Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

I received a mail in work yesterday telling us about an accelerated development program. It's one of many programs they've introduced exclusively for women in the company and designed to get them into senior roles ahead of their male colleagues.

Yes they are that blatant about it.

I wouldn't mind but my last 3 bosses have been women and my last 2 hires were women.

And here we are, posting on a thread about a woman who was a GP and followed her dream to became a radio presenter. A woman who's done very well for herself and good luck to her.

Please spare us this nonsense about unequal treatment and pay.

You should google "subjective validation" - there is a mountain of evidence that supports the statement that there is unequal pay and unequal access to opportunity. If a woman achieves the same success or more than me because of a programme that assists in developing and advancing their opportunities, I don't really care.

The fact that you don't think there's a need for feminism because you can point to one lady who's a GP and a radio presenter isn't really solid evidence of "problem solved" now is it?

goochy

yes shes the only woman GP - they dont compare salaries according to roles just overall in companies
nothing worst than a man who is more concerned with womens rights instead of his own / mens rights - are you a friend of Ray Darcy ?

FreudianSlippers

goochy wrote: »

here here , can never understand how it is the professional women who bang on about womens rights - not housewives who have more reason to ?

They want loads more women to become doctors etc. but maybe other women dont want or are not able to be doctors

They don't want more women to be doctors - they want systemic balance that allows young girls to be able to become doctors. The interesting thing is that 50 years ago women accounted for 29% of those accepted to med school; due to a number of changes that number is now in parity.

The same thing with the legal profession, as little as 15-20 years ago it was a boy's club, now it's equal (and I'd say there were significantly more women in my law school).

FreudianSlippers

goochy wrote: »

yes shes the only woman GP - they dont compare salaries according to roles just overall in companies
nothing worst than a man who is more concerned with womens rights instead of his own / mens rights - are you a friend of Ray Darcy ?

It's absolutely ignorant and wrong to believe that increasing and protecting the rights of one group results in a decrease of rights in another group. There is not a finite amount of rights and either you're in need of serious education in this area or you're just a poor troll... not sure which is worse tbh?

Uncharted

Give it a rest lads ffs.

Does anyone ever discuss the show anymore?

FreudianSlippers

I understand and appreciate the general rule of the forum which is that threads are about discussing good/bad points of various shows, and I'm not asking this question in terms of "why do you bother listening" or "turn it off if you don't like it" - just to be clear, I'm not saying that at all and I don't care if people want to hate-listen to the show. Additionally, I'm not saying in any way that this applies to everyone who doesn't like the show and/or Ciara, but...

Can I ask why so many apparent men's rights activists would want to listen to this show? I'm genuinely interested in the thought process behind this; surely that is counter-intuitive to increase the listeners and ratings of a show that you hate and that you think should have a different presenter isn't it?


I don't think the show is great myself, but if I'm in Ireland and have the radio on in the office in the background, it's probably one of the better lunchtime shows IMO. But if I was like a rabid anti-feminist MRA it's the absolute last thing I'd put on.

FreudianSlippers

Uncharted wrote: »

Give it a rest lads ffs.

Does anyone ever discuss the show anymore?

The show doesn't even start for an hour. Feel free if you want to post a "lunchtime live buildup" be my guest.

goochy

anyone who analysese how many and what type of posts someone posted in past when trying to make a point is a bit sad.

The Bishop Basher

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

because you can point to one lady who's a GP and a radio presenter isn't really solid evidence of "problem solved" now is it?

Yet you think you can point to one colleague who earns less then you and expect us all to believe it's an endemic problem

You even went on to explain the pay differential in the same post.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

(although in fairness my firm does appreciate that I travel a lot).

I can point to any number of successful women in both public and private life. They are successful because they worked hard, were talented, driven and motivated and in many cases were in the right place at the right time which was especially true for Ciara and is true for anyone successful, male or female.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If a woman achieves the same success or more than me because of a programme that assists in developing and advancing their opportunities, I don't really care.

If I was a woman I would care. I wouldn't want to be pushed up the ladder because I was the correct gender. I would want to earn it on merit like my male counterparts. We obviously see this differently.

Bottom line, if you're girlfriend is not getting where she wants to go in life maybe she should reflect inwards a little more and stop blaming everyone else for her lack of progression.

Anyway we're miles OT so you can have the last word..

FreudianSlippers

goochy wrote: »

anyone who analysese how many and what type of posts someone posted in past when trying to make a point is a bit sad.

Spectacularly missing the point as usual whilst trying to get a pathetic dig in.

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

Yet you think you can point to one colleague who earns less then you and expect us all to believe it's an endemic problem

You must have missed the link I posted which outlines the issue. There is a mountain of evidence, it's not my job to educate you.

You even went on to explain the pay differential in the same post.

You think people get paid more for billing less hours in law firms?

I can point to any number of successful women in both public and private life. They are successful because they worked hard, were talented, driven and motivated and in many cases were in the right place at the right time which was especially true for Ciara and is true for anyone successful, male or female.

I agree. So you're saying that because you can do this, it means the evidence of systemic inequality is incorrect? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make and I can see you didn't look up subjective validation.

If I was a woman I would care. I wouldn't want to be pushed up the ladder because I was the correct gender. I would want to earn it on merit like my male counterparts. WE obviously see this differently.

Now you're discussing positive discrimination which is (i) a shift of the goalposts (ii) an entirely different discussion.

Bottom line, if you're [sic] girlfriend is not getting where she wants to go in life maybe she should reflect inwards a little more and stop blaming everyone else for her lack of progression.

1) That's not what I said;
2) I am girlfriend?
3) My point was about comparison of males and females doing the same job, not about job satisfaction or "getting where she wants to go in life". You're suggesting that successful professionals making six figures should just be glad they're out of the house?

redbuck

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I understand and appreciate the general rule of the forum which is that threads are about discussing good/bad points of various shows, and I'm not asking this question in terms of "why do you bother listening" or "turn it off if you don't like it" - just to be clear, I'm not saying that at all and I don't care if people want to hate-listen to the show. Additionally, I'm not saying in any way that this applies to everyone who doesn't like the show and/or Ciara, but...

Can I ask why so many apparent men's rights activists would want to listen to this show? I'm genuinely interested in the thought process behind this; surely that is counter-intuitive to increase the listeners and ratings of a show that you hate and that you think should have a different presenter isn't it?


I don't think the show is great myself, but if I'm in Ireland and have the radio on in the office in the background, it's probably one of the better lunchtime shows IMO. But if I was like a rabid anti-feminist MRA it's the absolute last thing I'd put on.

You're the only one here turning it in to a feminist issue.

Everyone here this week was talking about how Susan Keogh was doing a better job than Ciara Kelly and you came along and turned it in to some bizarre argument about feminism.

goochy

the strange thing is hes a man !

FreudianSlippers

redbuck wrote: »

You're the only one here turning it in to a feminist issue.

Everyone here this week was talking about how Susan Keogh was doing a better job than Ciara Kelly and you came along and turned it in to some bizarre argument about feminism.

Except that's a lie and you know it...

goochy wrote: »

Its called being a feminist - sounds like hard work - Ciara will give herself a heart attack someday she has so much anger inside her .
saw picture of her husband - opposites attract - looked like a harmless fella

First mention of it in relation to a completely unrelated post I made today isn't it? Come on... admit it?

FreudianSlippers

goochy wrote: »

the strange thing is hes a man !

It's right out of the MRA/Incel handbook that somehow men cannot be feminists. As I said previously, it's either one or the other with you vis-a-vis lack of knowledge or the alternative; both pretty bad situations.

FreudianSlippers

I think we'll see just how "unscripted" the Friday show is today - not to suggest that Susan isn't a good enough broadcaster to keep the show running (and obviously there is a producer there to keep things on track) but Susan herself is admitting "it's [her] first rodeo", so perhaps we'll see some cracks that suggest it's truly unscripted or else it'll run as usual which would give some credence to the brigade that doesn't buy it.

Again, I think a lot of that is down to the show's producer, but we shall see...

Sleeper12

Jasus wept, they are going on about the iodine tablets again!

Talk about flogging a dead horse

FreudianSlippers

"Tax defaulters shouldn't be named and shamed....... uhhhhh.... asking for a 'friend'"

jeremyj1968

Susan is certainly a lot more palatable than Kelly. But I guess like all the Newstalk presenters, she will start off fine, but slowly the influence of the organisation takes over their brain and they begin spouting out the same opinions as the rest of them. I mean, I used to think that Jonathan Healy was a good broadcaster.

I really hang my head in shame when I think of that :-(

Sleeper12

jeremyj1968 wrote:

Susan is certainly a lot more palatable than Kelly. But I guess like all the Newstalk presenters, she will start off fine, but slowly the influence of the organisation takes over their brain and they begin spouting out the same opinions as the rest of them. I mean, I used to think that Jonathan Healy was a good broadcaster.

I think she's brilliant. Either very knowable or doe's genuine research before a topic comes on the air. She's much easier on my sensitive ears. I'm loving hearing what guest have to say without being constantly interrupted. Her only downfall is that her voice is a little bland.

FreudianSlippers

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I think she's brilliant. Either very knowable or doe's genuine research before a topic comes on the air. She's much easier on my sensitive ears. I'm loving hearing what guest have to say without being constantly interrupted. Her only downfall is that her voice is a little bland.

It's not too bad, IMO it's just generic female Irish radio voice... reminds me of like an AA roadwatch person!

sligojoek

I had a listen for a bit yesterday and today. She sounds very pleasant and non confrontational.

BPKS

Walked into the kitchen earlier and it was on:

The presenter (not Ciara Kelly) who used do the news on Today FM says "Do you agree with people who dont need to parking in disabled car park spaces"

Cutting edge stuff.

I bet if you mentioned a certain ethnic minority who seem to do this at will she wouldnt have been long cutting you off.

Grolschevik

BPKS wrote: »

I bet if you mentioned a certain ethnic minority who seem to do this at will she wouldnt have been long cutting you off.

Middle-class people in 4x4s?

BPKS

Grolschevik wrote: »

Middle-class people in 4x4s?

Not in my experience.

Man in white vest driving, orange faced woman in passenger seat and a stack of kids in the back is who I see parking in disabled spaces the most.

Faugheen

People need to remember that it's not her show, so she's not going to rock the boat too much.

Would be great if she was like this more often. She was painful to listen to when she covered for Matt Cooper.

Ol' Donie

Hahaha

We want to talk about the use of the word culchies. Is that an offensive term to culchies...eh...I mean people from the country...!!

goochy

she must have adhd or something - my stress levels have already gone up - everything at 200mph

redbuck

That culchie/jackeen segment there was one of the most inane pieces of broadcasting I ever heard.

Ciaras back with a vengeance....

Charles Ingles

I think Ciara senses she is hanging onto her show by a tread, she sounds desperate on the radio today.
I think her stand-in made her nervous I'm sure the production team enjoyed her week off more than Ciara