awec wrote: » Are you trying to organise a coup? We will strike you down with unspeakable force.
thomond2006 wrote: » http://www.thejournal.ie/sports-bodies-gender-quotas-3133752-Dec2016/ What kind of rubbish is this. Since when do men have to be represented by men and women represented by women?
Buer wrote: » I'd say I'm sh*tting myself but I don't want to get you excited.
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » I think I was looking at Blakes.... or something on the Corner.... They have steak section on their menu and you can choose cut, how it's cooked, sauces, sides etc.etc. I would probably be looking at covering a decent meal for 2 so maybe €50-75ish.
Buer wrote: » Stheno and TME for mod!
Stheno wrote: » Feck off this is my sanctuary
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » In terms of sporting bodies it makes perfect sense. Men can't accurately represent women when they don't know what it means to be a woman. Being a female athlete is a completely different thing to being a male athlete.
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: » How about the idea of the best person getting the job.
Clearlier wrote: » They're having that discussion in the UK at the moment too where the 5 previous heads of the FA have come out to say that the FA boards is continuously populated by elderly white men. There is no question of saying that any of the individuals on the boards aren't good people who contribute to and have contributed in the past to the relevant organisation. The problem is that you've got a board which has a limited perspective. Add in a token woman and they're often ignored no matter how competent they are because they bring a perspective not seen by the majority. Add in someone with a physical disability and you've got another perspective, a learning disability and you've got another perspective, different skin colour and you've got another. You can't have nor do you necessarily want every possible perspective but when a board is comprised or even largely comprised of a group of people all coming from just one broadly similar perspective then you've got a huge risk of group think not to mention that the ideas that are being missed out on.
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: » These rules are stupid for sport because we all know that men are far more interested in sport than women and you are always going to have sport being dominated by men.
Podge_irl wrote: » Do we know that though? It's a fairly blanket statement and while it reads as pretty reasonable it probably requires more insight into which sports are popular, viewing vs. playing, whether the lack of interest is precisely as a result of not trying to appeal to them etc.
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: » I think we can be pretty confident men are more interested in sport than women the same way women are more interested in fashion than men. I've never been to a sports match where women outnumbered men, my sister plays rugby and her coaches are all men.I never hear the women I work with talk about sport.
irishbucsfan wrote: » As someone with a group of close friends who are female athletes at the very top of their sports I respectfully disagree. In my experience they don't actually discriminate based on gender when choosing people to represent them legally or commercially. I've actually had this discussion with them as I found it interesting how many of them choose male agents/union representation (even internationally as they're not all based in Ireland).
irishbucsfan wrote: » I am completely in favour of more diversity though and it should be actively encouraged even if this particular proposal seems a bit heavy-handed. It's not about misrepresentation though, that's a very foolish statement by Patrick O'Donovan.
CMOTDibbler wrote: » Is that not a by-product of under representation though? Less female agents/union reps, means the choice of the 'best' ones invariably results in men being picked.
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: » How about the idea of the best person getting the job. It makes no sense for the GAA to be included as the 2 biggest sports in the GAA (probably making up 99% of the membership) can only be played by men.
irishbucsfan wrote: » No, not to my knowledge. I'm talking about professional level which isn't quite fully mature but there is a pretty decent split and plenty of options ex-players involved. The point is that when the girls are looking for these services they don't actually feel that men cannot represent them. There should be diversity of course. I'm merely saying the idea that women cannot at all be represented by men is totally false and it's actually extremely dismissive of some men who work in women's sport vocationally.
CMOTDibbler wrote: » I don't doubt that for a minute. Being one such myself. But if I'm honest, I couldn't say with absolute conviction that I wouldn't miss something that would be more obvious to a woman. Or that it mightn't occur to me at all. But it's not just about the much hackneyed 'women's issues'. It's about a different viewpoint, different experience and outlook that women can bring. I'm really only talking about sport governance here. Other areas like agencies and union representation would probably have different aspects or viewpoints.
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » Not all women are interested in sport but a lot are and you may well find the reason a lot of them don't talk about it, particularly around men, is that women are nearly always asked to prove that they're sports fans. A man says he's into sports and it's just automatically accepted as a truth. A woman says she's into sports and she's faced with 21 questions to prove that she's not just watching for Rob Kearney. Not all men do this, and it's become more "acceptable" for women to be into sports, as participants and fans, but it's still a completely different experience being a female sports fan/athlete than it is to being a male one.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Diversity is something we should work towards, I'm not sure if quotas are the best way to go about it but I'm certainly happy to accept they are so long as they're enforced intelligently and contextually. But the minister would be better advised to go about it without making silly statements like the one he did.
irishbucsfan wrote: » I agree with you that this is the case. However that's not just a women's issue. When I tell everyone I'm off to watch my female friends play (which often involves travel so I end up missing work, hence it coming up in conversation) I'm greeted with knowing smiles and winks. I haven't actually found the best way to deal with that just yet!
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » Quotas are necessary to ensure progress, unfortunately. It's not great for the women that get these jobs because they will always have "only there because PC gone mad!" thing hanging over them no matter how good they are at their jobs. Much like South African rugby though they should be putting things in place at ground level to ensure that in 10 years time quotas aren't necessary. A few scholarships for female students for various sports management degrees, X amount of intern places for females only etc. etc. Along with a continued drive to promote sport among women, starting at primary school level, and in a few years you'd hopefully see an increase in the talent pool and then you can look at hiring the best person for the job without having to worry about gender.
irishbucsfan wrote: » I'm sorry but no, quotas are not the only way to ensure progress. Look at the 30% club.
TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: » I didn't say they were the only way. I said the were necessary to ensure progress.
irishbucsfan wrote: » If progress can be achieved without quotas (which we've seen in practice already) then they can't be necessary. I'd prefer we try the carrot before the stick.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3e92925f7bde702415f91ea088d4f7a.svg)
