Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Reframing feminism ** mod warning posts 1 and 50 **

12357…11

Comments

  • #122
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Did she not get the nomination because she's female or was the othe candidate better? Geniune question. I was beat to a job by a woman but it's because she was more qualified.

    The Irish Government has a history of many instances of abuse towards women.


  • #123
    Shelga
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,054 ✭✭✭Shelga


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    How I am I looking for an advantage over men, by reducing the overall advantage of 80% to 20% currently in men's favour?

    Because it's not 'us against them'. Equality is not like a football match where you keep score. Do you think your male TDs do not represent your interests at all? This just saddens me.

    We need to work together. I'm a woman, I don't want gender quotas, and I resent that 'feminism' has forced them on us.


  • #124
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    How I am I looking for an advantage over men, by reducing the overall advantage of 80% to 20% currently in men's favour?

    It is fairly clear that the gender quota gives you as an individual a massive advantage over me as an individual on the basis of our respective genders given that (I presume) neither of us is a sitting TD or ran in the last election.


  • #125
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,612 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    The quota system that you mentioned yourself is a perfect example.

    If a man is most qualified for a position but they need the "balance", that man loses out.

    Recent election - candidates were chosen because they were female due to new rules; men excluded as a result.

    Best person / people should get the positions. Regardless of which they are.

    That would be equality.
    In politics quota didn't challenge practice of picking the lost qualified candidate but the one who had the best connections in the local pub. Irish politics is not exactly female friendly and to start the process quotas are welcome. After a while there should be no need for them. It's disingenuous to claim Irish politics served women well until now and if more restrictive measures are needed to address balance then I think they are welcome.

    BTW while I approve of quotas in politics which is basically popularity contest I disagree with them in other sectors.


  • #126
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    psinno wrote: »
    I have always presumed candidates are selected by a vote of local party members (unless they are overridden by the national party). If this is the case are you saying democracy should be over ruled when it doesn't elect the right people?

    It has been over ruled. By the gender quota introduced to eradicate discrimination.

    When there is discrimination, and many women complain of this at local level in politics, it should of course be overruled.

    Democracy is not constantly keeping one gender out of politics, the body that governs our land. Do you think it is?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    How I am I looking for an advantage over men, by reducing the overall advantage of 80% to 20% currently in men's favour?

    Because you are viewing "equality" as purely a numbers game and completely ignoring all other factors.

    You're looking to change the numbers regardless of ability, qualification, lifestyle, interests - hell just about everything.

    I'm looking to have the best person in all those categories hired, regardless of sex, and to hell with numbers and quotas.

    Which of those 2 sentences do you think is actually discriminatory ?


  • #128
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Shelga wrote: »
    Because it's not 'us against them'. Equality is not like a football match where you keep score. Do you think your male TDs do not represent your interests at all? This just saddens me.

    We need to work together. I'm a woman, I don't want gender quotas, and I resent that 'feminism' has forced them on us.

    I disagree with you.


  • #129
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    psinno wrote: »
    It is fairly clear that the gender quota gives you as an individual a massive advantage over me as an individual on the basis of our respective genders given that (I presume) neither of us is a sitting TD or ran in the last election.

    Panini that makes no sense.

    Gender quotas ensure that a paltry 30% of candidates must be women.

    You still have the 70% majority.

    This gives me a massive advantage over you in what way?


  • #130
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Easy to say when you're in the majority of course!
    Jack Killian wrote: »
    Because you are viewing "equality" as purely a numbers game and completely ignoring all other factors.

    You're looking to change the numbers regardless of ability, qualification, lifestyle, interests - hell just about everything.

    I'm looking to have the best person in all those categories hired, regardless of sex, and to hell with numbers and quotas.

    Which of those 2 sentences do you think is actually discriminatory ?


  • #131
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    meeeeh wrote: »
    In politics quota didn't challenge practice of picking the lost qualified candidate but the one who had the best connections in the local pub. Irish politics is not exactly female friendly and to start the process quotas are welcome. After a while there should be no need for them. It's disingenuous to claim Irish politics served women well until now and if more restrictive measures are needed to address balance then I think they are welcome.

    BTW while I approve of quotas in politics which is basically popularity contest I disagree with them in other sectors.

    Hang on - let's have a look at the high-profile politicians that had made it.

    Mary O'Rourke, Mary Hanafin, Joan Burton, etc. Hardly chosen based on ability.

    Best politician in the Dáil last year : Catherine Murphy. Independent.

    If quotas applied to independents she was above 50/50 in her nomination because it was 100/0 in female favour, but as I'm not in favour of quotas I'm delighted that she was there to do the type of work that any of the old guard above would run a mile from.

    So to break it down into an Animal Farm style "not female friendly" is crazy. It's a job that involves being away from home & family. It's a job that should involve X, Y & Z, so make a choice.

    It could also be argued that it's EXTREMELY family-friendly as you're off while schools are off.

    And that's assuming that one of the criteria of this airy-fairy "not exactly female friendly" involves family, which in itself is sexist as not every woman has / wants a family or puts family over career. But that is not being suggested by me; it's suggested by those who are supposedly against sexism, ironically.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Gender quotas in politics have worked well in countries that they have been introduced into.

    In fact it has worked well here in the first time it has been used.

    If over one hundred years, women have never reached more than 15% of government, there is discrimination going on.

    We are now for the first time ever into the 20% range.

    Its not equality. I don't have any political ambitions but if I did quotas wouldn't help me. I have a family so working long hours promoting myself on top of having to work isn't an option. I can't afford to quit my job to go canvassing. It's no coincidence that politicians tend to be older middle class people with a bit of money. How about we look at the barriers to politics so more women and more younger people, working class people of both sexes can get involved? Wouldn't that be fairer for everyone?


  • #133
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Easy to say when you're in the majority of course!

    How am I "in the majority" ? :confused: Last time I looked (which was 20 seconds ago to confirm it) male/female ratio was as close to 50/50 as makes zero difference.

    BTW - I'd say it regardless. So - again - please stop superimposing an agenda on me.


  • #134
    IvyTheTerrible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭IvyTheTerrible


    I don't think quotas help women. They cause a lot of resentment, and they don't address actual reasons why women don't get involved in politics (such as those mentioned by eviltwin.)


  • #135
    sullivlo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,994 ✭✭✭sullivlo


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Easy to say when you're in the majority of course!

    I'm in the minority but agree with Jack and disagree with you.

    We're all different people. We're allowed have different opinions.

    I don't see the current theme of feminism as promoting equality.

    In terms of politics. There were women running in my area. I chose not to vote for them as I didn't agree with their policies.

    Does that make me anti-feminist? For disagreeing with a female? Or not voting for a female because I didn't see her as a strong candidate?


  • #136
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Hmmm less than one hundred years ago women had to fight to be able to vote.

    'To say the government is not female friendly is crazy'

    What about all the abuses against women in the past? That happened.
    You can't whitewash it out of history.


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    Hang on - let's have a look at the high-profile politicians that had made it.

    Mary O'Rourke, Mary Hanafin, Joan Burton, etc. Hardly chosen based on ability.

    Best politician in the Dáil last year : Catherine Murphy. Independent.

    If quotas applied to independents she was above 50/50 in her nomination because it was 100/0 in female favour, but as I'm not in favour of quotas I'm delighted that she was there to do the type of work that any of the old guard above would run a mile from.

    So to break it down into an Animal Farm style "not female friendly" is crazy. It's a job that involves being away from home & family. It's a job that should involve X, Y & Z, so make a choice.

    It could also be argued that it's EXTREMELY family-friendly as you're off while schools are off.

    And that's assuming that one of the criteria of this airy-fairy "not exactly female friendly" involves family, which in itself is sexist as not every woman has / wants a family or puts family over career. But that is not being suggested by me; it's suggested by those who are supposedly against sexism, ironically.


  • #137
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Panini that makes no sense.

    Gender quotas ensure that a paltry 30% of candidates must be women.

    You still have the 70% majority.

    This gives me a massive advantage over you in what way?

    Because if both of you were the only candidates for the job you'd get it even if you were less qualified ? How can you not see this ?

    Gender quotas DO NOT mean that he has a "70% majority" because 100% of women could be hired. However 100% of men could not.


  • #138
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    And I disagree with you also on aspects.

    Why do you need to question it. It's your choice who you vote for.

    sullivlo wrote: »
    I'm in the minority but agree with Jack and disagree with you.

    We're all different people. We're allowed have different opinions.

    I don't see the current theme of feminism as promoting equality.

    In terms of politics. There were women running in my area. I chose not to vote for them as I didn't agree with their policies.

    Does that make me anti-feminist? For disagreeing with a female? Or not voting for a female because I didn't see her as a strong candidate?


  • #139
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    Because if both of you were the only candidates for the job you'd get it even if you were less qualified ? How can you not see this ?

    Gender quotas DO NOT mean that he has a "70% majority" because 100% of women could be hired. However 100% of men could not.

    It's not discrimination if it is brought in to balance an overwhelming discrimination in the first place.

    How do you not see this?

    You can't just write gender quotas off as ill researched and not needed. They are deeply researched and are implemented in cases of discrimination worldwide.


  • #140
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Shelga wrote: »
    Arguably, an average primary school teacher has a much larger influence on a child's life than an average politician. Why no push for quotas for 30% of primary school teachers to be men, so that our children can have a more rounded, gender-balanced style of teaching, with strong male role models in school?

    Genuinely don't mean to engage in whatabouttery, but I am a woman and I genuinely believe that all of these measures damage the original intent of feminism, and lend legitimacy to the much-hated 'special snowflake' term.

    Indeed , more of an american issue but the education system is starting to hear complaints that the system is toxic to boys because boys are viewed by mostly female staff as being "broken girls" or otherwise measured against girl's behaviour. the objective of the US system seems to be to turn boys off education either by design or neglect. either here or anywhere if more boys are switched off education, who are all these awesome women going to start families with? its magnifying the winner takes all society.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #141
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Hmmm less than one hundred years ago women had to fight to be able to vote.

    'To say the government is not female friendly is crazy'

    What about all the abuses against women in the past? That happened.
    You can't whitewash it out of history.

    HISTORY. I wasn't around then. I had no hand, act or part in it. I'm not whitewashing anything.

    Did you not dispute my point earlier that
    Jack Killian wrote: »
    The issue is that a significant portion of feminism doesn't want that; they want to swing the balance and punish current men for the imbalance of the past.

    You complained when you misinterpreted that as saying that all feminists did that, and then you go and do it yourself ?


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Shelga wrote: »
    Because it's not 'us against them'. Equality is not like a football match where you keep score. Do you think your male TDs do not represent your interests at all? This just saddens me.

    We need to work together. I'm a woman, I don't want gender quotas, and I resent that 'feminism' has forced them on us.

    Do you resent the gender quotas introduced in numerous countries worldwide to counteract the discrimination in those countries?

    It was deeply researched, and put in place by a progressive society for the benefit of all: men and women.


  • #143
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,839 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'm all for a reasonable critique of feminism. It's strong enough to take it and we need to hear other people's concerns. You don't win hearts by bullying people, you need to get them to see the validity of what you are promoting.


    I don't see the validity of modern feminism as it is being portrayed today, as a movement for equality for everyone. I don't believe in the concept of equality for everyone either though. I believe in teaching people to make their own opportunities for themselves.

    eviltwin wrote: »
    The last bastion of women's right in this country is around children and family. Women need access to abortion, families need affordable child care and new models of childcare


    If people choose to have children, isn't those children's welfare the responsibility of their parents? I don't see why the State should be asked to subsidise childcare for people who want to have it all. People have their pick of the bunch of childcare methods so I don't see any new models that could be introduced?

    I think that's where feminism is split between women who choose to work at home and raise their children themselves, and women who choose to be employed and have someone else raise their children for them. Either way, they're going to be a failure to the cause of feminism by one standard or another. It's a bit like religion that way - always aspirational, but never quite good enough, and then women are made to feel guilty whatever they choose to do.

    eviltwin wrote: »
    fathers need better legal rights and better access to leave, the working environment needs to focus on more flexibility for all employees. I don't see any tangible examples of men losing rights, maybe someone could point out where that is happening.


    I've never understood what fathers rights have to do with feminism. Feminism can't even make any ground with regard to women's rights and women's welfare, and now some feminists are concerning themselves with fathers rights as part of feminism? If I were a single woman with no children I'd be thinking I couldn't relate to feminism if that's what's expected of me tbh.

    I don't think the argument is at all that men are losing rights, it's that men are being denied rights because of feminism, the same feminism ideology that claims it wants men to have more rights, equal rights even!

    Then again, I was never gone on the whole "equality" ideology anyway, I'm more about fairness, and giving people rights that are useful to them, rather than rights they aren't asking for and will likely never avail of. I see it as a pointless waste of resources to fight for rights that there is simply no demand for when there are greater issues that are facing women that women should concern themselves with, rather than thinking feminism means they have to fight for men's rights now too!


  • #144
    IvyTheTerrible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭IvyTheTerrible


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Do you resent the gender quotas introduced in numerous countries worldwide to counteract the discrimination in those countries?

    It was deeply researched, and put in place by a progressive society for the benefit of all: men and women.
    Deeply researched by whom? Can you pass on a few links to valid research?


  • #145
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    And I disagree with you also on aspects.

    Why do you need to question it. It's your choice who you vote for.

    It is. From the available candidates. That your agenda ensures is not necessarily the best.

    Her choices or preference have no bearing on you; yours have on her.


  • #146
    sullivlo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,994 ✭✭✭sullivlo


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    And I disagree with you also on aspects.

    Why do you need to question it. It's your choice who you vote for.
    We're allowed disagree. That's what makes people different. I am willing to accept your point of view on this issue. You, however, do not appear to be able to accept that other people have different opinions to you.

    My interpretation of your posts about politicians is as follows:

    There should be a 50/50 split of candidates and there should be a 50/50 split of politicians elected.

    My issue with the above is as follows:

    In my constituency, 50% of the candidates were women, however only 25% of the elected candidates were women. Because we, as an electorate, chose the candidates based on their ability, not on their gender. THAT is equality.


  • #147
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    HISTORY. I wasn't around then. I had no hand, act or part in it. I'm not whitewashing anything.

    Did you not dispute my point earlier that



    You complained when you misinterpreted that as saying that all feminists did that, and then you go and do it yourself ?

    But it's laughable that you think I want to punish men?!

    My point is: in an organisation that has historically been misogynistic, and still has a stranglehold of male politicians-for the benefit of all society, gender quotas need to be introduced.

    You are around now, and female politicians are saying and gave been saying that they are being discriminated against at local level.

    You are around now.


  • #148
    Shelga
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,054 ✭✭✭Shelga


    midlandsmissus wrote: »
    Do you resent the gender quotas introduced in numerous countries worldwide to counteract the discrimination in those countries?

    It was deeply researched, and put in place by a progressive society for the benefit of all: men and women.

    Do you have examples? I understand why they're put in, I just don't think it's a good way to achieve to stated goals. I resent anything that implies women should be treated differently to men, and vice versa.

    Also you haven't responded to my point about quotas for male primary school teachers? Of course I don't think they should be introduced, but you could just as easily apply the 'for the benefit of all' logic to them.


  • #149
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    It is. From the available candidates. That your agenda ensures is not necessarily the best.

    Her choices or preference have no bearing on you; yours have on her.

    So you would like to continue with the stranglehold of male politicians?

    The parties keeping women off the nomination also has bearing on me you and her.

    Why do you think they introduced a strict penalty recently for gender discrimination in parties, if it wasn't happening?


  • #150
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    IvyTheTerrible wrote: »
    Deeply researched by whom? Can you pass on a few links to valid research?

    There's loads to be found here, from a variety of perspectives and approaches:
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gender+quotas+political+science+literature&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo94_4w7bNAhVsKsAKHVKaC7IQgQMIGTAA


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    midlandsmissus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,838 ✭✭✭midlandsmissus


    Sullivlo you said you disagree with me, I said I disagree with you.

    We have both said the same thing to each other.

    All opinions are very welcome.
    sullivlo wrote: »
    We're allowed disagree. That's what makes people different. I am willing to accept your point of view on this issue. You, however, do not appear to be able to accept that other people have different opinions to you.

    My interpretation of your posts about politicians is as follows:

    There should be a 50/50 split of candidates and there should be a 50/50 split of politicians elected.

    My issue with the above is as follows:

    In my constituency, 50% of the candidates were women, however only 25% of the elected candidates were women. Because we, as an electorate, chose the candidates based on their ability, not on their gender. THAT is equality.


Advertisement