Aren't You?

Talliesin

No

Wicknight wrote:

Being a feminist does not imply you cannot fight for other things at the same time.

Frankly I think too much Feminist energy has been spent being a dependable and unthanked contingent in other causes.

Evil Phil

No

On that note Talliesin - the traditional male image, that of the *strong*, isolated male who's emotional range is limited to lust and anger has become little more than a cliche. Sounds like a miserable lonely existence to me. We should thank feminism for this.

the_syco

Evil Phil wrote:

Feminism to me does not imply exclusivity.

Actually, I think it does. Equality is equal rights, Feminism is fighting for female rights. If they fight for fathers rights also, they're fighting for equality.

Example: There are 3 loo's. A feminist will want 2 or of the 3 loo's, as women sit down to pee, while someone fighting equality would want another loo built so that there'd be 2 loo's each.

Sleepy wrote:

To be honest, I've never seen this "glass ceiling phenomenon" in action in Ireland. Both my boss, and her boss are female and to be quite honest I've never heard of a woman not getting a promotion she deserved because there was an equally or less suitable male applying for the role.

Agreed. If there are no women in the higher positions, and the company wants to be seen as a "fair" company, the woman will get the job. Even if there are guys with more experience, and qualifications, the women will still get the job.

MiCr0 wrote:

[Nicest, most polite humanities thread ever..................................]
i'm delighted

Jinxing it, are ye? I'm just waiting for a feminazi to pop up, so I can gun her down:cool:

the_syco

Evil Phil wrote:

On that note Talliesin - the traditional male image, that of the *strong*, isolated male who's emotional range is limited to lust and anger has become little more than a cliche. Sounds like a miserable lonely existence to me. We should thank feminism for this.

Totally agree.

=-=

Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.Boys don't cry.

"Men are insensitive, and don't care about anyone else's feelings". What a load of bo11ox! Most of us are caring, but after years of being told "boys don't cry", we learn to hide any feelings that we have.

Zombrex

No

seamus wrote:

I never suggested otherwise. It does imply that in the issue of sexual equality that you're only interested in women's rights.

No, as I have said, it doesn't.

All being a feminist implies is that you believe that women do not deserve any less rights because they are women, just like being a black civil rights activist or a Catholic civil rights activist doesn't imply that you do or do not care about the civil rights of whites or Protestants.

The term feminist makes no assurtion about your views with regard to any other group, including men.

If you are member of a black civil rights movement it doesn't mean you cannot be interested, or imply that you don't have any interest, in the rights of white people. Mandela, once he came to power, was interested in a large number of social issues in South Africa, from white men to black women. Because he as a major leader in the black civil rights movement in S.A it didn't mean or even imply that he had no interest in white civil rights.

seamus wrote:

The point of that last paragraph was that we should be at neither extreme.

I agree, as would most feminists. But you used that example as a sign that men are now being discriminated against, which is a bit of a stretch TBH.

Evil Phil

No

the_syco wrote:

Actually, I think it does. Equality is equal rights, Feminism is fighting for female rights. If they fight for fathers rights also, they're fighting for equality.

One could argue that feminism is the fight for equal rights for women. Women haven't/don't had equal rights to men and they're campaigning on this issue. And please avoid the usual pendantics, you know what I'm saying here.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that feminism is about father's rights or the like, perish the thought. I was saying I know women who, while they are feminists, are just as concerned with equal rights for men as they are for women.

Equal rights for men, I'm assured, is a campaign fought under another banner.

Zombrex

No

the_syco wrote:

Actually, I think it does. Equality is equal rights, Feminism is fighting for female rights. If they fight for fathers rights also, they're fighting for equality.

If a person who fights for feminists causes also fights for masculin causes they do it under the banner of masculin causes, such as fathers rights, not under the banner of feminism because that would make no sense. When was the last time you saw the banner "The Irish Catholics Civil Rights movement for the ethical treatment of badgers" ?? If a member of the catholic civil rights movement also campaigns for other things like ending animal cruelty he/she wouldn't do it under the banner of Catholic civil rights.

Because feminist organistation don't call for masculine rights (or black civil rights, or religion freedom for muslims etc etc) doesn't mean the members of these organisations can't also be part of other movments.

By your logic we should just have one big group call the "Everyone should be nice to everyone else" movement.

the_syco wrote:

Agreed. If there are no women in the higher positions, and the company wants to be seen as a "fair" company, the woman will get the job. Even if there are guys with more experience, and qualifications, the women will still get the job.

Well that is actually illegal. If you see it happen I suggest you report it.

I have worked in one of the large of the Irish banks and I have seen the glass ceiling in opperation. But then again I have also seen racism, age discrimination, bullying and various other bad traits of human society.

seamus

The term feminist makes no assurtion about your views with regard to any other group, including men.

I think the issue here is more pedantry than anything else Basically what we're arguing is - If you're a member of Set A ("equalists") and Set A is a subset of Set B (Feminists), are you correct to say that you're a member of Set B? I don't think so, it doesn't provide the correct information.

Fysh

Wicknight, consider it this way:

If feminism is about equality for everyone, then why does it:

a) have itself associated most strongly with the suffragette movement whose primary cause was to get the vote for women (symbolically) and more generally equal rights for women,
b) have as one of its central tenets, if not the central tenet, to "fight against the oppression of women"
c) have as its name "feminism", suggesting the advancement of females and the feminine?

Before you do to me what you've done to others, take note of what I've had to say to Neuro-praxis repeatedly - I'm in no way suggesting feminists can't be involved in other causes and interested in general equality issues. All I am saying is that feminism, for the reasons I've stated above, is not a blanket equality cause. If it were, it would give no special status to any case of equality either through naming itself after it or stating it as a core purpose.

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Feminists and gay activists share a common cause, but one would be hard pressed to say that gay activists are fighting a core cause of equal rights for women. While I imagine gay rights groups would have quite a lot in common with feminist rights groups, it's just not accurate to say that both groups have identical priorities and aims.

(For want of a better example; on a given day there are two marches, one for gay rights and one for feminist rights, only they are in different locations and it's not possible to attend both. If both groups shared equal concerns, they would try to arrange some fair distribution of numbers. Whereas in actuality, members of gay rights groups would most likely attend the gay rights march and members of feminist rights groups would most likely attend the feminist rights march)

The Corinthian

Evil Phil wrote:

On that note Talliesin - the traditional male image, that of the *strong*, isolated male who's emotional range is limited to lust and anger has become little more than a cliche. Sounds like a miserable lonely existence to me. We should thank feminism for this.

God damn pussy

Zombrex

No

seamus wrote:

I think the issue here is more pedantry than anything else Basically what we're arguing is - If you're a member of Set A ("equalists") and Set A is a subset of Set B (Feminists), are you correct to say that you're a member of Set B? I don't think so, it doesn't provide the correct information.

It has been suggested at feminists are not, by definition, interested in "equality" for all people, only women, because you never see feminist organisations campaigning for male issues. That assumption is illogical. I am saying if you are a feminist that information makes no assurtion either way to your views of other issues, including male rights. Some feminists might not give a hoot about male issues, others might be very interested in it.

Fysh

Wicknight wrote:

It has been suggested at feminists are not, by definition, interested in "equality" for all people, only women, because you never see feminist organisations campaigning for male issues. That assumption is illogical. I am saying if you are a feminist that information makes no assurtion either way to your views of other issues, including male rights. Some feminists might not give a hoot about male issues, others might be very interested in it.

See that bit in bold? That's the reason I don't think you can equate feminism with equalitarianism. Not because feminists havent made valid contributions to other causes in the past, but because fighting for equality for other groups is not a primary concern for feminism, at least not on the same level as fighting for women's rights.

To be perfectly honest, this is turning into a pretty downright stupid argument right here. If a cause deserves support, it should receive it. Other groups with similar aims and ideals should lend their support, but if enough people feel strongly about it as an issue it makes sense to create a subset group of the "equality for everyone" group focusing on that particular issue. I really don't get where your problem is, especially since I haven't seen anyone openly accuse feminists as a whole of explicitly not caring or hindering other movements. There's a difference between what you think we're saying, and what we're actually saying, and I think that difference is the cause of most of this discussion.

Evil Phil

No

The Corinthian wrote:

God damn pussy

So mistress tells me.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

It has been suggested at feminists are not, by definition, interested in "equality" for all people, only women, because you never see feminist organisations campaigning for male issues. That assumption is illogical. I am saying if you are a feminist that information makes no assurtion either way to your views of other issues, including male rights. Some feminists might not give a hoot about male issues, others might be very interested in it.

Actually it’s not illogical. If one is interested in equality then that is what you are going to promote, not only one side of that equality. Otherwise you are really only promoting partisan interests rather than seeking to redress imbalance - they are not the same thing, after all.

So if some Feminists are concerned with issues of male inequality, that is not because they are Feminists, but because they are people who seek equality enough to act against their own interests.

neuro-praxis

No

The major problem for me when I read through this thread is the idea that because feminism seems to support "only" one cause, it cannot be supported.

I support the "Make Trade Fair" campaign, and the "Make Poverty History" campaign. If I worked on the basis that they are not fighting for all causes and all rights, then I would have to reject them. But this is ludicrous.

To address the_syco with your toilet analogy (somebody call the analogy police! ):

The situation more accurately described with feminism would be that, initially, the men own all of the three toilets. The response of the feminist is to seek one and a half of those toilets. Does this make sense? The feminist does not wish to *have more* than men, or *be superior* to men, but to *have the same rights and respect*.

I am sorry, but I do not accept that we are equal in Ireland. We are *more* equal, but we are not quite there yet. If we are there, then can anyone explain to me why at your avergae extended Irish family gathering, the women do all of the cooking, serving and cleaning, while the men chat, drink, and watch television?

Now, it is true to say that nobody is forcing these women to do this. But for them to say, "We demand that the men play an equal role" will mean a small social revolution must take place within the family. And instead of the men adopting a new attitude of equality, more than likely it would prove to be a once-off.

Now I realise that there are many men who strive to perform equally: my partner is one of them. Hell, he even bakes cakes for a course we run. But *in my experience* when it really comes down to it, the women are still cooking and cleaning and serving when it moves beyond simply a couple scenario.

The phenomenon of the glass ceiling: the issue, Sleepy, is less that women are being robbed of promotions, and more that women lack the ambition to move upward. This is the glass ceiling phenomenon. If women lack this ambition, we have cause to ask why. Also, they are categorically paid less.

Here are some facts and figures, thanks to http://learningpartnership.org/facts/human.phtml.

* Women are often denied voice or power over the most fundamental human decisions, such as whether and when to bear children, to get an education, or to go to work.

....Education

* 855,000,000 people in the world are illiterate. 70% of them are female.

* Two-thirds of the world's children who receive less than four years of education are girls.

* For every year beyond fourth grade that girls go to school, family size drops 20%, child deaths drop 10%, and wages rise 20%; yet, international aid dedicated to education is declining.

* Worldwide, more than half the population of women over age 15 cannot read or write.

* Girls represent nearly 60% of the children not in school.

* Even when women have equal years of education, it does not translate into economic opportunities or political power.

* While women in Nigeria enjoy 53% literacy, in Morocco 34%, and in Palestine 77%, their participation in politics and the economy lag far behind.


....Health & Family

* Worldwide, women suffer greater malnutrition than men.

* 600,000 women -- one every minute -- die each year from pregnancy-related causes. Most of these deaths are preventable.

* As children, girls are often undervalued, fed less, and given inadequate healthcare.

* Parents in countries such as China and India sometimes use sex determination tests to find out if their fetus is a girl. Of 8000 fetuses aborted at a Bombay clinic, 7999 were female.

* In the Global South, women traditionally eat last and least. They do not get more to eat even during pregnancy and nursing.

* Nearly half of all people living with HIV/AIDS are women and girls.

* 510,000 children under the age of 15 died of HIV/AIDS in 1998. Today, almost 1.2 million children under the age of 15 are living with HIV/AIDS.

* In some countries, the HIV/AIDS infection rates for 15- to 19-year old girls are 3 to 6 times higher than for boys.

* Every day 7000 young persons are infected with HIV/AIDS.


....Work

* Worldwide, women's work in the home is not counted as work.

* 90% of the rural female labor force are called "housewives" and excluded from the formal definition of economic activity.

* Women work-- on average and across the world-- more hours than men each week, sometimes as much as 35 hours more, but their work is often unpaid and unaccounted for.

* Where women do the same work as men, they are paid 30 to 40 percent less than men.

* There is no country in the world where women's wages are equal to those of men.

In the U.K., Italy, Germany, and France women are paid 75% of men's wages, whereas in Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and Australia women earn 90% of men's wages.

* Women produce nearly 80% of the food on the planet, but receive less than 10% of agricultural assistance.

* In most places in the world, work is segregated by sex. Women tend to be in clerical, sales and domestic services, and men in manufacturing and transport.

* Women occupy only 2% of senior management positions in business.

* Women's participation in managerial and administrative posts is around 33% in the developed world, l5% in Africa, and 13% in Asia and the Pacific. In Africa and Asia-Pacific these percentages, small as they are, reflect a doubling of numbers in the last twenty years.


....Human Security

* Wars today affect civilians most, since they are civil wars, guerrilla actions and ethnic disputes over territory or government. 3 out of 4 fatalities of war are women and children.

* Over the past decade, armed conflict has killed 2 million children, disabled 4 to 5 million, left 12 million homeless and more than 1 million orphaned or separated from their parents.

* In times of conflict, women and children are sometimes sold into forced servitude and slavery.

* 75% of the refugees and internally displaced in the world are women who have lost their families and their homes.

* In the former Yugoslavia, 20,000 women and girls were raped during the first months of the war.

* In the last decade there were about 300,000 child soldiers.

* There are approximately 250 million child labourers worldwide: Asia accounts for 153 million and Africa for 80 million.


....Law

* Historically women have been denied the knowledge, the means, and the freedom to act in their own and their children's best interests.

* The majority of the world's women cannot own, inherit, or control property, land, and wealth on an equal basis with men.

* In the 1990s, only 13% of national lawmakers in the world were women, increasing just marginally from 11% in the 1970s.

* The Philippines' Anti-Rape Act of 1997, which took 9 years to pass, expanded the definition of rape making it a public criminal offense.


STILL AWAKE?

And to Gordon - this site will both clarify and correct what I said regarding how much women work and get paid - http://www.payequity.net/factsheet/factsheet.htm

I said 80% of the work for 10% of the wages - these figures say 66% of the work for 5% of the wages.

Specifically to Seamus: you who feel that affirmative action is no longer necessary in Western society, take a gander at this - http://www.aauwofva.org/library/myth.htm

I hope that this has been less boring than informative.

The Corinthian

neuro-praxis wrote:

The situation more accurately described with feminism would be that, initially, the men own all of the three toilets. The response of the feminist is to seek one and a half of those toilets. Does this make sense? The feminist does not wish to *have more* than men, or *be superior* to men, but to *have the same rights and respect*.

Actually, what is being pointed out is that the feminist wants to have as many toilets as possible, to improve the number of toilets held. This is not the same thing as ‘more toilets’ or even as ‘the same number of toilets’ - if it were the latter, then in the case where the feminist has two out of three of the toilets, they would feel compelled to redress this imbalance and sacrifice half of one of the toilets.

As such feminism seeks to maximize the interests of its constituent group, independent of whether this results in a situation which is equal or not.

Talliesin

No

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, what is being pointed out is that the feminist wants to have as many toilets as possible, to improve the number of toilets held.

No, Feminism is wanting to have 1.5 toilets, but women who want to have as many toilets as possible have a vested interest in supporting that cause while they are relatively deficient in toilets.

(Why the hell am I continuing this analogy? Yet again boards descends to the toilet level).

Talliesin

No

Evil Phil wrote:

On that note Talliesin - the traditional male image, that of the *strong*, isolated male who's emotional range is limited to lust and anger has become little more than a cliche. Sounds like a miserable lonely existence to me. We should thank feminism for this.

Yes, there is a degree of entlighted self interest in men taking a Profeminist stance.

Zombrex

No

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually it’s not illogical. If one is interested in equality then that is what you are going to promote, not only one side of that equality.

But that is the point. Who says that a person who is a feminist doesn't also promote other causes.

It is like saying if a doctor is truely interested in curing sick people he shouldn't specialise in a certain field because he is ingoring all the other sick people who need his help. But it doesn't mean he is ignoring the other people, mearly that he is devoting his time to a certain cause (HIV for example).

People pick causes that are important to them. It is hypocritical and unfair of us to say that because a person picks a cause (women, black people, catholics, children, asylum seekers, cancer patients) that they therefore don't care about others not in that group.

Megatron

seamus wrote:

believing that women were better than men, with believing that women deserved more than men for their troubles

this is the problem for me, well how i see it at any rate.

Much like "Girl Power" It was more about belittling Men then empowing women.

I don't make judgements on peoples Sex/Sexual orination/colour of skin/religion .. and of that malarky.. i base my judgements on experence with that person or situation.

The biggest problem i have is that now days when the word Feminist is used people automaticly think : butch lezzer, or closet Lezzer ... for me i just cringe inside becuase i know that i will be hearing about how men have had it so go for so long that it's only right that women get a bit of payback.

This is the whole frigging point... it's not about payback, it about equality...

this has stuck with me and coloured my judgement some what :

i was walking down a hallway in some college, and i held open the door for the person behind me ( about 4 - 6 ft behind) as i turned around to see what was keeping them i noticed it was a woman ( not a bad looker) and she started calling me a a sexist pig and slapped me full force in the face. To say i was in shock was a understatement. Now i wasn't about to slap her back ( even though i was well within my right imo) so i did the next best thing .. i closed the door , so it's now between use and i wouldn't let her open it , she would then have to walk back down where we had come from and find another way.


There is no reasoning with these sort of people ... what i did was not being sexist , it was being a decent person , i held open the door for the preson behind me.

Anways .. yes i'm a feminist ( i support womens rights , and equality) but i'm just trapped inside a mans body .

Heard this from the internet and it's bloody true.

A woman will never be equal to a man untill they can walk down the street with a blad head and beer belly and still think they are sexy :eek:

neuro-praxis

No

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, what is being pointed out is that the feminist wants to have as many toilets as possible, to improve the number of toilets held. This is not the same thing as ‘more toilets’ or even as ‘the same number of toilets’ - if it were the latter, then in the case where the feminist has two out of three of the toilets, they would feel compelled to redress this imbalance and sacrifice half of one of the toilets.

As such feminism seeks to maximize the interests of its constituent group, independent of whether this results in a situation which is equal or not.

I hear your point. I disagree, but I see what you are getting at.

Your difficulty seems to be that if the feminists have two toilets and the men only have one, they're not too bothered about this.

Now, personally, as a feminist, if I happened to be lucky enough to be in possession of two whole toilets all to myself (whereby toilets seem to represent some sort of national right) then I would certainly make an effort to redress to balance. This would stem from a desire to genuinely see equality between all toilet-ownership.

However, if I were to look around the rest of the world and see that in Ireland, women had two toilets while men had one, but in Asia, the men had sixteen toilets and the women had to eat their own crap to survive, I would probably put more effort into fighting for the rights of those women than I would to fight for the rights of the men who have to queue a bit here.

Does that make sense?

More important cause - bigger effort. Tis life.

The anti-feminists seem to be saying here, "Because (in on or two areas as opposed to dozens of areas for women) I am at a disadvantage in society, I will not fight for the severely disadvantaged and disenfranchised women of the world until the balance right here right now that affects me, is restored perfectly."

Talliesin

No

Megatron wrote:

Much like "Girl Power" It was more about belittling Men then empowing women.

"Girl Power" was a marketing campaign to sell pointless crap with no redeeming qualities.

seamus

neuro-praxis wrote:

The anti-feminists seem to be saying here, "Because (in on or two areas as opposed to dozens of areas for women) I am at a disadvantage in society, I will not fight for the severely disadvantaged and disenfranchised women of the world until the balance right here right now that affects me, is restored perfectly."

I don't think so. More like "Because I am now at a disadvantage in one or two areas due to feminism, I believe that the rest of the world should concentrate on equal human rights as opposed to women's rights to prevent the same disadvantage from appearing elsewhere".

neuro-praxis

No

Hello? Earth to Seamus? Are women not humans?

You ignored all of my stats.

It is clearly the case that women are at a distinct disadvantage throughout the world. Do you just want feminists to relabel themselves?!

Talliesin

No

neuro-praxis wrote:

The anti-feminists seem to be saying here, "Because (in on or two areas as opposed to dozens of areas for women) I am at a disadvantage in society, I will not fight for the severely disadvantaged and disenfranchised women of the world until the balance right here right now that affects me, is restored perfectly."

And then generally sit on their asses until a Feminist has at least started to do something about it.

I do think Feminism should be about liberation rather than equality, with equality being just a natural part of that "Why should unfree women want to be equal to unfree men" (well, because the unfree men still have it better, but still...).

Megatron

neuro-praxis wrote:

As children, girls are often undervalued, fed less, and given inadequate healthcare.

Parents in countries such as China and India sometimes use sex determination tests to find out if their fetus is a girl. Of 8000 fetuses aborted at a Bombay clinic, 7999 were female.

these 2 are more to do with Religious belifes than anything . while it does highlight the short comes in view of the women, this shouldn't be taken in as opressed women slant, it a religon.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Nearly half of all people living with HIV/AIDS are women and girls.

And ? nearly half , so the other half would be ?

neuro-praxis wrote:

510,000 children under the age of 15 died of HIV/AIDS in 1998. Today, almost 1.2 million children under the age of 15 are living with HIV/AIDS.

and
Every day 7000 young persons are infected with HIV/AIDS.

Not specific to Women , it's the HIV situation that is the problem here , don't see how it highlights Womens situation.

neuro-praxis wrote:

In most places in the world, work is segregated by sex. Women tend to be in clerical, sales and domestic services, and men in manufacturing and transport.

Where women do the same work as men, they are paid 30 to 40 percent less than men

And if asked some of the women would have no interest what so ever in such Male dominated roles, yes it is harder for women to make it in such roles though.

2nd part of the quote , not true as whole , Anyone in my role , would be paid the same as me , please don't make blanket statements.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Wars today affect civilians most, since they are civil wars, guerrilla actions and ethnic disputes over territory or government. 3 out of 4 fatalities of war are women and children.

* Over the past decade, armed conflict has killed 2 million children, disabled 4 to 5 million, left 12 million homeless and more than 1 million orphaned or separated from their parents.

* In times of conflict, women and children are sometimes sold into forced servitude and slavery.



* In the last decade there were about 300,000 child soldiers.

* There are approximately 250 million child labourers worldwide: Asia accounts for 153 million and Africa for 80 million.

again nothering to do with womens plight as such , it's just humanity being a general A-hole to each other. the other points are fair enough.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I hope that this has been less boring than informative.

I didn't find in boring , just a bit misleading tbh .... some of the "Facts" posted up there have nothing what so ever to do with how Women "speficly" ( spelling i know) have been opressed over other groups.

10/10 for effert

4/10 for using correct information

10/10 for trying to put across emotion on a topic while using misleading "Facts"

Fysh

Wicknight wrote:

But that is the point. Who says that a person who is a feminist doesn't also promote other causes.

It is like saying if a doctor is truely interested in curing sick people he shouldn't specialise in a certain field because he is ingoring all the other sick people who need his help. But it doesn't mean he is ignoring the other people, mearly that he is devoting his time to a certain cause (HIV for example).

People pick causes that are important to them. It is hypocritical and unfair of us to say that because a person picks a cause (women, black people, catholics, children, asylum seekers, cancer patients) that they therefore don't care about others not in that group.

No, it's not like your doctor analogy at all.

I haven't seen anyone actively espouse the notion that feminists have an anti-other groups agenda in this thread (except maybe Corinthian).

What has been said is that being focused on one specific inequality issue does not mean that all members of that group are definitely 100% against all other inequalities.

Feminism is a subset of the equality movement, but one does not have to be a member of every equality pressure group in order to be a feminist. It's like the old "joke" about mathematicians, physicists and statisticians who see a black sheep whilst travelling through scotland...(ie the pedantic conclusion being drawn being that "in scotland there is at least one field containing at least one sheep of which at least one half is black". No, I didn't laugh either).

neuro-praxis

No

Megatron, your post has not posed me any difficulties.

I offered the source from where I posted that information, and all that you did was selectively pick out the parts that you deem irrelevant, while ignoring all of the shocking, relevant information. I could have skewed it only for the women's angle, but then it wouldn't have been a proper quoting of the information provided.

The reason some of it is not related to women is because the particular site is concerned with the rights of the world's most disenfranchised - women and children.

Unbelievable response. 10/10 for effort? I hope I always get 10/10 for copying and pasting. 4/10 for correct information? Guh?

We are not on the same wavelength whatsoever.

seamus

neuro-praxis wrote:

Hello? Earth to Seamus? Are women not humans?

We've come full circle.

You ignored all of my stats.

Actually, I read them all, but then I took my lunch and forgot to address them. Tbh, while I've no doubt about the validities of the stats, many of them don't tell the full story or take account of other circumstances. For example, you gave a stat about how many Men are in top-level positions. That doesn't real give any information. I don't see anything saying that women went for these positions and were refused, or that women wanted to be in these positions, but were unable. For all we know, this is the way it's always going to be, no matter what we do. To parphrase a major airline when asked why only 2% of their pilots are female - "They don't apply for the course". That stat about x amount of women having AIDS in a certain area, doesn't give it in a global context - perhaps the amount is comparable with the entire planet.

Stuff like:

* Girls represent nearly 60% of the children not in school.

Is misleading. How are we defining "children". Many countries tradition has girls married off and looking after kids before 16. That's not an equality issue, it's a tradition one.

Again, I'm not poo-pooing your stats, but most of them are issues either unrelated to genuine discrimination, or would be just as easily satisfied by campaigning for universal rights.

neuro-praxis

No

seamus wrote:

Stuff like:Is misleading. How are we defining "children". Many countries tradition has girls married off and looking after kids before 16. That's not an equality issue, it's a tradition one.

Again, I'm not poo-pooing your stats, but most of them are issues either unrelated to genuine discrimination, or would be just as easily satisfied by campaigning for universal rights.

Argh!

So "marrying off" young women is just tradition? They don't have a choice. That is clearly blatantly an equality issue. Are you saying that women doing the cooking and the cleaning and the child-rearing, at the expense of educationa nd careers, for the last thousands of years, is purely tradition?

Most of them are unrelated to genuine discrimination?

DOES NOT COMPUTE
DOES NOT COMPUTE



/me wonders if it is possible to disagree more strongly. Unlikely.