nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Zzippy

All things non-rugby related here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Very easy to say given you're a man and men have very rarely needed the carrot or the stick to get where they want to be.

On the contrary, plenty of men have been severely discriminated against due to their race, due to their sexual orientation, due to their religious beliefs.

But what actually makes it easy to say for me (regardless of what my sex, race or sexual orientation might be) is that I've seen what works and I think we should be attempting to follow the example laid down by the likes of Sweden and Iceland where they've closed the boardroom gap without quotas.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

On the contrary, plenty of men have been severely discriminated against due to their race, due to their sexual orientation, due to their religious beliefs.

But what actually makes it easy to say for me (regardless of what my sex, race or sexual orientation might be) is that I've seen what works and I think we should be attempting to follow the example laid down by the likes of Sweden and Iceland where they've closed the boardroom gap without quotas.

Being discriminated against because of race, sexual orientation or religious belief is not being discriminated against for being a man though. Women are discriminated against because they are women. A straight white man does not face the same issues in society as a straight white woman does. That's a fact.

I don't know the ins and outs of Iceland or Sweden but I know all the women in Iceland had to go on strike in 1975 to campaign for equal rights and the average annual pay gap is still 30%. I know that Viking culture was not as patriarchal as other societies so you can presume in places like Sweden they were already starting on a more equal footing than we have in places like Ireland.

In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, you need to have visual representation at the top level to encourage the next generations. A child shouldn't have to wonder if she (or he) can do a job because they don't see someone like them doing that job. Nowadays men and women have the same opportunities when it comes to education so why are men still in the majority of top jobs? It's after college, when you go out into the work force, that the issues still arise. If there are no qualified female candidates for the job then the quota thing becomes an issue but that's where head hunting should be used, AND that's where the other suggestions I made would come into play, ensure women are getting the same opportunities to build and develop their skills and next time there's an opening at the top level you don't have to worry about quotas.

In an ideal world all hiring would be done blind. No names, no specifics, just your qualifications and experience.

Clearlier

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh yes, no doubt. But that's why you should always have that viewpoint and experience present. I agree with that entirely. I'm just pointing out that the idea that men cannot represent women at all is incorrect.

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.

The idea that men can represent women and their views is pretty much self-evidently true and if that's the meaning intended then I agree it's a stupid statement to make. That's not why I read from the quote though. I read it as saying that there aren't any women on boards. That's not strictly true either as there are some women on the boards of some sporting organisations but there are relatively few. I see it as an opportunity because it seems pretty self evident that if you can take your board members from all sections of society you'll end up with a board that is better than one which is selected just from one half or even a subset of that half.

The counter argument usually offered is that women are less interested in sport and participate less. I tend towards agreeing with that but I can't agree that there isn't a significant minority of women just as interested in sport and just as capable as men out there. I also wonder just how self-perpetuating the cycle is - women not interested in sport therefore not participating therefore not involved in the governance of sport therefore not in position to make changes that might make it more attractive to women to participate.

Quota's aren't 'the' solution but I think that they can be part of a solution. If this 30% quota is the only action taken then you can see a board within a board developing and it taking a very long time to see change happen. If it's embraced for the opportunity that it is though I could see a virtuous circle developing where more women are in more positions of influence throughout sport and it won't be necessary to trawl around for token female board members (or having the same women on multiple boards) as may well be the case initially if this proposal comes about because the candidates for membership of a board will include at least a significant minority of women.

sydthebeat

why do women feel like they cannot be represented by men???

Teferi

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Very easy to say given you're a man and men have very rarely needed the carrot or the stick to get where they want to be.

Sure every morning on my way to work I flash my he-man-woman-haters-patriarchy-club badge (HMWHPC for short) in order to get my daily bag of gold that every member is entitled to.

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Being discriminated against because of race, sexual orientation or religious belief is not being discriminated against for being a man though. Women are discriminated against because they are women. A straight white man does not face the same issues in society as a straight white woman does. That's a fact.

I don't know the ins and outs of Iceland or Sweden but I know all the women in Iceland had to go on strike in 1975 to campaign for equal rights and the average annual pay gap is still 30%. I know that Viking culture was not as patriarchal as other societies so you can presume in places like Sweden they were already starting on a more equal footing than we have in places like Ireland.

In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, you need to have visual representation at the top level to encourage the next generations. A child shouldn't have to wonder if she (or he) can do a job because they don't see someone like them doing that job. Nowadays men and women have the same opportunities when it comes to education so why are men still in the majority of top jobs? It's after college, when you go out into the work force, that the issues still arise. If there are no qualified female candidates for the job then the quota thing becomes an issue but that's where head hunting should be used, AND that's where the other suggestions I made would come into play, ensure women are getting the same opportunities to build and develop their skills and next time there's an opening at the top level you don't have to worry about quotas.

In an ideal world all hiring would be done blind. No names, no specifics, just your qualifications and experience.

Not quite. But inaccurate googling aside Iceland and Sweden have the best record on boardroom diversity which is what we're talking about here. And they're generally far better across the board on gender equality than we've ever been. So we should look at what has worked for them in those areas as well. Those countries are not perfect when it comes to diversity either, they themselves have a way to go in other areas. such as racial diversity

I don't really care that it's different being a straight white male than it is being a straight white female specifically, because I don't think straight white females deserve some special position in society above everyone else. Gay white males, straight asian females or any other group are equally deserving of equality and that's why our movement has to be towards complete diversity not just rearranging the furniture to make things more equal for white women but retaining a lack of diversity on other grounds. Ireland is strikingly lacking in diversity across the board but it's not just in terms of gender.

I agree with you that we badly need visual representation at the top, I just think you're completely wrong in your claim that the only way to ensure progress is hard quotas. Simple examination of other cases where diversity has been increased shows that. I always find it daft to ignore other countries policies when trying to address problems they've already addressed, it's the same narrow-minded mistake that Americans make in their own politics and I never understand it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

sydthebeat wrote: »

why do women feel like they cannot be represented by men???

It's not that we can't be represented by men, but why should we have to be if women can do the job? Men and women think differently, it's a fact. We have different needs and priorities. Even having more women on these boards would be beneficial to the men already there, making them more capable of representing women going forward.

Alternatively.....Because we live in a patriarchal society where the roles of men and women, with women mainly being second class citizens, have long been decided and implemented by men.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not quite. But inaccurate googling aside Iceland and Sweden have the best record on boardroom diversity which is what we're talking about here. And they're generally far better across the board on gender equality than we've ever been. So we should look at what has worked for them in those areas as well. Those countries are not perfect when it comes to diversity either, they themselves have a way to go in other areas. such as racial diversity

I don't really care that it's different being a straight white male than it is being a straight white female specifically, because I don't think straight white females deserve some special position in society above everyone else. Gay white males, straight asian females or any other group are equally deserving of equality and that's why our movement has to be towards complete diversity not just rearranging the furniture to make things more equal for white women but retaining a lack of diversity on other grounds. Ireland is strikingly lacking in diversity across the board but it's not just in terms of gender.

I agree with you that we badly need visual representation at the top, I just think you're completely wrong in your claim that the only way to ensure progress is hard quotas. Simple examination of other cases where diversity has been increased shows that. I always find it daft to ignore other countries policies when trying to address problems they've already addressed, it's the same narrow-minded mistake that Americans make in their own politics and I never understand it.

First paragraph - Inaccurate googling? On most of this we're basically in agreement. Iceland and Sweden are better at gender equality than us but they've had to work at it and have been working at it for longer than us. They are also completely different societies in cultural terms so what worked for them cannot be assumed will work for us.

Second paragraph - what you're saying here is part of the problem. Women aren't asking for a place in society ABOVE anyone. We're asking for a fair shot at getting the same place in society men already have. I'm not talking about race or sexual identity here because the article that started this discussion is about men and women. Asking for equality for women isn't taking away from equality for anyone else, or from the fight for equality for anyone else. It's part of the process. The most basic way of breaking up populations is into male and female. (we won't get into gender fluidity because we'd be here for years) Saying you don't care that being a straight white male puts you in the most privileged section of society is precisely why progress on these issues are so slow.

Third paragraph - AGAIN I have not said hard quotas are the only way to go.

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Second paragraph - what you're saying here is part of the problem. Women aren't asking for a place in society ABOVE anyone. We're asking for a fair shot at getting the same place in society men already have. I'm not talking about race or sexual identity here because the article that started this discussion is about men and women. Asking for equality for women isn't taking away from equality for anyone else, or from the fight for equality for anyone else. It's part of the process. The most basic way of breaking up populations is into male and female. (we won't get into gender fluidity because we'd be here for years) Saying you don't care that being a straight white male puts you in the most privileged section of society is precisely why progress on these issues are so slow.

You're completely missing the point and going off on a tangent here. I'll remind you that you dismissed my opinion because I'm a straight white male, because of your claim that men have never been discriminated against. I'm just trying to point out that there are actually a lot of men in Irish society who actually have been discriminated against, and continue to be discriminated against currently. So dismissing people's opinions out of hand based on their gender isn't going to help convince anyone:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Very easy to say given you're a man and men have very rarely needed the carrot or the stick to get where they want to be.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Third paragraph - AGAIN I have not said hard quotas are the only way to go.

Yes you did. You said they are the only way to ensure progress. They weren't used in places where progress was achieved:

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Quotas are necessary to ensure progress, unfortunately

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're completely missing the point and going off on a tangent here. I'll remind you that you dismissed my opinion because I'm a straight white male, because of your claim that men have never been discriminated against. I'm just trying to point out that there are actually a lot of men in Irish society who actually have been discriminated against, and continue to be discriminated against currently. So dismissing people's opinions out of hand based on their gender isn't going to help convince anyone:

I didn't dismiss your opinion at all. You seem to think that offering a different opinion is dismissing yours. I think you are speaking as a straight white male, and therefore your opinion is based on your experiences as a straight white male. Yes, I am assuming you're straight, and that you're white for that matter, but I am not dismissing your opinion. I simply stated the context in which your opinions have been formed, and that is in the most privaledged section of society.

Yes you did. You said they are the only way to ensure progress. They weren't used in places where progress was achieved:

You've quoted my post where I say "quotas are necessary to ensure progress" and yet still try to tell me that I said they're the "only way to ensure progress". I don't even know how to argue this point with you if you insist on reading something that isn't there. This is the 3rd or 4th time I've clarified this for you.

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I didn't dismiss your opinion at all. You seem to think that offering a different opinion is dismissing yours. I think you are speaking as a straight white male, and therefore your opinion is based on your experiences as a straight white male. Yes, I am assuming you're straight, and that you're white for that matter, but I am not dismissing your opinion. I simply stated the context in which your opinions have been formed, and that is in the most privaledged section of society.

But that was all you said in that post. You didn't offer a different opinion. That's both dismissive and ironically discriminatory.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You've quoted my post where I say "quotas are necessary to ensure progress" and yet still try to tell me that I said they're the "only way to ensure progress". I don't even know how to argue this point with you if you insist on reading something that isn't there. This is the 3rd or 4th time I've clarified this for you.

OK, so you'll admit they're not necessary in that case? If there are viable alternatives, which is the entire point, then they're not necessary to ensure progress.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But that was all you said in that post. You didn't offer a different opinion. That's both dismissive and ironically discriminatory.

The post I replied to was a post replying to my opinion. I had already stated it. And have restated it a number of times. Look, here I go again....

OK, so you'll admit they're not necessary in that case? If there are viable alternatives, which is the entire point, then they're not necessary to ensure progress.

No, I think they are necessary in this case, as I've already stated. And I've already stated that there needs to be other steps taken alongside them to make it so they become unnecessary.

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

No, I think they are necessary in this case, as I've already stated. And I've already stated that there needs to be other steps taken alongside them to make it so they become unnecessary.

OK, we need to stop the circular logic here. If you think they are necessary, then you think there's no other way to achieve progress. So can we stop pretending your opinion is anything else? Even if you think other steps need to be taken. You keep changing your tune on this.

That's fine if it's your opinion but I'd much rather we went after things more progressively as I think it's much more likely to gain traction.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

OK, we need to stop the circular logic here. If you think they are necessary, then you think there's no other way to achieve progress. So can we stop pretending your opinion is anything else? Even if you think other steps need to be taken. You keep changing your tune on this.

That's fine if it's your opinion but I'd much rather we went after things more progressively as I think it's much more likely to gain traction.

So, just to be clear here, despite me outlining my opinion several times, you're still going to tell me what my opinion is?

Connacht2KXX

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I didn't dismiss your opinion at all. You seem to think that offering a different opinion is dismissing yours. I think you are speaking as a straight white male, and therefore your opinion is based on your experiences as a straight white male. Yes, I am assuming you're straight, and that you're white for that matter, but I am not dismissing your opinion. I simply stated the context in which your opinions have been formed, and that is in the most privaledged section of society.

Jesus christ.

That has to be one of the most bigoted, sexist, racist and heterophobic statements ever made.

One's ability to rationalise, dissect and analyse a situation and form a logical argument on a subject matter is independent of gender, race and sexuality. You're saying that because ibf has specific, superficial qualities that his intellectual capacity has become compromised.

This is akin to saying "sure how would you know anything about maths, you're a woman".

The people who peddle the whole "straight, white male" narrative constantly bítch and moan about sexism and racism, yet they are completely incapable of seeing how they are making generalisations about a person based on their sex and race (ie "your opinion is based on your experiences as a straight white male").

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

So, just to be clear here, despite me outlining my opinion several times, you're still going to tell me what my opinion is?

I'm trying to establish your opinion because it seems to change.

You say quotas are necessary. Then you say they're not the only way to go. So are quotas necessary or is it possible to achieve progress without them?

[Deleted User]

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Connacht2KXX wrote: »

Jesus christ.

That has to be one of the most bigoted, sexist, racist and heterophobic statements ever made.

One's ability to rationalise, dissect and analyse a situation and form a logical argument on a subject matter is independent of gender, race and sexuality. You're saying that because ibf has specific, superficial qualities that his intellectual capacity has become compromised.

This is akin to saying "sure how would you know anything about maths, you're a woman".

The people who peddle the whole "straight, white male" narrative constantly bítch and moan about sexism and racism, yet they are completely incapable of seeing how they are making generalisations about a person based on their sex and race (ie "your opinion is based on your experiences as a straight white male").

Show me where I said his opinion was wrong, or that he is intellectually compromised due to being a white man?

People's opinions are based on their own experiences of the world. His experiences of the world are as a straight white male. What's wrong with that? It's a fact. I experience the world as a straight white women and therefore my opinions are formed on those experiences. I try to engage people whose experiences are different in conversation to educate myself and see things from other points of view. Perhaps IBF does too and then his opinions take on other people's experiences and maybe his opinions change, maybe his original opinions intensify, who knows.

That is not even close to what you're accusing me of.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'm trying to establish your opinion because it seems to change.

You say quotas are necessary. Then you say they're not the only way to go. So are quotas necessary or is it possible to achieve progress without them?

My opinion hasn't changed one bit.

At the moment. In these specific circumstances. Quotas are necessary. Applied on their own, quotas are useless. Other steps need to be taken, along with the quotas. The ultimate goal being quotas are rendered unnecessary.

I really don't see how any of that is confusing to you.

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

My opinion hasn't changed one bit.

At the moment. In these specific circumstances. Quotas are necessary. Applied on their own, quotas are useless. Other steps need to be taken, along with the quotas. The ultimate goal being quotas are rendered unnecessary.

I really don't see how any of that is confusing to you.

OK, so quotas are necessary. So I wasn't actually telling you what your opinion is, I was just restating your opinion? Not sure why you accused me of telling you what your opinion is in that case.

In that case my original point, after all this, stands. I'd prefer we followed an approach that's had success elsewhere (and not only in Scandinavia, also in the UK).

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

irishbucsfan wrote: »

OK, so quotas are necessary. So I wasn't actually telling you what your opinion is, I was just restating your opinion? Not sure why you accused me of telling you what your opinion is in that case.

Because in this post you were literally telling me what my opinion is.

OK, we need to stop the circular logic here. If you think they are necessary, then you think there's no other way to achieve progress. So can we stop pretending your opinion is anything else? Even if you think other steps need to be taken. You keep changing your tune on this.

I think they are necessary now. That is my opinion. I do not think there's no other way to achieve progress. That is not my opinion.

In that case my original point, after all this, stands. I'd prefer we followed an approach that's had success elsewhere (and not only in Scandinavia, also in the UK).

Good. I wasn't trying to change your opinion. I was simply defending mine.

[Deleted User]

Personally I think any kind of quotas are horribly regressive. Appointment by "insert non experienced based criteria here" are undermining and the next generation coming through seeing people of "insert non experienced based criteria here" being selected via quotas are more likely to form notions of entitlement over eligibility.

I don't know why the government is on this crusade, I don't remember it being part of the election and I for one am completely against it.

I'd be perfectly happy if the IRFU was run from top to bottom by women, people of colour, gays or even individuals from Munster provided they are the most qualified to do the jobs.

My cousin is involved in the GAA and was offered a position as one of the under ages coaches a few years ago because the club thought it would be good to have a female coach in the ranks. She turned it down because she felt there were other more qualified people available and the decision shouldn't be made for optics. She is now a coach at under 15s but earned it like everyone else. We're talking about parents volunteering here so nothing overly dramatic, but the principle carries true.

Connacht2KXX

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Show me where I said his opinion was wrong, or that he is intellectually compromised due to being a white man?

People's opinions are based on their own experiences of the world. His experiences of the world are as a straight white male. What's wrong with that? It's a fact. I experience the world as a straight white women and therefore my opinions are formed on those experiences. I try to engage people whose experiences are different in conversation to educate myself and see things from other points of view. Perhaps IBF does too and then his opinions take on other people's experiences and maybe his opinions change, maybe his original opinions intensify, who knows.

That is not even close to what you're accusing me of.

You said - "your opinion is based on your experiences as a straight white male". This is clearly an attempt to undermine his position, as if certain genders, races or sexualities have a more accurate view of the world. I'll repeat again, you're ability to rationalise about a particular subject is INDEPENDENT of gender, race and sexual orientation. What allows you to form an opinion is your intellect, honesty and logical mindset, which is INDEPENDENT of gender, race and sexual orientation.

My opinion of mathematics has nothing to do with my gender. My opinion of economics has nothing to do with my skin colour. My opinion about box kicks has nothing to do with my sexuality. It has to do with my ability to rationalise honestly about the subject in question and has nothing to do with any of these superficial qualities.

You're attributing certain belief systems, abilities etc to ibf based on his gender, race and sexuality. In my opinion, as I've stated for the tenth time, these are superficial qualities that do not determine your ability to understand the efficacy of quotas.

irishbucsfan

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I think they are necessary now. That is my opinion. I do not think there's no other way to achieve progress. That is not my opinion.

OK, so there's just a misunderstanding here. You said they are necessary to ensure progress. That means they are essential, IE they must be in place to ensure progress. It may not have been your opinion, but it is 100% what you said in the original post.

That's what I disagree with. There's just not enough evidence for it for me to be used in the first instance and actually could be damaging.

sullivlo

I'm female. I'm not entirely convinced that a man can represent my needs accurately.

This isn't a feminist issue, or an "I hate men" issue. It's simply just my opinion and my view based on my life experience to date.

I'm going to have to think carefully about how I phrase things though :pac:

Unless a man possesses a huge capacity for empathy, I don't think he can see things from a female point of view, therefore I don't think he could represent the views to the level that somebody who has first hand experience could.

Stupid example. Tampons. Tampons are classed as a luxury item in Ireland. Tampons are exclusively used by women in Ireland (well, maybe awec and his kinky crap). I have spoken to males and females about this issue. The females agree that something should be done, the males don't really care because it doesn't directly impact them. Personally I can think of things I would prefer to call a luxury item...

Another example. The 8th Amendment. It's easy for a male to say "Not my problem, doesn't impact me". And it's true. The 8th amendment, essentially, reduces the rights of a woman and equates their rights to the exact same as an unborn child. Will a man who lacks empathy be able to adequately represent women, given that it's an issue that doesn't impact him?

I'm not discounting any males in this by the way, but unless you're female you don't know how it is to be a female in life. And like I said - nothing against any males, but none of you have been females so ye just can't say that you know what it's like to be a female.

I'd never turn and say "I know exactly what it feels like to be kicked in the balls" because I don't have balls.

This issue works both ways though I'm sure - there are issues that exclusively impact men too. I just don't know them issues because I'm a girl.

[Deleted User]

sullivlo wrote: »

I'm female. I'm not entirely convinced that a man can represent my needs accurately.

This isn't a feminist issue, or an "I hate men" issue. It's simply just my opinion and my view based on my life experience to date.

I'm going to have to think carefully about how I phrase things though :pac:

Unless a man possesses a huge capacity for empathy, I don't think he can see things from a female point of view, therefore I don't think he could represent the views to the level that somebody who has first hand experience could.

Stupid example. Tampons. Tampons are classed as a luxury item in Ireland. Tampons are exclusively used by women in Ireland (well, maybe awec and his kinky crap). I have spoken to males and females about this issue. The females agree that something should be done, the males don't really care because it doesn't directly impact them. Personally I can think of things I would prefer to call a luxury item...

Another example. The 8th Amendment. It's easy for a male to say "Not my problem, doesn't impact me". And it's true. The 8th amendment, essentially, reduces the rights of a woman and equates their rights to the exact same as an unborn child. Will a man who lacks empathy be able to adequately represent women, given that it's an issue that doesn't impact him?

I'm not discounting any males in this by the way, but unless you're female you don't know how it is to be a female in life. And like I said - nothing against any males, but none of you have been females so ye just can't say that you know what it's like to be a female.

I'd never turn and say "I know exactly what it feels like to be kicked in the balls" because I don't have balls.

This issue works both ways though I'm sure - there are issues that exclusively impact men too. I just don't know them issues because I'm a girl.

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I just don't see why it has anything to do with sports administration.

Connacht2KXX

sullivlo wrote: »

I'm female. I'm not entirely convinced that a man can represent my needs accurately.

This isn't a feminist issue, or an "I hate men" issue. It's simply just my opinion and my view based on my life experience to date.

I'm going to have to think carefully about how I phrase things though :pac:

Unless a man possesses a huge capacity for empathy, I don't think he can see things from a female point of view, therefore I don't think he could represent the views to the level that somebody who has first hand experience could.

Stupid example. Tampons. Tampons are classed as a luxury item in Ireland. Tampons are exclusively used by women in Ireland (well, maybe awec and his kinky crap). I have spoken to males and females about this issue. The females agree that something should be done, the males don't really care because it doesn't directly impact them. Personally I can think of things I would prefer to call a luxury item...

Another example. The 8th Amendment. It's easy for a male to say "Not my problem, doesn't impact me". And it's true. The 8th amendment, essentially, reduces the rights of a woman and equates their rights to the exact same as an unborn child. Will a man who lacks empathy be able to adequately represent women, given that it's an issue that doesn't impact him?

I'm not discounting any males in this by the way, but unless you're female you don't know how it is to be a female in life. And like I said - nothing against any males, but none of you have been females so ye just can't say that you know what it's like to be a female.

I'd never turn and say "I know exactly what it feels like to be kicked in the balls" because I don't have balls.

This issue works both ways though I'm sure - there are issues that exclusively impact men too. I just don't know them issues because I'm a girl.

Is a man capable of talking to large numbers of women, women's organisations, different societies etc about their stance on a particular issue, collect, analyse and interpret statistics and data about that issue then come to a logical conclusion on that issue?

If the answer is yes, then a man can represent your views, as I've already said, gender is independent of your ability to think rationally.

You yourself may have an opinion about abortion and then dismiss a man for having an opinion on it as "he's a man". However, if he spoke to more women, more diverse age groups and social classes of women, analysed a whole bunch of data on it then came to a perfectly logical conclusion about abortion, then his opinion will be more accurate and representative of women's opinion on abortion than yours.

Felix Jones is God

So...men can't represent women on sports bodies as we don't care about vat on Tampax is what it all boils down to

sullivlo

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I just don't see why it has anything to do with sports administration.

Yeah, me either :pac:

From a point of view of sports administration - don't care what you've got between your legs. If you're able to do the job, do the job. It shouldn't be based on gender.

From a point of view of roles - obviously there are going to be jobs that require a certain set of skills that may be better suited to one gender over another. However if either gender proves that they have the capability to do a job, let them do the job.

I work in STEM. There was a funding call released a few years ago that was specifically aimed towards women, with the intention of providing an incentive for women who left the field during maternity leave, to come back. I entirely disagreed with the funding call because funding should be accessible to all.

Connacht2KXX wrote: »

Is a man capable of talking to large numbers of women, women's organisations, different societies etc about their stance on a particular issue, collect, analyse and interpret statistics and data about that issue then come to a logical conclusion on that issue?

If the answer is yes, then a man can represent your views, as I've already said, gender is independent of your ability to think rationally.

You yourself may have an opinion about abortion and then dismiss a man for having an opinion on it as "he's a man". However, if he spoke to more women, more diverse age groups and social classes of women, analysed a whole bunch of data on it then came to a perfectly logical conclusion about abortion, then his opinion will be more accurate and representative of women's opinion on abortion than yours.

Yeah if you could point out where in my post I mentioned abortion, I'd really appreciate it.

Also a man can, of course, research and come to a logical conclusion. But is he really going to care about an issue that doesn't impact him? Does anyone outside of Kerry really care enough to campaign for whatever it is the Healy-Raes are campaigning for now? There's a reason we have rural and urban based TDs. Some city dwellers wouldn't be able to tell the difference between slurry and silage - are they really going to care enough to lobby the right people? Or are they going to stick with something they have experience with. Like traffic management or whatever.

A man can represent a woman, but I think its easier for a woman to represent a woman because they find it easier to think like a woman because they are women.

irishbucsfan

sullivlo wrote: »

Yeah, me either :pac:

From a point of view of sports administration - don't care what you've got between your legs. If you're able to do the job, do the job. It shouldn't be based on gender.

From a point of view of roles - obviously there are going to be jobs that require a certain set of skills that may be better suited to one gender over another. However if either gender proves that they have the capability to do a job, let them do the job.

I agree with you totally on women's issues in general. But the original source of the discussion is the suggestion that sports bodies should have a hard quota that 30% of their board should be made up of women.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I just don't see why it has anything to do with sports administration.

Well they administer the female sports as well.

Generally speaking, no matter how well intended or empathetic a person is, it is essentially impossible for those in a majority, beneficial position to really understand the minority or marginalised position. Obviously this is not specific to male/female it would cover all manner of things and it will never be possible to represent all views. I believe that men, of course, can represent the interests and views of women but stuff is also probably being missed.

I don't, as a rule, like quotas. I disagree they are necessary and think that there are most definitely other approaches to take that would ultimately be more successful. The thing is though, that those other approaches are bloody hard and require a lot of buy in from all involved and are probably slightly more slow moving.