Joan Burton - Feminist/Sexist

Newaglish

Latest comments from Joan Burton according to rte.ie:

1526 Labour's Joan Burton says she believes that women have experience for government, because they are the ones who bear the brunt of heartache when their children emigrate.

How can she possibly come to this conclusion?! Do men not have children either, or does she assume mothers love their kids more than fathers? I think this just goes to show the backwards anti-male opinions that some women have. I find it a bit shocking to be honest.

mike65

Joan Burton says a lot of things that make one cringe, get used to it.

fly_agaric

Newaglish wrote: »

I think this just goes to show the backwards anti-male opinions that some women have.

Women "feel" everything oh so much more deeply than men -> they are make better <insert x here, x generally being some important and well-paid job women are under-represented in>.

Such a nauseating argument. The fact that most feminists seem to subscribe to it just illustrates their utter hypocrisy.

edit - bit surprised she said something like that tbh...

Einhard

Neither- just very, very silly.

goose2005

That's very stupid and harsh - I know how upset my father was when my brother had to emigrate.

Officer Giggles

ridiculous statement to come out with, i reckon she didnt think it through fully before splurting it out, bit of a "they worked like blacks" moment

James Jones

If Joan Burton believes that more women should be in government “because they are the ones who bear the brunt of heartache when their children emigrate” maybe now, when she is in Government herself, she will do something for the separated and unmarried fathers because they are the ones who bear the brunt of heartache when their children are taken from them following the breakdown of their relationship with the mother.

Jimmy Garlic

Feminism is a toxic, socially destructive ideology that is given special status because of its 'political correctness'.

Steodonn

Anyone watching RTE when she said it. This thread really takes it out of context. They were talking about women in politics and that was one of many comments

aDeener

joan burton in being a simpleton shocker!!

clewis

What she actually say so, if the comment is being taken out of context here? If she really did say it like that, it's unbelievable. How can she think that emigration doesn't affect fathers as much as it does mothers?

Monty Burnz

Steodonn wrote: »

Anyone watching RTE when she said it. This thread really takes it out of context. They were talking about women in politics and that was one of many comments

Can you please outline a context in which such a comment is valid?

Steodonn

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you please outline a context in which such a comment is valid?

Not saying its valid but this thread seems make more of it then she ment. It was something to do with meeting mothers on the campaign trail and giving them mothers a voice

bmarley

More women needed in politics, well done Joan.

James Jones

Steodonn wrote: »

Anyone watching RTE when she said it. This thread really takes it out of context. They were talking about women in politics and that was one of many comments

Yea. I was watching it.
I had to rewind it and watch again because I could not believe that any politician in 2011 would make such a sexist comment, unchallenged by RTE. She simply diminished the emotional attachment of fathers to their children as being irrelevant. No doubt that is why they get such a hard time in Family Law courts and will continue to do so under Labour.

clewis

I'm sure both mothers and fathers who she met on the campaign trail were heatbroken if they have a child who has emigrated. To single out mothers without mentioning fathers shows contempt towards fathers. Does she not think that the fathers who she met deserve a voice?

Jesus Wept

She is a complete spastic.

James Jones

Steodonn wrote: »

Not saying its valid but this thread seems make more of it then she ment. It was something to do with meeting mothers on the campaign trail and giving them mothers a voice

It's quite obvious from the LABOUR PARTY MANIFESTO that Men don't Matter.

Labour favours moving to a paternity leave model, where parents can share paid leave when a new baby is born, as resources allow

Why should paternity leave be shared? Why not grant fathers paternity leave? By sharing such a right requires a father to be allowed take the leave by THE MOTHER!!! If she says “No”, then he can’t take the leave.

In order to ensure that the child's rights are vindicated, the Bill will confer an automatic guardianship role on natural fathers in respect of children born after the passing of the Act

The automatic granting of Guardianship to unmarried fathers is a joke given that the Guardianship of married fathers is ignored anyway. Why exclude men who are fathers already? Either this is an ill thought out policy or it is purposefully discriminatory.

Joan Burton just let it slip out that fathers are not as important as mothers. She didn't mean to let it slip out but she did because discrimination against fathers has become so natural and ingrained in her thinking that she would not even recognize that she made a mistake!

nesf

If her statement was that Blacks didn't understand the pain as much as Whites then there'd be uproar but because it's about men it's fine.


I don't think Labour are sexist really, they're quite progressive in this respect I must say but it was an idiotic statement by Burton. Well meaning probably but makes it sound like fathers can't truly appreciate a child emigrating which is an attitude from the 1950s.

kerash

The-Rigger wrote: »

She is a complete spastic.

Awwww Rigger! No she's not! I Joan - Stop Haranguing Joan:pac:

Jesus Wept

Was her comment removed? Can't see it on rte...

kerash wrote: »

Awwww Rigger! No she's not! I Joan - Stop Haranguing Joan:pac:

I'm afraid it's true Kerash. I still like you though.

Monty Burnz

kerash wrote: »

Awwww Rigger! No she's not! I Joan - Stop Haranguing Joan:pac:

Why are you haranguing The Rigger? Mods - Kerash is haranguing The Rigger!

sophia25

I am quite sure men feel the loss of their children. The point Joan was trying to make rather awkwardly is that the generation of women who's children are now being forced to emigrate, generally cared fill time for their children and did not work. Their loss is therefore felt at the emotional level but also a fundamental level of their sense of purpose. A person who worked outside the home can not understand how a person's sense of value can be interlinked with their children. A lot of women never had the opportunity to get a sense of value from external things like a job, golf course etc. Therefore, when the children go, the emotional loss is felt equally by both parents but there is also a loss of purpose felt by many women.

Jesus Wept

How do you know that is the point she was trying to make?
It's bollox anyhow.

James Jones

The-Rigger wrote: »

Was her comment removed? Can't see it on rte...

Its still HERE at 1526

clewis

sophia25 wrote: »

I am quite sure men feel the loss of their children. The point Joan was trying to make rather awkwardly is that the generation of women who's children are now being forced to emigrate, generally cared fill time for their children and did not work. Their loss is therefore felt at the emotional level but also a fundamental level of their sense of purpose. A person who worked outside the home can not understand how a person's sense of value can be interlinked with their children. A lot of women never had the opportunity to get a sense of value from external things like a job, golf course etc. Therefore, when the children go, the emotional loss is felt equally by both parents but there is also a loss of purpose felt by many women.

Sorry but I don't follow your logic here. The fact that some women stayed at home to care full-time for their children does not mean that they care about the children any more than the fathers. Applying that logic to families where the mother did stay at home to mind the children and the father was the sole earner, you could also say that the fathers worked soley in order to provide for their children. I do see the point you're trying to make about some mothers seeing the children as the fruits of all the effort they put in the raise them, but that applies equally to fathers. As I said, the main reason fathers who were the sole earners worked was in order to provide for their children, and it's not fair to say that they don't feel as involved/connected with the children. A lot of fathers would have worked in jobs which they hated, and the only motivation for doing so was the knowledge that doing this job was giving their children a high standard of living.

Pherekydes

I have experience for Government because I can run my household on a shoestring budget. In fact, make me minister for Finance, Education, Health, Cookery, Cleaning, School runs, Sport and Putting the Bins Out.

But don't make me Minister for Emigration, because I won't give a schite (coz I'm a man).

James Jones

nesf wrote: »

I don't think Labour are sexist really, they're quite progressive in this respect I must say.

The LABOUR MANIFESTO seeks to establish "an Oireachtas Committee on Equality,Women and Human Rights, charged with progressing legislation in these areas".
They do not seek equality for men. They are not seeking paternity leave for men as an individual right for a father but predicated on the mother letting him share her maternity leave.
They are not seeking gender equality for men in careers where women are in the majority, such as nursing or teaching.
They are not seeking gender equality on construction sites or in farming and fishing, the dangerous occupations that result in the majority of workplace fatalities.
How are LABOUR progressive for men?

sophia25

Really? Well we have a government that was 86% male who in conjuction with, corrupt bankers and developers (who were practically 100% male) have bankrupted this country for generations to come and yet you think the idea that a female politician has represented the views of her female constituents as the real injustice......... please!! I ask you all if a social experiment had been run and the country was now in the present situation because of a Dail that was 86% female and female headed banks, would you think a male TD saying that the problems in the economy were hurting men more, the real problem???

billymitchell

The-Rigger wrote: »

She is a complete spastic.

bit harsh on spastics :pac:
that womans voice goes through me, and what she says just irritates me. She must be a damn good politician behind the scenes to say she keeps getting elected

James Jones

sophia25 wrote: »

Really? Well we have a government that was 86% male who in conjuction with, corrupt bankers and developers (who were practically 100% male) have bankrupted this country for generations to come and yet you think the idea that a female politician has represented the views of her female constituents as the real injustice......... please!!

She was not representing her female constituents. She voiced her own sexist position.

Monty Burnz

sophia25 wrote: »

Really? Well we have a government that was 86% male who in conjuction with, corrupt bankers and developers (who were practically 100% male) have bankrupted this country for generations to come and yet you think the idea that a female politician has represented the views of her female constituents as the real injustice......... please!! I ask you all if a social experiment had been run and the country was now in the present situation because of a Dail that was 86% female and female headed banks, would you think a male TD saying that the problems in the economy were hurting men more, the real problem???

The government was more or less totally made up of Irish people. By the same argument, we know that Irish people cannot govern themselves - perhaps we should ask for direct rule from London again?

Pherekydes

It was a silly statement really. I wonder if she has any kids who've emigrated? I think not.

sophia25

clewis wrote: »

Sorry but I don't follow your logic here. The fact that some women stayed at home to care full-time for their children does not mean that they care about the children any more than the fathers. Applying that logic to families where the mother did stay at home to mind the children and the father was the sole earner, you could also say that the fathers worked soley in order to provide for their children. I do see the point you're trying to make about some mothers seeing the children as the fruits of all the effort they put in the raise them, but that applies equally to fathers. As I said, the main reason fathers who were the sole earners worked was in order to provide for their children, and it's not fair to say that they don't feel as involved/connected with the children. A lot of fathers would have worked in jobs which they hated, and the only motivation for doing so was the knowledge that doing this job was giving their children a high standard of living.

The point is a man can get external validation for a job well done through job promotion, respect of colleagues. His children emigrating does not change this. I fully believe that there are men who feel the emotional loss equally but if a woman has spent 20/25 years into child rearing, she is bereft of her purpose in life as well as an emotional loss and this is all completely out of her control and through no fault of her own. Men who are suddenly made redundant at 55 and have no chance of securing further employment would feel similar. Women and men have different experiences we don't have to discount each others experiences..... I don't understand how it would be so difficult to put yourself into the shoes of a woman who now has no children or career. I can quite easily imagine how much harder it would be for a traditional breadwinner to lose his job in his fifties than a 20 year old girl.

Monty Burnz

sophia25 wrote: »

if a woman has spent 20/25 years into child rearing, she is bereft of her purpose in life as well as an emotional loss and this is all completely out of her control and through no fault of her own.

Unless their children stay at home with them forever infantilised, they face this anyway. What is her point so? Women who have never worked outside the home should be running the country instead? God knows, our politicians have little enough experience of the business world as it is - teachers, lawyers and publicans running everything.

clewis

sophia25 wrote: »

The point is a man can get external validation for a job well done through job promotion, respect of colleagues. His children emigrating does not change this. I fully believe that there are men who feel the emotional loss equally but if a woman has spent 20/25 years into child rearing, she is bereft of her purpose in life as well as an emotional loss and this is all completely out of her control and through no fault of her own. Men who are suddenly made redundant at 55 and have no chance of securing further employment would feel similar. Women and men have different experiences we don't have to discount each others experiences..... I don't understand how it would be so difficult to put yourself into the shoes of a woman who now has no children or career. I can quite easily imagine how much harder it would be for a traditional breadwinner to lose his job in his fifties than a 20 year old girl.

You can't compare someone losing their job at 55 to a child emigrating. Someone who is made redundant at 55 has been working every-day, non-stop right up until the day when they are made redundant, and that is why it is such a big shock to them, to suddenly have nowhere to go and nothing to do everyday. Children who emigrate are generally in their early/mid twenties at least, which means that mothers who cared full time for the children when they were younger have had a number of years to "adjust". They were hardly cooking dinner,doing laundry and providing constant care for the child every day right up until the point of emigration. I'd see your point to a certain extent if we were talking about a child moving out of home for the first time, but adult children emigrating is not the same situation, as Monty Burnz pointed out.

nesf

James Jones wrote: »

The LABOUR MANIFESTO seeks to establish "an Oireachtas Committee on Equality,Women and Human Rights, charged with progressing legislation in these areas".
They do not seek equality for men. They are not seeking paternity leave for men as an individual right for a father but predicated on the mother letting him share her maternity leave.
They are not seeking gender equality for men in careers where women are in the majority, such as nursing or teaching.
They are not seeking gender equality on construction sites or in farming and fishing, the dangerous occupations that result in the majority of workplace fatalities.
How are LABOUR progressive for men?

I didn't say that they were seeking equality for men, only that they were progressive on this issue compared to the other parties.

Jesus Wept

bmarley wrote: »

More women needed in politics, well done Joan.

Well done for being a woman.
More smart people needed imo.

hatrickpatrick

So that's two misandrists in Labour then. Have you read Ivana Bacik's views on prison sentencing? For a wide variety of (totally BS) reasons she believes women shouldn't be sent to prison when they commit a crime even if a man would be imprisoned for the exact same offense.

Feminists don't want equality as they claim.
They want equality in areas where equality benefits women, and to maintain the status quo where equality would benefit men.

Jesus Wept

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So that's two misandrists in Labour then. Have you read Ivana Bacik's views on prison sentencing? For a wide variety of (totally BS) reasons she believes women shouldn't be sent to prison when they commit a crime even if a man would be imprisoned for the exact same offense.

Feminists don't want equality as they claim.
They want equality in areas where equality benefits women, and to maintain the status quo where equality would benefit men.

Got any links for the Bacik stuff?


Edit: Found one

http://www.politics.ie/justice/29507-bacik-calls-gender-inequality-prison-sentencing-2.html

James Jones

nesf wrote: »

I don't think Labour are sexist really, they're quite progressive in this respect

nesf wrote: »

I didn't say that they were seeking equality for men, only that they were progressive on this issue compared to the other parties.

I believe Labour ARE sexist and definitely NOT progressive due to their manifesto and explained my reasoning as follows:

James Jones wrote: »

It's quite obvious from the LABOUR PARTY MANIFESTO that Men don't Matter.

Why should paternity leave be shared? Why not grant fathers paternity leave? By sharing such a right requires a father to be allowed take the leave by THE MOTHER!!! If she says “No”, then he can’t take the leave.

The automatic granting of Guardianship to unmarried fathers is a joke given that the Guardianship of married fathers is ignored anyway. Why exclude men who are fathers already? Either this is an ill thought out policy or it is purposefully discriminatory.

Joan Burton just let it slip out that fathers are not as important as mothers. She didn't mean to let it slip out but she did because discrimination against fathers has become so natural and ingrained in her thinking that she would not even recognize that she made a mistake!

Can you please explain how you don't think "Labour are sexist really" and that "they're quite progressive in this respect"?

gizmo555

I couldn't believe my ears this evening when Olivia O'Leary on RTE's "The Week In Politics" suggested that so little was seen or heard of Joan Burton during the election campaign because of sexism in the Labour Party.

Didn't she think it might have been something to do with Burton's deranged performance on Vincent Browne's programme?