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

Gravelly

I see this thread hasn't progressed since I got my one month ban for daring to suggest Ciara (peace upon her name) was anything less than the greatest radio host that ever lived :rolleyes:

Uncharted

feckthisgenie wrote: »

Yes because I have a life not a sad case on boards all the time. Kind of sad how quick you replied to be honest. Is this your only outlet?

I responded to you in 5 minutes.

You responded to me in 15 minutes.

I'm honoured that you responded so quickly to me. I must have struck a chord with you. I'm really touched.

Usually there's 10 months between your posts.
:pac:

Fann Linn

Gravelly wrote: »

I see this thread hasn't progressed since I got my one month ban for daring to suggest Ciara (peace upon her name) was anything less than the greatest radio host that ever lived :rolleyes:

Welcome back.
And Ciara is better on ignore.

Nody

Mod:
Uncharted is taking a forum break at the moment; if anyone else wants to join him in a break from the Radio forum do by all means continue attacking other posters as I'm still running a tad behind target on my ban quota this month.

meeeeh

Ok the having kids conversation is painful.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

Ok the having kids conversation is painful.

What was it about? (apart from having children obviously) but what angle on this?

meeeeh

It was just about having kids and what is like for old childless people. I didn't like the original caller, it got a bit better when others joined in.

jeremyj1968

Fann Linn wrote: »

Welcome back.
And Ciara is better on ignore.

Yeah that about covers it. I just don't switch on any more. I miss sometimes having something to listen to after 12pm, and sometimes I do put on NT by mistake. But within five seconds I hear that usual "I I I I I I I I I I I really really want to hear what YOU think", and I shut it down.

Tell me how

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Yeah that about covers it. I just don't switch on any more. I miss sometimes having something to listen to after 12pm, and sometimes I do put on NT by mistake. But within five seconds I hear that usual "I I I I I I I I I I I really really want to hear what YOU think", and I shut it down.

:D:D:D:D

daithi7

Hilarious, this week. The Ck show wanted to discuss the low take up of Paternal Leave (40% only apparently). It was a very worthy topic. Who did they get in to talk about it on air?!? A representative from the Irish Women's Council.I kid u not!!! ��

So men not taking paternal leave is really a women's issue, to be discussed by an advocate from a blatantly sexist organisation representing women. I mean you couldn't make it up!!! ��


P.s. Why do the Irish Women's Council receive tax dollars &/or grants ?!? IMHO no sexist organisation should ever receive tax revenue.

Tell me how

daithi7 wrote: »

Hilarious, this week. The Ck show wanted to discuss the low take up of Paternal Leave (40% only apparently). It was a very worthy topic. Who did they get in to talk about it on air?!? A representative from the Irish Women's Council.I kid u not!!! ��

So men not taking paternal leave is really a women's issue, to be discussed by an advocate from a blatantly sexist organisation representing women. I mean you couldn't make it up!!! ��


P.s. Why do the Irish Women's Council receive tax dollars &/or grants ?!? IMHO no sexist organisation should ever receive tax revenue.

I didn't hear this piece live so I just listened to it on podcast.

Ciara suggested to Irish Womens Council representative that she thought that maybe more men would take leave it could be swapped with maternity leave as there is little point in both parents sitting at home looking at each other at the same time. She suggested that the 6 months leave is to facilitate breastfeeding and that the vast majority of Irish women don't breast feed so they could give up some of this time but that it seems they don't want to.

It sounded like she wanted to speak to her to challenge their position of having 6 months for women and sharing some of that.

Also, I'm not sure if you heard the full piece as I think it was broken by the news but they spent as long talking about it in the second part as the first and they had 2 men callers who spoke about their experience in taking it with one of them being a stay at home dad.

Sleeper12

daithi7 wrote: »

Hilarious, this week. The Ck show wanted to discuss the low take up of Paternal Leave (40% only apparently). It was a very worthy topic. Who did they get in to talk about it on air?!? A representative from the Irish Women's Council.I kid u not!!! ��

So men not taking paternal leave is really a women's issue, to be discussed by an advocate from a blatantly sexist organisation representing women. I mean you couldn't make it up!!! ��

This struck me as very odd too at the time. I thought of posting about it here & thought to myself, na I'm being too picky. So I'm not the only one that thought it odd.


I'm not sure if there is a "men's council" or anything like it but I think I'd prefer to have a SIPTU rep, male or female, or to talk about it rather than the women's council. The man hater from the women's council kept saying how women were forced into the child caring & housework rolls. I thought this segment difficult to listen to



40 percent take up is quite good in my opinion. This has only been on offer for a year or two so far as far as I know.

goochy

That Ciara one is mad - imagine an unscripted show ! whatever someone rings about , we can be sure Ciara will ram her opinions down our throats

jeremyj1968

So even thought there are some good men, most men are bast*rds, is that what this clown is saying.

And "Men don't get given out to if they work longer hours" - This is the number one item that he offers as how men have advantage over women in the workplace.

goochy

as usual that man is considered a sap for complaining by another texter - woman - we complain about anything and we are considered weak

Ciara considers herself a mans woman - cant see any man i would be friends with being friends with a woman with such a negative view of women

wish she had john waters on

goochy

sorry that meant to say negative view of men

ButtersSuki

goochy wrote: »

That Ciara one is mad - imagine an unscripted show ! whatever someone rings about , we can be sure Ciara will ram her opinions down our throats

Yeah you get straight through to Ciara, no filtering by researchers and no questions about what you’d like to talk about at all before you get on air. No screening or selective editing at all. :rolleyes:

Unscripted in this case means you’re welcome to come on and chat about inane topics (like a local film club’s showing of a movie over a pub - actual topic covered btw), or any topic that’s on Ciara’s Agenda Du Jour - assuming of course you’re woke enough to hold the exact same views as Ciara.

meeeeh

goochy wrote: »

wish she had john waters on

I think even Iona Institute figured out it's better to send David Quinn on radio or tv and keep Walters somewhere in the closet.

But anyway I see usual suspects are up in arms and looking to be offended.

goochy

oh so its alright for women to be offended but not men ??
usual lack of equality

Gravelly

meeeeh wrote: »

But anyway I see usual suspects are up in arms and looking to be offended.

:rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

So even thought there are some good men, most men are bast*rds, is that what this clown is saying.

And "Men don't get given out to if they work longer hours" - This is the number one item that he offers as how men have advantage over women in the workplace.

goochy wrote: »

as usual that man is considered a sap for complaining by another texter - woman - we complain about anything and we are considered weak

Ciara considers herself a mans woman - cant see any man i would be friends with being friends with a woman with such a negative view of women

wish she had john waters on

goochy wrote: »

oh so its alright for women to be offended but not men ??
usual lack of equality

Incel crew right on cue!

i71jskz5xu42pb

meeeeh wrote: »

I think even Iona Institute figured out it's better to send David Quinn on radio or tv and keep Walters somewhere in the closet.

Is Waters even a member of Iona?

Either way, David Quinn is a far smarter guy, much better able to get his view points across and comes across as less of a loon (does a better job of hiding it anyway)

Sleeper12

goochy wrote:

oh so its alright for women to be offended but not men ?? usual lack of equality

There's a whole Gillette thread full of offended men.

jeremyj1968

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Incel crew right on cue!

Oh look, it's my own fault for listening but I was working on site that day and it was on in the office. But if such an ad was put out about anybody other than straight white males, there would be an outrage in the media. However, there are different rules for different groups these days, there is no equality. If you are a straight white male or a member of the Catholic Church, then the media (and now advertisers apparently) see you as fair game to say whatever they want, with little repercussions.

meeeeh

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Oh look, it's my own fault for listening but I was working on site that day and it was on in the office. But if such an ad was put out about anybody other than straight white males, there would be an outrage in the media. However, there are different rules for different groups these days, there is no equality. If you are a straight white male or a member of the Catholic Church, then the media (and now advertisers apparently) see you as fair game to say whatever they want, with little repercussions.

While I don't like the ad, it might give you a bit of insight what women had to deal with and a lot more of it. Btw if you are white middle aged male you are still top of the food chain (on average).

ligerdub

meeeeh wrote: »

While I don't like the ad, it might give you a bit of insight what women had to deal with and a lot more of it. Btw if you are white middle aged male you are still top of the food chain (on average).

I partially hate myself for rising to the bait on this one, but spare us the patronising suggestion mixed in with the victim complex.

If it were somehow based on facts rather than generalisations, and if it were not an opportunistic attempt by a large corporation to jump on a bandwagon, itself in the dying embers of credibility then it might have a degree of value, but this is not the case. This is not a public service announcement, it's an advertising campaign, which has taken the rather ludicrous approach of preaching to their target market to not let themselves down, lest they will incur the moral judgment of the top brass of Proctor and Gamble.

We hear a lot about the "pink tax" on razors. Me thinks Gillette ought to consider the phrase relating to glass houses and throwing stones, although maybe it's more a tax on gullibility if people are buying practically an identical product from the same company at a higher price than they need to.

As far as putting oneself in the shoes of another, maybe it's not men who need to do this.

Also, in terms of this comment:

"Btw if you are white middle aged male you are still top of the food chain (on average)."

I'm going to go ahead and assume that by this you mean some sort of metric related to earnings. Using anything not quantifiable wouldn't be reasonable now would it.

Well....let me think on this. Middle aged is usually defined as 45-65 (or thereabouts), so in this case that would be somebody born between Feb 1953 and Jan 1974. Taking Ireland as an example, the demographics during this period would have almost 100% of people born here in those years to be white, even with immigration from other nations due to the increase in globalisation those percentages are still in the region of 90% for that age group. White people will be top of the food chain in Ireland, but they'll also be almost all of the middle and bottom too!

Ireland has a higher white indigenous population than many other nations, purely on the basis that other countries with a traditionally high percentage of white people are more attractive as a place to migrate to, as well as the fact that Ireland has fewer to no colonial links to non-white nations.

On a global basis I don't even think it is white people who have the highest income per capita, that belongs to Asians as I understand, and it's certainly true in the United States, the birthplace of this sort of discussion......so maybe white people aren't top of the food chain...."on average" at all.

The middle-aged age group of today had a greater propensity towards single income families, usually supported financially by the man, with the primary care giving/nurturing role (take whichever innocent term which won't be considered offensive for some reason) being taken by the woman. Society was established to assume this, and indeed to allow a family to live comfortably on the one income. If there was a secondary income, usually earned by the wife/mother in the family it was less likely to be as important to the family and time intensive as the husband/mans one. This is less pronounced today, but it's still a likely, and understandable behavioural pattern. So obviously the average would be biased towards a higher average for men than women.

Experience is valued and valuable in the workplace, which is why middle-aged people tend to have greater earning power than younger people. It seems also so obvious that it makes it almost not worthy of introduction. Unless you're suggesting that perhaps people between 45 and 65 should step aside to allow younger and non-white people just take their jobs, despite the fact that the 45-65 year old has more experience and "on average" are better placed to be a leader than their younger counterparts. That would be quite stupid so I'm going to assume you didn't mean that.

If you're speaking globally rather than nationally, well that's down to the fact that typically speaking many of the most traditionally white indigenous populations have developed their economies better than many non-white ones, of course the same is true of a lot of Asian economies. If white men on average are "on top of the food chain" as you say, then so are white women!!

So as I say, spare us the victimhood and posturing for the purposes of displaying virtue.

I know how you operate on here so I won't be engaging further.

nullzero

ligerdub wrote: »

I partially hate myself for rising to the bait on this one, but spare us the patronising suggestion mixed in with the victim complex.

If it were somehow based on facts rather than generalisations, and if it were not an opportunistic attempt by a large corporation to jump on a bandwagon, itself in the dying embers of credibility then it might have a degree of value, but this is not the case. This is not a public service announcement, it's an advertising campaign, which has taken the rather ludicrous approach of preaching to their target market to not let themselves down, lest they will incur the moral judgment of the top brass of Proctor and Gamble.

We hear a lot about the "pink tax" on razors. Me thinks Gillette ought to consider the phrase relating to glass houses and throwing stones, although maybe it's more a tax on gullibility if people are buying practically an identical product from the same company at a higher price than they need to.

As far as putting oneself in the shoes of another, maybe it's not men who need to do this.

Also, in terms of this comment:

"Btw if you are white middle aged male you are still top of the food chain (on average)."

I'm going to go ahead and assume that by this you mean some sort of metric related to earnings. Using anything not quantifiable wouldn't be reasonable now would it.

Well....let me think on this. Middle aged is usually defined as 45-65 (or thereabouts), so in this case that would be somebody born between Feb 1953 and Jan 1974. Taking Ireland as an example, the demographics during this period would have almost 100% of people born here in those years to be white, even with immigration from other nations due to the increase in globalisation those percentages are still in the region of 90% for that age group. White people will be top of the food chain in Ireland, but they'll also be almost all of the middle and bottom too!

Ireland has a higher white indigenous population than many other nations, purely on the basis that other countries with a traditionally high percentage of white people are more attractive as a place to migrate to, as well as the fact that Ireland has fewer to no colonial links to non-white nations.

On a global basis I don't even think it is white people who have the highest income per capita, that belongs to Asians as I understand, and it's certainly true in the United States, the birthplace of this sort of discussion......so maybe white people aren't top of the food chain...."on average" at all.

The middle-aged age group of today had a greater propensity towards single income families, usually supported financially by the man, with the primary care giving/nurturing role (take whichever innocent term which won't be considered offensive for some reason) being taken by the woman. Society was established to assume this, and indeed to allow a family to live comfortably on the one income. If there was a secondary income, usually earned by the wife/mother in the family it was less likely to be as important to the family and time intensive as the husband/mans one. This is less pronounced today, but it's still a likely, and understandable behavioural pattern. So obviously the average would be biased towards a higher average for men than women.

Experience is valued and valuable in the workplace, which is why middle-aged people tend to have greater earning power than younger people. It seems also so obvious that it makes it almost not worthy of introduction. Unless you're suggesting that perhaps people between 45 and 65 should step aside to allow younger and non-white people just take their jobs, despite the fact that the 45-65 year old has more experience and "on average" are better placed to be a leader than their younger counterparts. That would be quite stupid so I'm going to assume you didn't mean that.

If you're speaking globally rather than nationally, well that's down to the fact that typically speaking many of the most traditionally white indigenous populations have developed their economies better than many non-white ones, of course the same is true of a lot of Asian economies. If white men on average are "on top of the food chain" as you say, then so are white women!!

So as I say, spare us the victimhood and posturing for the purposes of displaying virtue.

I know how you operate on here so I won't be engaging further.

Brilliant post. I'm only going to address something from the last part of it, which noted that white women are also at the "top of the tree" along with white men l.
There are a cohort of white women who take it upon themselves to be offended on behalf of perceived minorities and perpetuate notions such as "white privilege" (Tara Flynn says she gets really angry when Irish people deny this being a reality in Irish society) which is something I've always found to be a strange notion in a country where white people starved to death in the 1950's whilst food was exported to feed other white people.
There is also the new insult of "Gammon" that gets thrown around. How dare anybody be a white man? We should be filled with shame and remorse for the actions of other white men in history who are in no way related to us.

meeeeh

Actually my point about middle aged white man was that things are changing for younger generations.

As for the rest I don't reply to posts the lenght of a novel, try to be more concise next time. (I have a life.)

nullzero

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually my point about middle aged white man was that things are changing for younger generations.

As for the rest I don't reply to posts the lenght of a novel, try to be more concise next time. (I have a life.)

Be more concise or more simplistic?
I don't mind long posts as I can remain engaged in things that aren't much more than soundbites.

Tell me how

ligerdub wrote: »

If it were somehow based on facts rather than generalisations, and if it were not an opportunistic attempt by a large corporation to jump on a bandwagon, itself in the dying embers of credibility then it might have a degree of value, but this is not the case. This is not a public service announcement, it's an advertising campaign, which has taken the rather ludicrous approach of preaching to their target market to not let themselves down, lest they will incur the moral judgment of the top brass of Proctor and Gamble.

Why is everyone shocked that a corporation is advertising with the intent of profiting from it. And that one particular message does not align with their practices if you look in any way closely at them.

That is what they do.

The message in the ad is about promoting a good example. Why is that a bad thing?
People seem to be too caught up in thinking (mistakenly) that it is implying that all men are bad instead of just considering this message.