Louise O Neill

The Rape of Lucretia · 02-08-2016 06:58PM

Wibbs wrote: »

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

And unfortunately, the sad truth may be that they never will - it is simply beyond the capability of the sex.

Ahh more of the mask slips. It's apparently beyond the male mind to comprehend? That same male mind that stumbled and bumbled along creating damn near everything you experience around you. Riiiight. Might work for you in the echo chamber, but kinda falls flat on its arse in the face of even the merest challenge.

It is not about what a man can do, rather what he cant.
Accepting limitations is difficult, but consider that it may just be impossible for man to cast off the effect of millions of years of evolution. Just consider this possibility please, rather than assume man is capable of anything.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 02-08-2016 07:02PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It is not about what a man can do, rather what he cant.
Accepting limitations is difficult, but consider that it may just be impossible for man to cast off the effect of millions of years of evolution. Just consider this possibility please, rather than assume man is capable of anything.

Are you using "man" to describe all humans or just male humans?

ancapailldorcha · 02-08-2016 07:02PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It is not about what a man can do, rather what he cant.
Accepting limitations is difficult, but consider that it may just be impossible for man to cast off the effect of millions of years of evolution. Just consider this possibility please, rather than assume man is capable of anything.

Do you genuinely believe this tripe? What percentage of men commit rape? Such conviction will no doubt have solid evidence backing it.

Wibbs · 02-08-2016 07:03PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It is not about what a woman can do, rather what she cant.
Accepting limitations is difficult, but consider that it may just be impossible for women to cast off the effect of millions of years of evolution. Just consider this possibility please, rather than assume woman is capable of anything.

FYP and awaits the response of the mob.

The_Valeyard · 02-08-2016 07:07PM

Wibbs wrote: »

FYP and awaits the response of the mob.

Do we bring pitchforks or is it just a bit of rabble rousing?

Zxclnic · 02-08-2016 07:07PM

Lest we forget, not all women are successful doctors and lawyers of course.

Almost three in every ten female employees are low paid. The corresponding situation for males is two in every ten employees.

Ulysses Gaze · 02-08-2016 07:08PM

Wibbs wrote: »

FYP and awaits the response of the mob.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/a/ab/Simpsons_angry_mob.png/revision/latest?cb=20070619165229

02-08-2016 07:11PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It is not about what a man can do, rather what he cant.
Accepting limitations is difficult, but consider that it may just be impossible for man to cast off the effect of millions of years of evolution. Just consider this possibility please, rather than assume man is capable of anything.

Probably the most interesting thing anyone has said on the thread, and people are so quick to guffaw they probably haven't really thought about it.

I think it's entirely possible that sexual aggression is a genetically advantageous predisposition. And maybe even that promotion of sexual restraint is a biological anathema. I don't know, but it is a very interesting suggestion.

Ulysses Gaze · 02-08-2016 07:11PM

Zxclnic wrote: »

Lest we forget, not all women are successful doctors and lawyers of course.

Almost three in every ten female employees are low paid. The corresponding situation for males is two in every ten employees.

And neither are all men.

But the opportunity for education for women is there and they are taking it more than men are.

More women in higher education than men.

The Rape of Lucretia · 02-08-2016 07:19PM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

But the opportunity for education for women is there and they are taking it more than men are.

More women in higher education than men.

Yet still having to fight against a system biased against them. Have you been following the cases in NUI Galway these last few years ?

The_Valeyard · 02-08-2016 07:21PM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/a/ab/Simpsons_angry_mob.png/revision/latest?cb=20070619165229

Marge, look! Those idiots don't even know where we *live*!

Zxclnic · 02-08-2016 07:23PM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And neither are all men.

But the opportunity for education for women is there and they are taking it more than men are.

More women in higher education than men.

True, and that can only be a good thing, but women - or certainly a lot of women - are at a disadvantage when it comes to promotion and general career advancement......children.
Some employers might even unfairly view the prospect of a young female employee having children as a potential stumbling block.
And in terms of low pay, there's still a hell of a lot to be done.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/nevin-institute-six-out-of-ten-low-paid-workers-are-female-1.2573724

Arturo Bandini · 02-08-2016 07:24PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Yet still having to fight against a system biased against them. Have you been following the cases in NUI Galway these last few years ?

What system is against women?

The_Valeyard · 02-08-2016 07:24PM

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

What system is against women?

THE system, or THE man.

*im really not sure....

Arturo Bandini · 02-08-2016 07:25PM

Zxclnic wrote: »

True, and that can only be a good thing, but women - or certainly a lot of women - are at a disadvantage when it comes to promotion and general career advancement......children.
Some employers might even unfairly view the prospect of a young female employee having children as a potential stumbling block.
And in terms of low pay, there's still a hell of a lot to be done.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/nevin-institute-six-out-of-ten-low-paid-workers-are-female-1.2573724

But younger women are now earning more than men:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

Ted111 · 02-08-2016 07:27PM

How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

02-08-2016 07:29PM

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

What system is against women?

Take a sector like academia. 50% of academic professionals are women, but men have 77% of senior posts.

That anomaly might represent overt sexism, or a system that is punitive towards childbearing, perhaps. Or both. Either way, it is a systematic problem by its very definition.

In the case of the latter, it should not be beyond our ability to amend the work/family balance that we have created for ourselves. As we created it, we can change it.

Zxclnic · 02-08-2016 07:30PM

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

But younger women are now earning more than men:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

Good stuff.

''When aged 22-29, women earn an average of £1,111 more than men – but the roles are reversed with a vengeance once 30 is hit''

Coincidentally, the average age for women in Britain having their first child is 30

Icemancometh · 02-08-2016 07:34PM

Zxclnic wrote: »

Good stuff.

''When aged 22-29, women earn an average of £1,111 more than men – but the roles are reversed with a vengeance once 30 is hit''

Coincidentally, the average age for women in Britain having their first child is 30

But the first bit is ok?

mzungu · 02-08-2016 07:37PM

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

But younger women are now earning more than men:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

Indeed, it is down to life choices as opposed to discrimination post 30.

Zxclnic · 02-08-2016 07:40PM

Icemancometh wrote: »

But the first bit is ok?

Do you mean 'ok' in terms of accuracy, or 'ok' in terms of the slight imbalance which is later corrected with a ''vengeance''?

Ulysses Gaze · 02-08-2016 07:40PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Take a sector like academia. 50% of academic professionals are women, but men have 77% of senior posts.

That anomaly might represent overt sexism, or a system that is punitive towards childbearing, perhaps. Or both. Either way, it is a systematic problem by its very definition.

In the case of the latter, it should not be beyond our ability to amend the work/family balance that we have created for ourselves. As we created it, we can change it.

How would you suggest we do that?

Icemancometh · 02-08-2016 07:44PM

Zxclnic wrote: »

Do you mean 'ok' in terms of accuracy, or 'ok' in terms of the slight imbalance which is later corrected with a ''vengeance''?

In terms of woman outearning men before they turn 30. Why is that ok? In addition to having children, isn't there likely an element of generational change in the figures too? I doubt the woman in their 50s group were out earning men when they were in their 20s, the way we see they are now. They have been huge changes in gender inequality, but the figures will remain skewed for years.

Zxclnic · 02-08-2016 07:53PM

Icemancometh wrote: »

In terms of woman outearning men before they turn 30. Why is that ok? In addition to having children, isn't there likely an element of generational change in the figures too? I doubt the woman in their 50s group were out earning men when they were in their 20s, the way we see they are now. They have been huge changes in gender inequality, but the figures will remain skewed for years.

In terms of your question, I would prefer if the earning figures for males and females were the same.
I agree with the rest of your post for the most part, though I'm not sure about the figures remaining skewed for years, surely we've become better and faster at collecting, collating, and publishing data of all kinds including gender pay and employment information.

Icemancometh · 02-08-2016 07:56PM

Zxclnic wrote: »

In terms of your question, I would prefer if the earning figures for males and females were the same.
I agree with the rest of your post for the most part, though I'm not sure about the figures remaining skewed for years, surely we've become better and faster at collecting, collating, and publishing data of all kinds including gender pay and employment information.

What I meant by the figures remaining skewed, was that the gains women have made, have been made relatively recently. The female workforce over 40 by and large doesn't have this advantage, and hence will earn less than men. As they will continue to work for another 20 years or so, the numbers will remain skewed.

Zxclnic · 02-08-2016 07:59PM

Ted111 wrote: »

How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

Go on then Ted, but please let it be funny.

02-08-2016 08:14PM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

How would you suggest we do that?

The working week is (literally) a man-made social institution, it didn't come down from Mount Sinai with Moses.

We can change it by following the examples set by Sweden: extending equal parental rights to women and to men, free pre-school, access to means-tested childcare provided by the State, as well as other means, such as stricter regulation of the working week, as in France, i.e. decreasing the number of hours in the working week, and decreasing the maximum overtime hours.

Again, our Lord himself did not come up with the magical '40 hours' figure, and advances in technology & automation would justify its amendment.

The Rape of Lucretia · 02-08-2016 08:27PM

Men will resist changing their man made structure though.
The women as chattel paradigm is probably still too well entrenched in the male subconscious, and the might is right instinct, of women as the slave and plaything of men, too inate for culture to override it in a short period. And women pay a high price as a result. A voice such a Louise, jumped on and ridiculed showing how strong the resistance still is.

JRant · 02-08-2016 08:30PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Take a sector like academia. 50% of academic professionals are women, but men have 77% of senior posts.

That anomaly might represent overt sexism, or a system that is punitive towards childbearing, perhaps. Or both. Either way, it is a systematic problem by its very definition.

In the case of the latter, it should not be beyond our ability to amend the work/family balance that we have created for ourselves. As we created it, we can change it.

That's just picking one sector in an entire economy and saying "hay look, woman are discriminated against". It's a nonsense argument to make because it ignores everything else around it.

What about teaching?
Do you think that profession is inherently sexist against men because the vast majority of teachers are women?

Whether you realise it or not young men are now far more likely to be (positively) discriminated against than young women. Especially when talking about STEM industries where companies are falling over themselves to show how right on they are. Special women only training, fast track management programmes and mentoring are becoming the norm in these industries. All the while creating a sense of division that just wasn't there before HR clowns got their hands on the controls in an attempt to 'redress the balance'.

The NUI nonsense that is going on is just the start of the madness to follow. It's not enough to put in place the systems to allow more women to the top, it has to be done NOW. It's like the old saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves"

Wibbs · 02-08-2016 08:32PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Probably the most interesting thing anyone has said on the thread, and people are so quick to guffaw they probably haven't really thought about it.

I think it's entirely possible that sexual aggression is a genetically advantageous predisposition. And maybe even that promotion of sexual restraint is a biological anathema. I don't know, but it is a very interesting suggestion.

Oh I've thought about it and if you want to go down that rabbit hole we're gonna have a right oul laugh indeed. Never mind the "ah shure might be science why all men are rapists y'know". Maybe it's also "science" that pretty much every single leap forward in the human condition since we came along was because a man thought of it and men did it. Or maybe not. Or Patriarchy or somesuch nonsense. Seriously. Listen to yourself and apply "genetic predisposition" based on gender and see how long you last.

Oh and BTW we're the least sexually aggressive of the great apes, so it seems it was selected against.

Louise O Neill

Comments