Sexism in Dail Eireann?

Pherekydes

Sharrow wrote: »

Say a bunch of fly fishermen are trying to have a meeting and someone who is an angler comes to the meeting, they will have to spend a lot of time explaining experiences to them as they just don't have the the experiences needed to take part in the discussions. Things which are important to the fly fishermen are going to seem trivial to the angler and having the angler there will slow up and side track the meeting dragging it off topic.

So the fly fishermen have a closed meeting for fly fishermen only.

This is about excluding a gender, not just some individuals who don't belong to a club.

Don't you get it? There is no 'positive' discrimination, only discrimination.

If women want full parity then they could do worse than to stop counting!

Pherekydes

Snakeblood wrote: »

because they all go to the same place every day?

So do the men elected!

Zulu

Sharrow wrote: »

... they will have to spend a lot of time explaining experiences to them as they just don't have the the experiences needed to take part in the discussions..

So men are too thick to understand what the women are talking about? Nice.

stovelid

Sharrow wrote: »

Say a bunch of fly fishermen are trying to have a meeting and someone who is an angler comes to the meeting, they will have to spend a lot of time explaining experiences to them as they just don't have the the experiences needed to take part in the discussions. Things which are important to the fly fishermen are going to seem trivial to the angler and having the angler there will slow up and side track the meeting dragging it off topic.

So the fly fishermen have a closed meeting for fly fishermen only.

So the next time all the anglers have their own meeting where fly fishermen are not invited, the fly fishermen would obviously be fine with that.

Logical Fallacy

Banning anyone is the kind of amateurish stuff that college level political interest will generate.

If you are actually seeking to make any kind of change you simply invite anyone who would be interested, regardless of their sex, religious denomination or gender.

All that happens if you close off the group is that you get a complete circle jerk (or in this case a circle flick i suppose) that quickly establishes an inner hierarchy, when the group expands, as it surely must to achieve it's goals, too many lines have already been drawn and people's ego's feel threatened when new players come into it who may be able to carry out roles better or have better ideas.

Nothing will come of this simply because they have already hamstrung any chance of affecting change by assuming the only people who can have a vagina.

Morag

stovelid wrote: »

So the next time all the anglers have their own meeting where fly fishermen are not invited, the fly fishermen would obviously be fine with that.

If they are talking only about things which are to do with anglers, then it's fine.
Would only be an issue if the anglers/flyfishers then went on to try at those meetings to influence law for all fishing rods.

hardybuck

Bringing in a quota will only promote positive discrimination. There may be an otherwise suitable candidate denied a role because of their gender under these new proposals.

Currently female politicans are on the ballot but they simply aren't as popular with the voters as many of their male counterparts.

Morag

Zulu wrote: »

So men are too thick to understand what the women are talking about? Nice.

Not thick just do not have the shared frame of reference required.

McCoy: Perhaps, we could cover a little philosophical ground. Life
McCoy: Death
McCoy: Life.
McCoy: Things of that nature.
Spock: I did not have time on Vulcan to review the philosophical disciplines.
McCoy: C'mon, Spock, it's me, McCoy. You really have gone where no man's gone before. Can't you tell me what it felt like?
Spock: It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame-of-reference.

bronte

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/court-backs-portmarnock-golf-clubs-ban-on-women-432765.html

Court backs Portmarnock Golf Club's ban on women
Tuesday, November 03, 2009 - 01:23 PM

One of Ireland’s most prestigious golf clubs today won a legal bid to refuse women full membership.

The exclusive Portmarnock Golf Club in north Co Dublin went before Dublin’s Supreme Court as equality chiefs made a final attempt to get the club to change its rules.

Women can play at the course and pay green fees, but are not allowed to become full members.

Three of five judges who heard the case dismissed the challenge and ruled Portmarnock was a gentlemen’s club where golf was played.

Outside the court Joanna McMinn, of the Equality and Rights Alliance, called for equality legislation to be changed and updated.

She said the result was a bad day for equality and a bad day for women.

“It sends out a message that discrimination continues and this judgment upholds inequality for women,” said Ms McMinn.

“The exclusivity of Portmarnock is just a symptom of that.”

The action, which centred on a section of the Equal Status Act, was aimed at overturning a High Court ruling made three years ago which backed the club’s regulations.

The golf club had also had its alcohol licence suspended for a week in 2004 for refusing to accept female members.

But during the Supreme Court hearing last December a barrister for Portmarnock Golf Club argued that while the activity of the club was golf, its purpose was to cater for men only and on this basis it refused membership to women.

Counsel for the Equality Authority felt the club must allow women and men to become full members because it was “not a social club created for pure male society fraternity companionships”.

In his judgment Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan said as Portmarnock provided external facilities it was not discriminating.

“Entitlement of female non-members to play golf in Portmarnock is not a point that is either helpful in argument to the club or to the Equality Authority on the points at issue,” he said.

Ms Justice Susan Denham, one of two judges who found against the club, said Portmarnock was a discriminating club as its principal purpose was golf.

“Portmarnock Golf Club is exactly what its name says – a golf club in Portmarnock,” she said.

“It caters for men and women in different ways. I would allow the appeal.”

Not very nice no matter where it happens.

Eoin

bronte wrote: »

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/court-backs-portmarnock-golf-clubs-ban-on-women-432765.html



Not very nice no matter where it happens.

Ah, this would be the totally irrelevant story about the ban which the equality authority admitted hadn't even received ONE complaint about.

hardybuck

I think that clubs are something seperate. Clubs are groups where like minded people form a group to pursue areas of common enjoyment. They are entitled to make up their own rules. Women are entitled to have use of their facilities, but not full membership. If they don't like it they can go to a neighbouring club.

For example a man can't join Curves Health Clubs. You see ads on the TV regularly for women's car insurance.

Zulu

Sharrow wrote: »

Not thick just do not have the shared frame of reference required.

Bollix (or fanny depending on what suits best). The human is perfectly capable of formulating educated thoughts on things they have not experienced. To dismiss wholly the thinking’s of a group of people simply because they don't share your genitallia is ignorance of the highest order.


…and the point that this is probably exactly the reason the meeting was held: to get men to denounce such bull**** ignorance isn’t lost on me. I just think it’s pathetic that there is such little regard or respect held for men in our society. The reality is, the few men that don’t respect women in Ireland, wouldn’t notice or care about this. The reality is, all these people are doing is insulting their own voters.

Zulu

bronte wrote: »

Not very nice no matter where it happens.

So you support political representitives having meeting in the Dail, and banning a group on account of their sex because a private golf club don't allow a particular sex becomming full members?

How exceptionally short sighted & petty of you.

bronte

Eoin wrote: »

Ah, this would be the totally irrelevant story about the ban which the equality authority admitted hadn't even received ONE complaint about.

Both are instances of exclusion based on gender. Not irrelevant.

flutterflye

I'm female, but I'm just not getting it - why the need to have an exclusively female meeting???
Surely you don't have to be female to have an opinion on the matter?

They are just drawing negative attention to themselves now sure.
If they had left it that everyone was welcome to come, alot of men would probably not have bothered to go anyway.

Snakeblood

Zulu wrote: »

Bollix (or fanny depending on what suits best). The human is perfectly capable of formulating educated thoughts on things they have not experienced. To dismiss wholly the thinking’s of a group of people simply because they don't share your genitallia is ignorance of the highest order.


…and the point that this is probably exactly the reason the meeting was held: to get men to denounce such bull**** ignorance isn’t lost on me. I just think it’s pathetic that there is such little regard or respect held for men in our society. The reality is, the few men that don’t respect women in Ireland, wouldn’t notice or care about this. The reality is, all these people are doing is insulting their own voters.

The idea that men are somehow held in little regard is a bit silly considering the majority of businesses have men in charge, the majority of T.D.s are men, the majority of any positions of power in Ireland, not to mention the world, barring possibly the Irish Countrywomen's Association have men at the helm.

Edit: I think it's a bit silly that they are excluding men, true. But I don't see men as being under attack from this.

bronte

Zulu wrote: »

So you support political representitives having meeting in the Dail, and banning a group on account of their sex because a private golf club don't allow a particular sex becomming full members?

How exceptionally short sighted & petty of you.

Where the hell did I say that?!
I think you'll find I said it's not very nice no matter where it happens.

Eoin

Suppose there was a political meeting about a different gender issue like unmarried fathers' rights. Should TDs that are female / married men / not parents be excluded? Do they all lack the frame of reference?

This is a load of nonsense, and I really regret giving Mitchell O'Connor my vote. The irony is that I voted for her rather than Bacik because of the crap that Bacik spouts.

Zulu

Snakeblood wrote: »

The idea that men are somehow held in little regard is a bit silly.

I don't mean by society as a whole, but rather those who felt it's a good idea to ban men.

bronte wrote: »

Where the hell did I say that?!
I think you'll find I said it's not very nice no matter where it happens.

Why did you bring the issue of the golf club into this if not to try and justify the actions of those politicans?

Eoin

bronte wrote: »

Both are instances of exclusion based on gender. Not irrelevant.

It is absolutely irrelevant, because it's a private club. There is nothing more than a very tenuous parallel between the two.

Snakeblood

Zulu wrote: »

I don't mean by society as a whole, but rather those who felt it's a good idea to ban men.

Well, you did say 'our society', so that's how I took it. If you mean 'This small group of female T.D.s' then it isn't quite as apocalyptic.

bronte

Zulu wrote: »

I don't mean by society as a whole, but rather those who felt it's a good idea to ban men.


Why did you bring the issue of the golf club into this if not to try and justify the actions of those politicans?

What the hell? It's NEVER a good idea.
IT'S TERRIBLE NO MATTER WHERE IT HAPPENS.
Try reading what I actually posted instead of what you seem to want to read.

bronte

Eoin wrote: »

It is absolutely irrelevant, because it's a private club. There is nothing more than a very tenuous parallel between the two.

Uh-huh.

Zulu

bronte wrote: »

What the hell? It's NEVER a good idea.
IT'S TERRIBLE NO MATTER WHERE IT HAPPENS.
Try reading what I actually posted instead of what you seem to want to read.

So you intention by linking the golf club piece was to point out how bad it was that these people excluded men? Ok.

hardybuck

bronte wrote: »

What the hell? It's NEVER a good idea.
IT'S TERRIBLE NO MATTER WHERE IT HAPPENS.
Try reading what I actually posted instead of what you seem to want to read.

Whats so terrible about forming a private club with people you want to mix with? As a guy often there will be one tone of language you'd use in a dressing room or out having a few pints and another you would use in the presence of a woman. I don't think I am too old fashioned in saying that.

Similarly I'm sure women have plenty of chats among themselves that they wouldn't have around other men.

In light of that I think it is perfectly acceptable that there are one or two places where you can get a break from the opposite sex and wind down.

This, on the other hand would be comparable to my female colleagues meeting in the office tonight after work, about how to get more women in the office in place of some of the guys. Instand dismissal for all present?

Zulu

Snakeblood wrote: »

Well, you did say 'our society', so that's how I took it. If you mean 'This small group of female T.D.s' then it isn't quite as apocalyptic.

Well I did say: I just think it’s pathetic that there is such little regard or respect held for men in our society.
ie: these people have little regard or respect for men in our society.

Sorry it probably could be clearer.

smash

Joanna Tuffy's problem with this is that the issues to be discussed, while mostly relate to women, also affect men so they should not be excluded.

bronte

Zulu wrote: »

So you intention by linking the golf club piece was to point out how bad it was that these people excluded men? Ok.

I'm saying excluding people because of what gender they are is a stupid move.

Was that honestly so difficult a conclusion to come to?
Am I missing something here?

Eoin

bronte wrote: »

What the hell? It's NEVER a good idea.
IT'S TERRIBLE NO MATTER WHERE IT HAPPENS.
Try reading what I actually posted instead of what you seem to want to read.

Why is it terrible for women to have a female-only gym where they might feel more comfortable? Why is it terrible that private organisations should have the right to associate with whom they want?

You can't compare the two issues. This is not a matter of private individuals deciding who they want to have a chat with. This is a case of politicians excluding colleagues who should have a right to be there, and represent the people who voted for them.

When this could impact on how the public get to choose who to vote for, it becomes a very different matter who how a private club operates.

bronte

So it's okay when it suits you really?

Fair enough.