Women 2013

skyfall2012

Hopefully 2013 will be a better year for women internationally, with Savita Halappanavar who died because ambiguity in Irish law, Malala Yousafzai who was shot by the Taliban for voicing her opinion on educating girls in Pakistan and now this poor girl in India, none of these governments willing to protect women's rights. What does the future hold?

Death and Taxes

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Hopefully 2013 will be a better year for women internationally, with Savita Halappanavar who died because ambiguity in Irish law, Malala Yousafzai who was shot by the Taliban for voicing her opinion on educating girls in Pakistan and now this poor girl in India, none of these governments willing to protect women's rights. What does the future hold?

More of the same if the bishops and the Mulla's get their way!:mad:

Praetorian Saighdiuir

I hope it will be a better year for all of us.

Peregrine

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Hopefully 2013 will be a better year for women internationally, with Savita Halappanavar who died because ambiguity in Irish law, Malala Yousafzai who was shot by the Taliban for voicing her opinion on educating girls in Pakistan and now this poor girl in India, none of these governments willing to protect women's rights. What does the future hold?

That's a bit of an overstatement.

I cannot speak for Yousafzai's case but clarity will be provided about abortion in Ireland (let's not turn this into a pro life v pro choice debate though) and as for the rape in New Delhi, all 6 have been arrested, charged with murder and will be brought on trial.

Maybe that's what the future holds? Clarity on eligibility for an abortion and moves to protect women's right in other countries.

keith16

Everyone's situation in the likes of Pakistan could do with improving.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Stealth Recce wrote: »

I hope it will be a better year for all of us.

classic mens rights whatabouttery

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

classic mens rights whatabouttery

WOW

Peregrine

keith16 wrote: »

Everyone's situation in the likes of Pakistan could do with improving.

Agreed. But that won't happen if they keep supporting an Islamic state where people of other religions are nothing short of pariahs

Bodhisopha

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman...

midlandsmissus

Stealth Recce wrote: »

WOW

I think he means can we not focus on one gender for one second at all. It doesn't mean we don't care about the other gender.

Change is occurring in women's rights.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I think he means can we not focus on one gender for one second at all. It doesn't mean we don't care about the other gender.

Change is occurring in women's rights.

Yeah, people seem to be empahasising the word "ALL" in my comment. Thats their own problem.

I am not countering for genders here, as a society and a species, I hope 2013 will be better for all of us.

It's as simple as that, don't look for things that aren't there. Jesus this place has gone to the dogs in the last 6 months.

If people want to report the post to get a Mod to remove it...then by all means do.

midlandsmissus

I think 2013 will be a great year for everyone, human rights and development wise.

You have to say for the bad things that happened this year there was lot of kindness and compassion shown:

The Indian lady who died in Ireland - a lot of compassion, a big move to make change.

The Sandy hook shooting - some compassion for the shooter, and this is a good thing, and talk about lack of mental health services for him.

The lady in India - men and women protesting together and coming together, they don't want to live in a country where that happens,and hopefully this will cause a huge change.

The bullied girls in Ireland ,and suicide in Ireland,again a lot of compassion there, great development in attitude there as depression and suicide was untalkable about not so long ago. I believe this will start to cause changes in mental health services and targeting bullying in Ireland.

The human race is not all that bad of a bunch guys,we're getting there!

Capt'n Midnight

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE84H0OW20120518?irpc=932

American nuns and U.S. bishops have been at odds over several issues social issues. They supported President Barack Obama's health care reform which the bishops opposed it.

AH something something ... singing from the same hymn sheet ?

Pottler

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman...

Givin all your love to just one man.

The b4stard.

NegativeCreep

WileyCoyote wrote: »

More of the same if the bishops and the Mulla's get their way!:mad:

Mulla :L havnt heard tat,wrd on years :L

oppenheimer1

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Hopefully 2013 will be a better year for women internationally, with Savita Halappanavar who died because ambiguity in Irish law, Malala Yousafzai who was shot by the Taliban for voicing her opinion on educating girls in Pakistan and now this poor girl in India, none of these governments willing to protect women's rights. What does the future hold?

I would just like to point out that the facts surrounding the death of Savita Halappanavar have not yet been established. It has yet to be determined whether or not Irish law or the lack thereof played any role.

DEFTLEFTHAND

As James Reilly himself stated often the safest passage with a miscarraige is to let it occur naturally, what people don't realise is that an abortion could have taken place here within our law. Savita's case was one in a thousand. Lay off the medical profession, how many women die in childbirth in India each year?

I think a lot of the anti Catholic brigade used this tragedy as a vehicle to further push their agenda, a very sad argument imo.

Pride Fighter

Despite the negatives, 2012 was a good year for women too. 2012 saw for the first time ever each country on the globe send a female athlete to the 2012 olympics. That is progress.

Unfortunately womens rights is moving at a crawl, it is only 40 years that they did not have to quit work if they got married in this country. It may be another 40 years when they pay they earn is the same as men who do the same job, and another 40 when gender stereotypes are gone forever and women have full equality in everything.

I hope it is sooner.

eyeroad yearowl one

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Unfortunately womens rights is moving at a crawl, it is only 40 years that they did not have to quit work if they got married in this country. It may be another 40 years when they pay they earn is the same as men who do the same job, and another 40 when gender stereotypes are gone forever and women have full equality in everything.

Which one of "lies, damned lies or statistics" is this?

It might happen in some cases. Similarly I'm sure there are women getting paid more than some men who do the same job.

A female teacher with 20 years on the scale earns less than a male teacher with 5 years on the scale and teaching the same class? i.e doing the same job?

Arpa

eyeroad yearowl one wrote: »

Which one of "lies, damned lies or statistics" is this?

It might happen in some cases. Similarly I'm sure there are women getting paid more than some men who do the same job.

A female teacher with 20 years on the scale earns less than a male teacher with 5 years on the scale and teaching the same class? i.e doing the same job?

??? I can't understand you...please write English. From what I can discern you've contradicted your own argument.

Jester252

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Despite the negatives, 2012 was a good year for women too. 2012 saw for the first time ever each country on the globe send a female athlete to the 2012 olympics. That is progress.

Unfortunately womens rights is moving at a crawl, it is only 40 years that they did not have to quit work if they got married in this country. It may be another 40 years when they pay they earn is the same as men who do the same job, and another 40 when gender stereotypes are gone forever and women have full equality in everything.

I hope it is sooner.

What a person is paied is a deal between them and their company. Stereotypes will never go away.

eyeroad yearowl one

Arpa wrote: »

??? I can't understand you...please write English. From what I can discern you've contradicted your own argument.

Ok. I'll type slowly so that you can read it slowly

The poster was implying that women always earn less than men for doing the same job. I replied that I'm sure that there are examples of individual cases where it is true; and equally, there are examples of where men get paid less than women who do the same job.

I gave the example of a case where a female and male teacher could be doing the same job and the women get paid less. I concluded each sentence with a question mark to make it into a rhetorical question.

You can google "rhetorical" if you are confused. Similarly for the first line in relation to "lies and statistics". It's basically a way of saying that you can twist or selectively pick/represent statistics to try to support any point of view.

Chuck Stone

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The Sandy hook shooting - some compassion for the shooter

**** him. Pity the murderous little cunt didn't have a bit of compassion for the children he massacred.

GalwayGuy2

It may be another 40 years when they pay they earn is the same as men who do the same job,

Tbf, men are paid more when taking into account the whole of the workforce, it's not as simple as two managers with the exact experience, qualifications, and working hours being paid differently because of their genders.

Gauss

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Tbf, men are paid more when taking into account the whole of the workforce, it's not as simple as two managers with the exact experience, qualifications, and working hours being paid differently because of their genders.

That doesn't prove discrimination is taking place, perhaps men earn more on average because they are more likely to ask for a raise or threaten to leave of they don't get a raise. I've yet to see proof women are discriminated against in terms of wages.

Madam_X

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Hopefully 2013 will be a better year for women internationally

In fairness the OP did say "internationally". While women have it fine in the likes of this country, there are parts of the world where it is terrifying to be a woman. I know lots of men and boys get treated like sh1t in many societies too, of course (e.g. child soldiers in some war-torn African countries :mad:) but it's mostly not because of them being men.
It's not a feminist issue IMO though (i.e. prioritising women), it's a human rights issue that happens to affect women, and the men in their lives who suffer also, e.g. that poor young guy who was accompanying the girl on that bus in India.

GalwayGuy2

it's mostly not because of them being men.

To be incredibly nit-picky it could be argued that that's the whole manly(physical, aggressive, so on) versus feminine virtues. But I don't have a clue about the culture that child soldiers are brought in on and that's more a bit of a mini rant.

It's not a feminist issue IMO though (i.e. prioritising women), it's a human rights issue that happens to affect women

Definitely agree. Quick question, does rape count as torture in the international relation world?

Hippies!

I wish for world peace like them American Pageant wans do too OP :pac:

Arpa

eyeroad yearowl one wrote: »

Ok. I'll type slowly so that you can read it slowly

The poster was implying that women always earn less than men for doing the same job. I replied that I'm sure that there are examples of individual cases where it is true; and equally, there are examples of where men get paid less than women who do the same job.

I gave the example of a case where a female and male teacher could be doing the same job and the women get paid less. I concluded each sentence with a question mark to make it into a rhetorical question.

You can google "rhetorical" if you are confused. Similarly for the first line in relation to "lies and statistics". It's basically a way of saying that you can twist or selectively pick/represent statistics to try to support any point of view.

Ok fair enough, but from your original post everything is ambiguous. Google "ambiguous" if you're not sure. Don't be a smart a*se.

So just to be clear the original post was about where women get paid less than men for the same job, then you gave an example of where a woman gets paid less than a man for the same job....so your contribution is redundant.

token101

On a serious note, equality has taken a big leap forward with Fanuary. If it's anything like Movember, my Facebook feed is about to become interesting for a change.

midlandsmissus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

**** him. Pity the murderous little cunt didn't have a bit of compassion for the children he massacred.

I completely hear what you're saying,

But a more developed society won't shout 'hang the bastard' at everyone who does something very wrong. A better way (in my view) is to look at what contributed.

When we live in a more caring compassionate society, maybe these things will stop happening?

token101

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I completely hear what you're saying,

But a more developed society won't shout 'hang the bastard' at everyone who does something very wrong. A better way (in my view) is to look at what contributed.

When we live in a more caring compassionate society, maybe these things will stop happening?

Very wrong? Killing 20 kids is a bit more than very wrong FFS, it's evil beyond belief.

Peregrine

token101 wrote: »

Very wrong? Killing 20 kids is a bit more than very wrong FFS, it's evil beyond belief.

Bigger picture please, why did he commit this "evil" crime? Simply hanging them won't help and it won't prevent it from happening again.

A civilised society would want to find out why he did this and won't let it happen again.

token101

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Bigger picture please, why did he commit this "evil" crime? Simply hanging them won't help and it won't prevent it from happening again.

A civilised society would want to find out why he did this and won't let it happen again.

OK, bigger picture: it's always going to happen again and all the finding in the world isn't going to do a thing. Don't you think they studied all the other shootings? How are you going to stop random nutjobs committing random atrocities FFS? There was no logical reason for what he did, he was obviously mentally ill and hid it well, but that doesn't excuse him in any way. Not having compassion for someone who's murdered 26 people for no reason is not uncivilised, don't be ****ing ridiculous.

Peregrine

token101 wrote: »

OK, bigger picture: it's always going to happen again and all the finding in the world isn't going to do a thing. Don't you think they studied all the other shootings? How are you going to stop random nutjobs committing random atrocities FFS? There was no logical reason for what he did, he was obviously mentally ill and hid it well, but that doesn't excuse him in any way. Not having compassion for someone who's murdered 26 people for no reason is not uncivilised, don't be ****ing ridiculous.

That's it? He was obviously mentally ill so let's move on? Jesus Christ. Maybe people who are mentally ill should be encouraged to get help rather than simply ignoring it which could lead to things like this.

I never said we should have compassion for him but it's important to understand his motives.

midlandsmissus

token101 wrote: »

OK, bigger picture: it's always going to happen again and all the finding in the world isn't going to do a thing. Don't you think they studied all the other shootings? How are you going to stop random nutjobs committing random atrocities FFS? There was no logical reason for what he did, he was obviously mentally ill and hid it well, but that doesn't excuse him in any way. Not having compassion for someone who's murdered 26 people for no reason is not uncivilised, don't be ****ing ridiculous.

He didn't say not having compassion for some-one who murdered is uncivilised.

He said a better, more developed society will try to have understanding and help the cause of the problem, rather than the kneejerk reaction of some in circumstances like this.

steddyeddy

I was going to post an outraged moral highground sort of post but fcuk that, it's christmas!! Instead i'll wish all the boards women a sexual happy new year!!xxxx

hatrickpatrick

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

That's a bit of an overstatement.

I cannot speak for Yousafzai's case but clarity will be provided about abortion in Ireland (let's not turn this into a pro life v pro choice debate though) and as for the rape in New Delhi, all 6 have been arrested, charged with murder and will be brought on trial.

Maybe that's what the future holds? Clarity on eligibility for an abortion and moves to protect women's right in other countries.

It's hardly an overstatement. "Clarity" is like "stability" in economic terms. You can have a "stable" economy in which everyone in unemployed, stable simply means it's not likely to suddenly change. "Clarity" on abortion could mean "clarifying" that it's ok to let someone die because, to quote her doctor, "this is a Catholic country".

I think I would speak for a lot of the people who were angered by Savita's death when I say I don't particularly want "clarity", I want the law changed to explicitly and unambiguously make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

hatrickpatrick

Slightly off topic, but why do people *assume* that people who commit horrible atrocities are mentally ill every time? You see it especially in cases where a parent is accused of abusing or murdering a child, or whenever there's a mass shooting in the US.

Sure, sometimes these people are of course mentally ill, but I have a serious issue with the concept that people seem to believe it's absolutely impossible for somebody to have no actual medical condition apart from simply being a vile, evil human being. Not everyone who commits crimes lacks the capacity to choose between right and wrong, some of them simply don't give a f*ck about other people, and to be perfectly honest I wouldn't have the slightest amount of sympathy for those people.

skyfall2012

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but why do people *assume* that people who commit horrible atrocities are mentally ill every time? You see it especially in cases where a parent is accused of abusing or murdering a child, or whenever there's a mass shooting in the US.

Sure, sometimes these people are of course mentally ill, but I have a serious issue with the concept that people seem to believe it's absolutely impossible for somebody to have no actual medical condition apart from simply being a vile, evil human being. Not everyone who commits crimes lacks the capacity to choose between right and wrong, some of them simply don't give a f*ck about other people, and to be perfectly honest I wouldn't have the slightest amount of sympathy for those people.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/294626-overview
"It is essential to keep in mind that most people with mental illness are not violent.[2] A study of psychotic individuals found that those with a mental illness were responsible for only 5% of all violent crimes"

So the point I want to make about these crimes:
The crime that was committed on the woman in India and the girl in Pakistan and even the ambiguity in Irish law and the fact it was never finalized by government (not seen as a priority), all stem from attitudes towards women and has nothing to do with mental illness. I suppose the big question is where are these attitudes stemming from and how can they be changed?

midlandsmissus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but why do people *assume* that people who commit horrible atrocities are mentally ill every time? You see it especially in cases where a parent is accused of abusing or murdering a child, or whenever there's a mass shooting in the US.

Sure, sometimes these people are of course mentally ill, but I have a serious issue with the concept that people seem to believe it's absolutely impossible for somebody to have no actual medical condition apart from simply being a vile, evil human being. Not everyone who commits crimes lacks the capacity to choose between right and wrong, some of them simply don't give a f*ck about other people, and to be perfectly honest I wouldn't have the slightest amount of sympathy for those people.

Indeed, but wasnt Ryann Lanza diagnosed with a personality disorder/autism?

HHobo

skyfall2012 wrote: »

Hopefully 2013 will be a better year for women internationally, with Savita Halappanavar who died because ambiguity in Irish law, Malala Yousafzai who was shot by the Taliban for voicing her opinion on educating girls in Pakistan and now this poor girl in India, none of these governments willing to protect women's rights. What does the future hold?

Hopefully 2013 will be a better year for men internationally too. I know they are only men but still...

skyfall2012

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Indeed, but wasnt Ryann Lanza diagnosed with a personality disorder/autism?

I think I have a personality disorder and a touch of Autism myself, but I don't go around killing the people.

I would suggest that the most likely cause of his problem was his parents personality disorders. He may have been ignored, not taken seriously, he was described as smart by people who knew him in classes he attended, he decided he was going to show his parents and the world.

But this is all off topic and doesn't deal with the question of attitudes towards women in the world and because of these attitudes they have to suffer poverty, sexual abuse, refused education which makes it difficult for them to improve their situation.

Why are women looked upon in this way, are women so scary, that they have to be kept down?

Madam_X

HHobo wrote: »

Hopefully 2013 will be a better year for men internationally too. I know they are only men but still...

It's a disgrace the way women in the Congo get focused on due to the way they live in fear of rape everyday - sexist against men that's what it is.


Honestly, the levels that are stooped to on this thread and the prostate cancer thread to find evidence of men not being given a sh1t about by women here.

HHobo

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Bigger picture please, why did he commit this "evil" crime? Simply hanging them won't help and it won't prevent it from happening again.

A civilised society would want to find out why he did this and won't let it happen again.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should attempt to discover what led to this (It would be naieve in the extreme to think that knowing the reason would make it possible to prevent in the future). Then I think we should hang the bastard (Were he still alive). Infact, hanging seems extremely lenient.

I hope you aren't suggesting that showing compassion to mass child murderers is civilised?

HHobo

Madam_X wrote: »

It's a disgrace the way women in the Congo get focused on due to the way they live in fear of rape everyday - sexist against men that's what it is.


Honestly, the levels that are stooped to on this thread and the prostate cancer thread to find evidence of men not being given a sh1t about by women here.

Right, because rape is the only crime in the world. Ever bothered to wonder which gender lives with a greater fear of being killed in most countries on earth. Gender-tinted glasses.

skyfall2012

Name one country where men are denied an education because of their gender?

dark crystal

HHobo wrote: »

Right, because rape is the only crime in the world. Ever bothered to wonder which gender lives with a greater fear of being killed in most countries on earth. Gender-tinted glasses.

Why don't you start a thread about that subject and tell us all about it? I doubt you'll get a flurry of women suggesting you're being sexist by doing so.

Just because a thread is started that focuses on certain women's issues, why does that automatically suggest to you that it's in some way anti-men??

jaffacakesyum

HHobo wrote: »

Hopefully 2013 will be a better year for men internationally too. I know they are only men but still...

HHobo wrote: »

Right, because rape is the only crime in the world. Ever bothered to wonder which gender lives with a greater fear of being killed in most countries on earth. Gender-tinted glasses.

Ah HHobo, let me break this down for you. See the topic of this thread is 'Women 2013'. Therefore, when clicking in it, it's safe to say the discussion is probably going to be about women in 2013, not men. If you feel strongly about discussing the latter, perhaps start your own thread?

It's a bit of a ridiculous jump (and I know you didn't explicitly say this, but you are implying it) to think that someone who cares about womens rights and hopes things improve for women internationally in 2013, don't care about men's rights too. It's like starting a topic on discrimination in certain African countries and saying you hope things improve in 2013 and then you have people coming on here saying "Well, I would hope things would improve in Israel and Palestine too :rolleyes:". It's needless smart arsery.

If you want to turn this into a men vs women debate, start your own thread perhaps.

Is it too much to ask that we are allowed discuss women's rights? Women who aren't allowed to drive a car or vote in Saudi Arabia? Women who are raped on a daily basis in some African countries? Women who don't have rights to their own bodies in Ireland FFS?

Peregrine

HHobo wrote: »

I hope you aren't suggesting that showing compassion to mass child murderers is civilised?

Oh hell no. An adequate punishment should be handed out but simply yelling "Burn him at the stake!" like uninformed medival people isn't an answer.

Shenshen

token101 wrote: »

OK, bigger picture: it's always going to happen again and all the finding in the world isn't going to do a thing. Don't you think they studied all the other shootings? How are you going to stop random nutjobs committing random atrocities FFS? There was no logical reason for what he did, he was obviously mentally ill and hid it well, but that doesn't excuse him in any way. Not having compassion for someone who's murdered 26 people for no reason is not uncivilised, don't be ****ing ridiculous.

I think they did study the other shootings. I also think some actions were taken.
Remember that the only shootings you'll hear about internationally are the ones that actually happened, not the ones that were prevented.

Why would you need there to be an excuse for his actions in order to feel compassion with him? Think about it for a moment, what kind of a tortured mind would commit acts such as these? And how long must he have been mentally suffering for this plan to even hatch? As you very well pointed out, it's not something a happy and sane person would contemplate.
That doesn't make his actions in any way, shape or form excusable.
But if there had been offerings of help to him years ago, maybe even just days ago, these children may still be alive and happily oblivious that in a parallel universe, they're now dead.

Saying "it will always happen, let's move on" would not have found the vaccine against polio or smallpox, it would not have led to safety equipment in cars or airplanes or ships, people would still be dying like flies from utterly preventable causes.