Female only island to open off Finnish coast.

professore

_Dara_ wrote: »

Of course they are closed off to most people. I haven’t mentioned a thing about gender quotas. I was taking about yer man’s asinine point about less desirable jobs.

But to expand on your post, seeing as most CEO jobs are still filled by men and the gender split of the population is roughly 50/50 in most countries, what you say isn’t true, demonstrably. Quite literally, men still have a better shot at those high-level roles for whatever reason. I don’t believe in gender quotas personally and I’m all for meritocracy. So I think the best thing to do is examine WHY the gender split isn’t 50/50. The reasons will be many and complex. But even if gender quotas were brought in, it would do no more than equalise the “shot”. If the quota was 50/50 and the gender splits that way, it’s impossible for either gender to have more of a shot. Just isn’t mathematically possible.

A lot of women want to have children and raise them themselves. Far less men want that. This is not compatible with being a 100 hour a week CEO. There's an explanation right there.

Why does it have to be 50/50? Do all jobs have to be 50/50 or only the high paying ones?

professore

_Dara_ wrote: »

But, like, it's really really easy to work out. Primary school stuff. That's probably why that poster didn't bother. Because, do they need to, really? Even just a casual glance at the top 100 CEO list will tell you which gender has a better shot at being a CEO. The gender split worldwide leans slightly towards women. But the CEO would more noticeably lean the other way. There you go.

Men have "a better shot" at being premiership footballers, garbage collectors or being a prisoner . Women have "a better shot" at being a top catwalk model, a doctor, or a psychologist, or a University degree.

Young women earn 18% more than young men in Ireland - a stat you never hear quoted as it doesn't fit the narrative. The one time I saw it in the media it was written "Young women earn - 18% less than young men."

Zulu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No, seriously represent yourself

Why bother when you persistently misrepresent and twist whats posted to suit your agenda?

I said an orginisation could be hypocritical.
I said that in response to a point made attempting to link hypocritical actions or positions solely to an individual or at an individual level.
I disputed that point, do you?

Well we don't know because you misrepresented me and twisted my post(s) to position my where you believe or want me to exist. One the fits your narrative. Which is something we see you do persistently in all these threads.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote:

Why bother when you persistently misrepresent and twist whats posted to suit your agenda?

For the sake of getting you to discuss the thread topic instead of just discussing me.

Zulu wrote:

I said an orginisation could be hypocritical. I said that in response to a point made attempting to link hypocritical actions or positions solely to an individual or at an individual level. I disputed that point, do you?

An organisation could act hypocritically. How does that relate to the resort? Has the resort acted hypocritically?

Zulu wrote:

Well we don't know because you misrepresented me and twisted my post(s) to position my where you believe or want me to exist. One the fits your narrative. Which is something we see you do persistently in all these threads.

You're obsessed.

I'm asking you to spell out your actual position.

The other poster said it would be hypocritical if , for example, an individual campaigned against a men only resort and them tried to establish a women's only resort. That would be perfect hypocrisy.

Who or what organisation is being hypocritical in this situation?

_Dara_

professore wrote: »

A lot of women want to have children and raise them themselves. Far less men want that. This is not compatible with being a 100 hour a week CEO. There's an explanation right there.

Why does it have to be 50/50? Do all jobs have to be 50/50 or only the high paying ones?

Why are people wilfully misinterpreting my post? The 50/50 was clearly a for instance for illustrative purposes, not my own personal view on the matter. Yeesh!

professore wrote: »

Men have "a better shot" at being premiership footballers, garbage collectors or being a prisoner . Women have "a better shot" at being a top catwalk model, a doctor, or a psychologist, or a University degree.

Yes and as of now, men statistically have a better shot at C-suite jobs. I’m not saying whether that’s good or bad, I’m just dispassionately saying that that’s the reality as it stands. YOU said that women have a better shot at C-suite/exec type jobs and that’s demonstrably not true.

Zulu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Who or what organisation is being hypocritical in this situation?

Again you deliberately misrepresent. You are a most disingenuous poster.

I was responding the point the hypocrisy could only occur if the same person was acting. I refuted that and supported my position with the example of an organization.

And you misrepresented me. A number of times. And I've no doubt you'll continue to misrepresent me.

Ajsoprano

I’d say this great civilization won’t last longer than the average life cycle of a middle aged woman.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote:

I was responding the point the hypocrisy could only occur if the same person was acting. I refuted that and supported my position with the example of an organization.

I also asked you in each of the posts how that relates to this issue. If you could spell out what you mean, that would be great.

Zulu wrote:

Again you deliberately misrepresent. You are a most disingenuous poster. And you misrepresented me. A number of times. And I've no doubt you'll continue to misrepresent me.

I've just let this go without asking where I misrepresented you. My mistake. Show me where I misrepresented you in the last post and I'll apologise.

Feel free to take another swipe about misrepresentation but please also answer the question about how this relates to the resort. Specifically who is being hypocritical?

Saruhashi

professore wrote: »

Men have "a better shot" at being premiership footballers, garbage collectors or being a prisoner . Women have "a better shot" at being a top catwalk model, a doctor, or a psychologist, or a University degree.

Young women earn 18% more than young men in Ireland - a stat you never hear quoted as it doesn't fit the narrative. The one time I saw it in the media it was written "Young women earn - 18% less than young men."

I would say I'm not really even comfortable with the wider belief that "Men" have a better shot at being CEOs.

Or maybe not comfortable with the way that people wield the statistics.

Personally, I would say I have zero chance of ever being CEO of a large, high profile company. Certainly I have far less chance than any woman currently holding a senior position at said companies.

Yet, we are asked to believe that "Men" have a better chance than "Women" at achieving Goals A, B and C.

This is an incorrect use of statistics to form a narrative. A narrative that does not reflect reality.

In real terms the fact that most CEOs are men has little to no impact on 99+% of the world's population. 99+% of people have no chance anyway.

Even at a specific Company X they may have a program set up to put more women into senior positions. In that arena it's the Women and not the Men that have the best shot. Again, this probably only applies to about 1% of the companies employees.

For most people, the idea of "Men" or "Women" having it better is kind of irrelevant. It makes for great discussion and debate but realistically most Men have zero chance off becoming CEOs, just like most Women. It doesn't really matter if it's Mr Smith or Ms Smith running the company, most people just want to get their pay and go home.

That's why I would say the whole gender politics thing is more of a marketing device. The regular woman just working her 9 to 5 job can read an article and get ranty about only 10% of CEOs being women but SHE was never going to be CEO anyway.

The rant feels good though and the sense of belonging to the "sisterhood" feels good too. So she keeps going back to the same site for similar articles. Maybe she buys some Feminists new book. The discussion has been monetized.

It seems like this "female only island" is just another example of that. You can buy a membership for SuperShe Island and the marketing campaign for that membership revolves around the "no-men" feature.

Zulu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've just let this go without asking where I misrepresented you. My mistake. Show me where I misrepresented you in the last post and I'll apologise.

I had highlighted it for your convenience.

Feel free to take another swipe about misrepresentation but please also answer the question about how this relates to the resort. Specifically who is being hypocritical?

It's not a swipe, it's a truth. And again you misrepresent me.

My point wasn't specific to the resort - as well you know - it was (as I've said twice already) in response the point that hypocrisy could only occur if the same person was acting.

I refuted that and supported my position and gave the example of an organization.

I've spelt this out three times now.

Clearly this doesn't suit your agenda - you want me to say the resort owner or the National Front of Finnish Feminism is hypothetical, so you can ask me to provide a quote where they condemned Portmarnock Golf Club or something similarly fanciful and then cry that I'm a wrong and that I'm whining, but alas, that is neither what I said or my position.

Don't worry - I wont hold my breath for that apology

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote:

I had highlighted it for your convenience.
Don't worry - I wont hold my breath for that apology

You mean the question i you quoted? Was that me misrepresenting you? Christ on a cross trainer, if asking a question is misrepresenting you then I do t know what to say without you feeling misrepresented.

Zulu wrote:

It's not a swipe, it's a truth. And again you misrepresent me.

You're way too sensitive. Poor victim. Poor Zulu. Always the victim

Zulu wrote:

My point wasn't specific to the resort - as well you know - it was (as I've said twice already) in response the point that hypocrisy could only occur if the same person was acting.

I don't know what you meant. Do you mean the resort is being hypocritical or die you mean that the owner is being hypocritical or what?

Zulu wrote:

I refuted that and supported my position and gave the example of an organization.

You said organisation can be hypocritical. I'm asking whether you think that applies to the example of the resort.

Zulu wrote:

I've spelt this out three times now.

Yet you've managed to avoid answering the question i asked.

Zulu wrote:

Clearly this doesn't suit your agenda - you want me to say the resort owner or the National Front of Finnish Feminism is hypothetical, so you can ask me to provide a quote where they condemned Portmarnock Golf Club or something similarly fanciful and then cry that I'm a wrong and that I'm whining, but alas, that is neither what I said or my position.

Now I could point out the rich seam of irony here where you whinge, piss and moan about being misrepresented, then you spew this nonsense about my position. You seem to have it all gamesd out in your head but It's not true. I'm asking a question about your position and you're being evasive while going on the track about misrepresentation etc.

If you want to know my full agenda then I'll spell it out for you son you know exactly what I think and you don't have to bother trying to figure out what my response will be.

If you feel that there is hypocrisy at play with the resort, then I think it's normal to ask who is being hypocritical. I think (think, not know. Just my opinion not meant to misrepresent you or offend your delicate disposition) that the answer is hat some women/feminists say men and women should be treated equally in all regards, and some woman is setting up a resort which only allows women -thus treating men and women differently.

I think (see disambiguation of "think" above) that the claim is that if we decide all Women can be considered a single group then Women are being hypocritical They support equality and They set up a business only for women.

If I'm wrong, them please do tell me who is being hypocritical in the example of the resort.

Zulu

Genuinely, I did read that nonsense once.

I'm not going to second guess what you mean, but I'll just go ahead and take it there wasn't an apology, or an acknowledgment of my original point.

LadyMacBeth_

Women only island? *Dives right into the muff*

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

Genuinely, I did read that nonsense once.

I'm not going to second guess what you mean, but I'll just go ahead and take it there wasn't an apology, or an acknowledgment of my original point.

If the question “who is being hypocritical?” was the part that caused so much upset, then no. There wasn’t an apology. I don’t think it would benefit you or help you to grow by indulging your delicate disposition.

I asked who is being hypocritical in the case of the resort and that was deemed a misrepresentation of you. If you ever come up with an answer to the question, I’d like to hear it.

For clarity, what person, organisation, or any other grouping us being hypocritical in the case of the resort? Looking forward to your answer.

Zulu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

...then no. There wasn’t an apology. I don’t think it would benefit you or help you to grow by indulging your delicate disposition.

...For clarity, what person, organisation, or any other grouping us being hypocritical in the case of the resort? Looking forward to your answer.

No apology. More insults. And you expect a response to your strawman?

Lol. Good luck with that.

If you want a discussion try engaging in one in a civil and honest manner.

Skedaddle

I'm pretty sure in Ireland (and quite a few other countries ... and possibly Finland) it's illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of gender when it comes to sale and supply of services. They may find they've a hard case to argue if they refuse a booking from someone on the basis the they're male, much like a hotel would have if it refused a booking from a female.

I'd be very surprised if Finnish equality legislation allowed such a business model.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

No apology. More insults. And you expect a response to your strawman?

Lol. Good luck with that.

If you want a discussion try engaging in one in a civil and honest manner.

Classic. So no answer then. If you ever figure out who is being hypocritical in the case of the resort, be sure to let us know.

I’m happy for anyone else to come to Zulu’s rescue since they can’t crack the case. Has anyone figured out exactly who has acted hypocritically in this case?

pilly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Classic. So no answer then. If you ever figure out who is being hypocritical in the case of the resort, be sure to let us know.

I’m happy for anyone else to come to Zulu’s rescue since they can’t crack the case. Has anyone figured out exactly who has acted hypocritically in this case?

I'm completely lost.

El_Duderino 09

pilly wrote:

I'm completely lost.

The thread was supposedly started to highlight the hypocrisy of a woman setting up a women only resort. I'm asking who exactly is being hypocritical. What person or organisation or any other grouping, is being hypocritical?

I think it's time ye both took it to a Zulu/el duderino only thread tbh

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The thread was supposedly started to highlight the hypocrisy of a woman setting up a women only resort. I'm asking who exactly is being hypocritical. What person or organisation or any other grouping, is being hypocritical?

but surely you can figure out why people would think its hypocritical?

bear1

silverharp wrote: »

but surely you can figure out why people would think its hypocritical?

I gave up tbh.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

I think it's time ye both took it to a Zulu/el duderino only thread tbh

I'm happy for anyone to answer. Zulu is a bit too sensitive to posts and has shown they don't have an answer to the question.

I said I saw the thread as being the exact kind of criticism that would be expected if a men only service was launched. I was told that the is thread is not criticizing the Finnish resort, it's questioning the hypocrisy.

So the next question is 'who exactly is being hypocritical?' simple.

bear1

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm happy for anyone to answer. Zulu is a bit too sensitive to posts and has shown they don't have an answer to the question.

I said I saw the thread as being the exact kind of criticism that would be expected if a men only service was launched. I was told that the is thread is not criticizing the Finnish resort, it's questioning the hypocrisy.

So the next question is 'who exactly is being hypocritical?' simple.

Here's a great example of hypocrisy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-allbright-women-only-private-members-club-central-london-bloomsbury-anti-men-gender-equality-a8117091.html

https://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1218/111858-portmarnock/

El_Duderino 09

bear1 wrote:

I gave up tbh.

If it's so simple to figure out, it should be simple to put it into an argument.

One reason could be that some men are hyper sensitive and internalise criticism of other men. Thus they feel under constant attack for everything from #metoo to the bumbling dad archetype in soap operas.

Another reason is that there's an sense of unfairness that a business is opening up to women but not men. FOMO - even if they might not be interested in the resort anyway.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

but surely you can figure out why people would think its hypocritical?

If you're one of those people, why don't you tell me?

It's easy to claim hypocrisy but it's probably harder to say who exactly is acting hypocritically.

So who exactly is acting hypocritically?

El_Duderino 09

bear1 wrote:

Here's a great example of hypocrisy.

You'll have to spell it out of you want to make your point.

The independent article is a balanced account which simply states that they're is a women's only club opening. And it says there have been men only clubs with the same rules since 1800s - men only members except visiting guests. It says "And while a women-only establishment could be seen as going a small way to redressing this historical imbalance, discrimination on grounds of gender on either side could perhaps equally be argued as running counter to efforts being made towards equality in recent years".

What's the problem with this? It treats both mens and womens only clubs even handedly.

The RTE article -from a decade go- is also a factual account of amchallenge which the high court ultimately rejected. Portmarnock is a men only club though women can play on the course.

You'll probably have to make your point rather than leave it to the imagination. If there point are worth making, please, make them.

bear1

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You'll have to spell it out of you want to make your point.

The independent article is a balanced account which simply states that they're is a women's only club opening. And it says there have been men only clubs with the same rules since 1800s - men only members except visiting guests. It says "And while a women-only establishment could be seen as going a small way to redressing this historical imbalance, discrimination on grounds of gender on either side could perhaps equally be argued as running counter to efforts being made towards equality in recent years".

What's the problem with this? It treats both mens and womens only clubs even handedly.

The RTE article -from a decade go- is also a factual account of amchallenge which the high court ultimately rejected. Portmarnock is a men only club though women can play on the course.

You'll probably have to make your point rather than leave it to the imagination. If there point are worth making, please, make them.

If you seriously can't see it then why would I bother?
You asked for examples of hypocrisy, I found you one.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you're one of those people, why don't you tell me?

It's easy to claim hypocrisy but it's probably harder to say who exactly is acting hypocritically.

So who exactly is acting hypocritically?

I said it way back in the thread that in the context of women spending the last 50 years unwinding male only spaces its hypocritical to see female only spaces popping up.
Now I'd couch above by saying I don't care, I believe in free association so good luck to them but as a general observation it stands.

its similar to the criticisms of black only spaces in US colleges popping up now after decades of getting rid of segregation, you can call it ironic, hypocritical but its at least worth a chuckle

_Dara_

I saw a story on Facebook a while back about a café that charges men proportionately more to highlight the gender pay gap. I just laughed. Quite genuinely. I don’t really like the derogatory SJW tag but this was the one time I thought it seemed apt. I wonder does the café do well? Surely men would just stop going there? Surely the pricing is discriminatory?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/08/08/world/cafe-gender-pay-gap-trnd/index.html