstable house of cards by lending to fund share purchasing also get some blame.

that type of share support operation criminal activity and completely against stock exchange rules.

and there were women on the board qnd in senior management too.

I complete agree that the person on the street has to take a portion of the blame. We are one of the most re-active societies in existance. We just want to apportion blame and ask questions after the event has happened. If you live in a house worth 250k paying a 500k mortgage, go to a mirror to find somebody to blame.

But regulation of banks should have dampened that and there is a certain amount of civil servant, public service unions and senior opposition politician complicity in this.

The economics of it is not difficult and everytime the civil servants looked for benchmarking and pay rises etc fuelled it.

So everytime a politician supported the great nurses from whatever party they were ignoring basic economics, Rabbit, Kenny, Ahern, Gilmore, whoever.

The basic tenet is that public service workers earn less than private sector is based around job security and pension benefits.

The bit you are right about is Joe Public voted for them. Participation in the Public Private Partnership meant no one was in charge too.

Like it or not if womens groups looked for policy changes which cost the economy then they have their hands in the cookie jar too.

So when the President comes out with a plainly daft statement no womens group come out and say she is letting down her gender with a generic oversimplification -well why bloody not?

EDIT -really the economics of it is undergraduate stuff and by no means difficult at all.

baalthor

The whole point about risk taking during the boom is that most of those who took risks (at every level) denied at the time that there was any risk.

Consumers who took out huge mortgages and borrowed to pay for cars, holidays, weddings and endless stuff asserted that at worst there would be a "soft landing". In fact, it was considered to be a much bigger risk not to get on the property ladder.

The same attitude prevailed at corporate level, Sean Quinn being a prime example. Anglo Irish bank was so safe that there was no risk at all in betting your entire company on its share price.

Contrast this with say Edmund Hillery climbing Mount Everest. I doubt he ever said: "What, fall off the mountain? that will never happen, the worst that could happen is a soft landing":D

Maguined

myflipflops wrote: »

I'm male and I see no issue with the comment.

Firstly, she didn't state that the economic woes were 'male driven'. Using the term 'testosterone' is not a particualry inaccurate way of putting it.

It was testosterone fueled business. People were acting with their impulses.

The inital boom was mainly men acting with their heads. The false economy created over a whole nation was mainly men acting with their egos.

Blaming bad financial decisions on a hormone is purely biased, there was no scientific study done to show high levels of testosterone can negatively influence business decisions nor was there any scientific study to show those in Anglo and all the other business that made bad decisions had high levels of testosterone. There is no proper data, it is all purely supposition based on gender bias.

It would be the same as someone complaining that the primary school teachers unions greed is estrogen driven. There majority of primary school teachers are female, many today consider their refusal of pay cuts etc as greedy and unrealistic so can we infer its because of their hormones?

Bad business decisions were made out of selfish greed, not some hormones, basically the president made a cheap shot to appeal to the crowd she was speaking to.