Today Show with Sarah McInerney

_Kaiser_

Gender balance in politics discussion at the moment seems very unbalanced with an entirely women panel and host talking about how unfair it all is :rolleyes: Talking about long hours, travelling to Dublin etc - as if male TDs don't have to do that too.

The best candidate for any job should always be based on merit, not what's between their legs.

Mav11

Anyway the new news is, that it is all the fault of the alpha / macho male that more women are not elected to the Dail!! Nothing to do with the fact that women, who are in an electorate majority, vote for the best candidate, regardless of gender!!

_Kaiser_

It's gas as well how they dismiss or stumble around the quite legitimate points being raised by texters too. Nonsense discussion. There's a valid topic here, but this one-sided agenda thumping does no-one (men OR women!) any favours.

Mav11

But who is going to do the housework?? Dem men are useless!!!!

_Kaiser_

Mav11 wrote: »

But who is going to do the housework?? Dem men are useless!!!!

Last texter was a woman saying her husband does nothing - no housework, no childcare, no school runs etc

That's wrong and he's a clown, but she's also letting him away with it! Stand up for yourself woman.

Klonker

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Gender balance in politics discussion at the moment seems very unbalanced with an entirely women panel and host talking about how unfair it all is :rolleyes: Talking about long hours, travelling to Dublin etc - as if male TDs don't have to do that too.

The best candidate for any job should always be based on merit, not what's between their legs.

Only catching up listening to this now. A load of nonsense talked on that panel this morning. The TD for SF saying if two candidates of equal ability want to run its only right the woman gets it over a man. That doesn't sound like equality to me.

Also they had some stats that women do more house maintenence than men. I wouldn't try disagree with those stats as I'm sure they are true but no mention if that stat was only for cases where men and women both work equal hours. If one partner works full time and one does not or works part time then I'd 100% expect the partner working less to do more house work. The fact of the matter is in a lot of marriages only one partner works full time and in those instances its nearly always the man.

I'd just like stats to have a bit of perspective when used so can be discussed fully rather than just being manipulated to support an agenda.

Tell me how

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Gender balance in politics discussion at the moment seems very unbalanced with an entirely women panel and host talking about how unfair it all is :rolleyes: Talking about long hours, travelling to Dublin etc - as if male TDs don't have to do that too.

The best candidate for any job should always be based on merit, not what's between their legs.

That should always be the case, but it patently wasn't.

There is a strong similarity between your statement here and statements to counter BLM protests that 'ALM' or 'all people should be judged equally irrespective of their skin colour'. That is absolutely the case, but it was always the case, and few of the people saying those things now were saying it when women were not being treated fairly, or when people of particular races are being prejudiced.

serfboard

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Gender balance in politics discussion at the moment seems very unbalanced with an entirely women panel and host talking about how unfair it all is

Did I hear correctly the Soc Dems TD saying that the Soc Dems have six TDs now - four women and two men - and that that is balanced?

If so, someone would want to consult their dictionary ...

serfboard

serfboard wrote: »

Did I hear correctly the Soc Dems TD saying that the Soc Dems have six TDs now - four women and two men - and that that is balanced?

If so, someone would want to consult their dictionary ...

Jesus man, wait until you hear about the sex-ratio in Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.

Fianna Fail has 37 seats in the Dail, only 6 of these are occupied by women. You must be raging about that, yeah?

JohnnyFlash

I don’t know why anyone (man or woman) would want to get involved in politics these days. The hours are outrageous, you are in the public eye, your every word is examined, and you are subject to foul abuse by weirdos on Twitter.

dulpit

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I don’t know why anyone (man or woman) would want to get involved in politics these days. The hours are outrageous, you are in the public eye, your every word is examined, and you are subject to foul abuse by weirdos on Twitter.

And women attract much more vitriol and abuse online too... Same with the media, there's been comments about Sarah that wouldn't have been raised if she was a he.

dulpit

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I don’t know why anyone (man or woman) would want to get involved in politics these days. The hours are outrageous, you are in the public eye, your every word is examined, and you are subject to foul abuse by weirdos on Twitter.

And women attract much more vitriol and abuse online too... Same with the media, there's been comments about Sarah that wouldn't have been raised if she was a he.

serfboard

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Jesus man, wait until you hear about the sex-ratio in Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.

Fianna Fail has 37 seats in the Dail, only 6 of these are occupied by women. You must be raging about that, yeah?

31 and 6 is not balanced - nor is 4 and 2. It's pretty simple.

As regards raging - I was more mildly amused at the choice of words. You're projecting there if you think that I'm raging ...

JohnnyFlash

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I don’t know why anyone (man or woman) would want to get involved in politics these days. The hours are outrageous, you are in the public eye, your every word is examined, and you are subject to foul abuse by weirdos on Twitter.

Honestly, why would you be arsed? We're at the stage where you'd have to question the judgement of anyone entering politics. If you're willing to put yourself, and your family, through this, you're probably out of your mind, It just isn't worth the hassle.

Mav11

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I don’t know why anyone (man or woman) would want to get involved in politics these days. The hours are outrageous, you are in the public eye, your every word is examined, and you are subject to foul abuse by weirdos on Twitter.

Money, perks, power, prestige??? Some people just love it!!

Brendan Bendar

There’s a lot of talk on the radio these days about folk making a ‘mistake’.

What the foooherke is a ‘mistake’

For me it’s a ‘one off’ going down a one way street, not spotting a red light, going into the ladies in the gym, leaving the immersion on, touching up a lady from the back you thought was your s.o.,middle digiting the person.

One off stuff.

Not fuhherking doing it constantly for years and years, that’s not a mistake.

That’s a different story altogether.


Anyone puzzled on this ‘mistake’ plea?

I just can't take seriously this segment on 'the crack problem'.

Whatever about coke and ecstasy, crack just isn't an issue in Ireland. It isn't a big problem, you'd have to go out of your way to find it. I'm so tired of these guys promoting their businesses by exaggerating problems that aren't really problems. The way they're going on, you'd think it was rampant.

Evelyn O'Rourke is someone I'd like to hear more of. Her courts reports are always interesting, it'd be good if she had her own programme.

DrSerious3

dulpit wrote: »

And women attract much more vitriol and abuse online too... Same with the media, there's been comments about Sarah that wouldn't have been raised if she was a he.

You should read the threads about Ray Darcy, Joe Duffy and to a slightly lesser extent Ryan Tubridy if you think this is bad.

Tell me how

DrSerious3 wrote: »

You should read the threads about Ray Darcy, Joe Duffy and to a slightly lesser extent Ryan Tubridy if you think this is bad.

You may have a point, but, also, the Ciara Kelly thread was locked a couple of times, before being shut down permanently because the abuse was incessant.

I think there is some phenomenon about people judging radio presenters (male or female) excessively harsh. Don't know exactly why this is but I suspect that it has something to do with a perception that all these people are doing is sitting and chatting for a couple of hours a day and probably getting big money for it (definitely in some cases) and that irks people who are doing 40 hours/a week for much less.

I don't know, but on most of the show specific threads on this forum a large amount of the posts are about how bad the show/presenter is.

CrabRevolution

Tell me how wrote: »

You may have a point, but, also, the Ciara Kelly thread was locked a couple of times, before being shut down permanently because the abuse was incessant.

I think there is some phenomenon about people judging radio presenters (male or female) excessively harsh. Don't know exactly why this is but I suspect that it has something to do with a perception that all these people are doing is sitting and chatting for a couple of hours a day and probably getting big money for it (definitely in some cases) and that irks people who are doing 40 hours/a week for much less.

I don't know, but on most of the show specific threads on this forum a large amount of the posts are about how bad the show/presenter is.

I've always found this a bit bizarre about the radio forum. Many of the biggest long running threads are just posters giving daily updates on how much they hate each presenter. There's far more negative threads than positive ones.

Cole

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't know, but on most of the show specific threads on this forum a large amount of the posts are about how bad the show/presenter is.

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I've always found this a bit bizarre about the radio forum. Many of the biggest long running threads are just posters giving daily updates on how much they hate each presenter. There's far more negative threads than positive ones.

I agree with this...just becomes incessant sneering. At least this thread, and a few others, have a bit of balance and give credit where its due and vice-versa...depending on your own take on the show/presenter.

I would find it almost impossible to find anything positive to say about D'Arcy, so I just don't listen to him now. I find that's the best way.

Cole

Cole wrote: »

I agree with this...just becomes incessant sneering. At least this thread, and a few others, have a bit of balance and give credit where its due and vice-versa...depending on your own take on the show/presenter.

I would find it almost impossible to find anything positive to say about D'Arcy, so I just don't listen to him now. I find that's the best way.

I see your point, but I sometimes think that when people say this, they are taking the forum more seriously than it deserves.

Most of us here are sh1tposting, and I actually feel sorry for any of the broadcasters who read it and take the (sometimes exaggerated) criticism too personally. Just look at the Liveline thread - it's clear that most posters are just there for the laugh.

Imagine the opposite, imagine if everyone here was only posting to praise the programmes and the broadcasters, wouldn't that be boring? We do sometimes give credit where it's due, I think the official rule is that if you say a bad word against John Creedon, we chase you off with our pitchforks.

Cole

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I see your point, but I sometimes think that when people say this, they are taking the forum more seriously than it deserves.

Most of us here are sh1tposting, and I actually feel sorry for any of the broadcasters who read it and take the (sometimes exaggerated) criticism too personally. Just look at the Liveline thread - it's clear that most posters are just there for the laugh.

Imagine the opposite, imagine if everyone here was only posting to praise the programmes and the broadcasters, wouldn't that be boring? We do sometimes give credit where it's due, I think the official rule is that if you say a bad word against John Creedon, we chase you off with our pitchforks.

I didn't suggest that the forum should only be positive comments - most of mine are probably critical - but a bit of balance is all. I enjoy some of the critical posts and get a laugh out of it too, but I think that some of the stuff is way beyond having a laugh. From where I stand, taking the time to constantly post only negative (almost abusive) comments on an almost daily basis is taking something too seriously.

Cole

Cole wrote: »

I didn't suggest that the forum should only be positive comments - most of mine are probably critical - but a bit of balance is all. I enjoy some of the critical posts and get a laugh out of it too, but I think that some of the stuff is way beyond having a laugh. From where I stand, taking the time to constantly post only negative (almost abusive) comments on an almost daily basis is taking something too seriously.

Yeap, it does get out of hand, at times. There is a rule against abusing broadcasters which, in all honesty, we probably don't abide by enough. There's nothing wrong with having a laugh, or even robust criticism, but the last thing any of us want is for this place to be some Speaker's Corner for trolls and bullies, so report whatever bothers you... the chances are that it will be taken down.

Cole

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

...so report whatever bothers you... the chances are that it will be taken down.

I don't take online forums that seriously;)...it just bewilders me sometimes.

Cole

Cole wrote: »

I don't take online forums that seriously;)...it just bewilders me sometimes.

Same. But just looking through the reported posts, the majority of them are acted upon, so do report, and let us know when something bothers you. It's probable that it will be removed.

Brendan Bendar

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I see your point, but I sometimes think that when people say this, they are taking the forum more seriously than it deserves.

Most of us here are sh1tposting, and I actually feel sorry for any of the broadcasters who read it and take the (sometimes exaggerated) criticism too personally. Just look at the Liveline thread - it's clear that most posters are just there for the laugh.

Imagine the opposite, imagine if everyone here was only posting to praise the programmes and the broadcasters, wouldn't that be boring? We do sometimes give credit where it's due, I think the official rule is that if you say a bad word against John Creedon, we chase you off with our pitchforks.

You are handling this criticism on the thread very well and fairly Ty.

However I would say that posters are perfectly entitled to criticise presenters who have the full power of the states network to promulgate their agenda, and they do.

Those who pay their exorbitant stipends should have recourse to a vehicle to point out legitimate critique.

Otherwise these people could just horse out their own agenda without let or hindrance.

I realise you agree largely with that view, just that the lad/lass you are debating needs to be told that.

Of course these presenters should not be abused personally.

I feel the thread is very intelligently moderated, with sensible intervention when required.

Cole

Scratching my head over this one.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You are handling this criticism on the thread very well and fairly Ty.

Maybe I missed something earlier in the thread that was critical of the moderation here, but I don't see any recent criticism of this thread ...just a few general observations of the largely negative comments on the radio forum in general (well certainly in some threads). This is one of maybe 2 or 3 threads that I post in because there's a good balance of views and analysis here and not just sniping for the sake of it...a good thread.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

However I would say that posters are perfectly entitled to criticise presenters who have the full power of the states network to promulgate their agenda, and they do.

Those who pay their exorbitant stipends should have recourse to a vehicle to point out legitimate critique.

Otherwise these people could just horse out their own agenda without let or hindrance.

Agreed, and I don't see any (recent) views questioning or contradicting this.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

...the lad/lass you are debating needs to be told that

Way to go with the condescension. I don't think this lad needs to be told anything, as this lad is not debating that presenters shouldn't be criticised with anyone here.

Brendan Bendar

Cole wrote: »

Scratching my head over this one.



Maybe I missed something earlier in the thread that was critical of the moderation here, but I don't see any recent criticism of this thread ...just a few general observations of the largely negative comments on the radio forum in general (well certainly in some threads). This is one of maybe 2 or 3 threads that I post in because there's a good balance of views and analysis here and not just sniping for the sake of it...a good thread.



Agreed, and I don't see any (recent) views questioning or contradicting this.



Way to go with the condescension. I don't think this lad needs to be told anything, as this lad is not debating that presenters shouldn't be criticised with anyone here.

Ok, look I’m just acknowledging a sensible bit of moderation here.

Your post was very fair too.

Maybe i was a tad clumsy in my post.

Apologies.