Off Topic Thread 3.0

Buer wrote: »

First two seasons of Peaky Blinders were fantastic. The third season really started to struggle and went off the rails. I gave up after a few episodes.

The third season definitely wasn't as good. I stuck with it to the end but I felt myself losing interest at times. The last episode was pretty good though.

On a slightly related note those lucky enough to be seeing Rogue One in IMAXX will apparently get a 7 minute prologue of the upcoming Christopher Nolan epic Dunkirk. The connection with Peaky Blinders is Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy.

I have to say I'm very disappointed by some of the reactions to the gender debate here. How anyone can claim that being a straight white male in Ireland isn't privileged is beyond me. While it isn't in your face or massively wisespread bigotry is still an issue here. Of all sorts. And while individual straight white men are of course fully capable of seeing things from a minority groups perspective, it's ridiculous to think that this is the case for all straight white men. And I say all of this as a straight white man.

I've seen bigotry in various forms quite a lot. But that obvious bigotry we all think of when looking at this stuff is just one example of it. It can be far more subtle and not something people are even wholly aware of doing.

Add to that the fact that not everyone (and by not everyone I mean a good proportion of people) are incapable of seeing things from other people's perspectives - something that has clearly reared its head here in the last day or so - and you have a situation in modern Ireland where sexism is still very much a thing. And while as an individual you may not think you are guilty of it, and you may in fact not be, you are not representative of everyone out there.

I had a long and interesting debate with a couple of solicitors on the quota thing a few years back and they made it pretty clear that quotas are very helpful in changing what normal looks like. Board members are generally older than most of us here and grew up in a different time and culture to the one that we did. And it's very hard to shake your "normal" even when it no longer is.

I know someone who is 20-30 years older than myself. Homosexuality to this straight white male wasn't "normal" for him growing up. But he's gotten to know a few gay people over the years and homosexuality is now a whole lot more normal in his eyes than it ever was before. And he no longer has an issue with it. Or so we all thought until the referendum last year when he announced he was voting No. When pressed he wasn't able to explain himself really, just saying that it wasn't "normal". He was able to get past his upbringing to a point, but only to a point.

This is just 1 individual, just like each of us are, but it isn't unusual for someone who grew up in a different time to struggle to fully get past their outdated views. Especially as the older we get the less able we are to change.

I don't know enough to know whether there are other options that can work in place of quotas. But if you want things to change from the top down making changes from the bottom up isn't the way to do it. Sure we could invest in making sure that women in sport are given the opportunities and pathways that they may not have had 10, 20, 30 years ago, and we need to. But that means we don't see the results at higher levels for another X number of years. Quotas are there to address that point as much as anything AFAIK. I'm not hugely comfortable with them personally but I can see where the logic stems from.

molloyjh wrote: »

I have to say I'm very disappointed by some of the reactions to the gender debate here. How anyone can claim that being a straight white male in Ireland isn't privileged is beyond me. While it isn't in your face or massively wisespread bigotry is still an issue here. Of all sorts. And while individual straight white men are of course fully capable of seeing things from a minority groups perspective, it's ridiculous to think that this is the case for all straight white men. And I say all of this as a straight white man.

I've seen bigotry in various forms quite a lot. But that obvious bigotry we all think of when looking at this stuff is just one example of it. It can be far more subtle and not something people are even wholly aware of doing.

Add to that the fact that not everyone (and by not everyone I mean a good proportion of people) are incapable of seeing things from other people's perspectives - something that has clearly reared its head here in the last day or so - and you have a situation in modern Ireland where sexism is still very much a thing. And while as an individual you may not think you are guilty of it, and you may in fact not be, you are not representative of everyone out there.

I had a long and interesting debate with a couple of solicitors on the quota thing a few years back and they made it pretty clear that quotas are very helpful in changing what normal looks like. Board members are generally older than most of us here and grew up in a different time and culture to the one that we did. And it's very hard to shake your "normal" even when it no longer is.

I know someone who is 20-30 years older than myself. Homosexuality to this straight white male wasn't "normal" for him growing up. But he's gotten to know a few gay people over the years and homosexuality is now a whole lot more normal in his eyes than it ever was before. And he no longer has an issue with it. Or so we all thought until the referendum last year when he announced he was voting No. When pressed he wasn't able to explain himself really, just saying that it wasn't "normal". He was able to get past his upbringing to a point, but only to a point.

This is just 1 individual, just like each of us are, but it isn't unusual for someone who grew up in a different time to struggle to fully get past their outdated views. Especially as the older we get the less able we are to change.

I don't know enough to know whether there are other options that can work in place of quotas. But if you want things to change from the top down making changes from the bottom up isn't the way to do it. Sure we could invest in making sure that women in sport are given the opportunities and pathways that they may not have had 10, 20, 30 years ago, and we need to. But that means we don't see the results at higher levels for another X number of years. Quotas are there to address that point as much as anything AFAIK. I'm not hugely comfortable with them personally but I can see where the logic stems from.

Did I miss a post or something? Did anyone say this?

Teferi wrote: »

Did I miss a post or something? Did anyone say this?

Noone said that. I assume he mistook your criticism of its usage though.

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't think this Netflix thing will catch on. There's sod all on it and anything that does look interesting only has the first season or two. It's pretty similar to browsing an Xtravision in Carlow in 1997 all told.

Flash in the pan. Like that online book store named after a rainforest ffs.

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't think this Netflix thing will catch on. There's sod all on it and anything that does look interesting only has the first season or two. It's pretty similar to browsing an Xtravision in Carlow in 1997 all told.

There's a lot of stuff on there that's region specific, so it's often a nifty trick to trick it into thinking you are somewhere you are not.

The other thing is that the Netflix original stuff is excellent and are guaranteed to not disappear!

irishbucsfan wrote: »

As for "straight white male" privilege in Ireland. Teferi is completely right that it's most commonly used as just a lazy copy of an American term by people who aren't focused on Irish issues. I do agree with you however in general about gender imbalance in Ireland and much more so about prejudice against homosexual people which are two very different issues. That doesn't mean the opinions of white people, straight people or males should be dismissed out of hand though (which is what happened).

That's not how I read that at all tbh. I read it as someone putting context on why your opinion differed from theirs. The straight white man thing isn't just a lazy term used by people looking to make a point. It, as a term, singularly addresses the 3 most obvious and common forms of bigotry. In other words people like you and I are pretty much completely free from suffering it. You said yourself that men suffer from homophobia or racism. But you don't. When was the last time anyone judged your ability to do a job or comment on a sport based on the fact you're a man, or you're straight, or you're white? Has it ever happened? Is it something you grew up with?

Now obviously not all women have been consistently treated differently by every man, but surely we've all seen cases of it happening and fairly blatantly. I remember talking to a Cardiff fan a few years back with my sister. He completely ignored anything she had to say. He wouldn't address her at all. It was awful. And it isn't the only time I've seen it happen. It's very easy for me to say that me and those that I know don't do it, but that's not much use when it still happens regularly enough.

As for the conversation with the solicitors it was specifically on the use of quotas in general rather than a sexism one so we didn't stray too far from that topic.

errlloyd wrote: »

I agree with Mollyjh here. Listen there are lots of reasons being male sucks - but none of them even come close to how much it sucks to be female.

I work on a project that started in July, 6 candidates were picked from a field of 20 to do it (with 70 applicants). All were male. We're all from fairly diverse backgrounds and some of us are from college backgrounds of courses that are female dominant. About 20 percent of the applicants for the position were women.

A well qualified unsuccessful female candidate wrote a blog about it on LinkedIn. And all the guys in the office got defensive becuase she'd called it out for being sexist. But she was clearly right. Nothing about the job meant it should be male dominant. They all thought they got picked becuase they were the best, and got offended at the suggestion it was something else - but ultimately something about the position made women less likely to apply originally, then less likely to succeed if they did. When those stats are replicated many times you have to ask what's causing it.

The guys didn't thought she was attacking them, but she wasn't really. It's not out fault we were privileged but it was to our benefit. The way society is structured meant that 75 percent fewer women applied than men and that meant the competition was lower. They felt they were the best candidates, but they didn't compare themselves to the candidates not in the room.

Anyway, I've before made my position on gender here pretty clear. It'll almost certainly come up again before the end of this season. So I'm going to save myself.

I don't understand who you're disagreeing with?

pickarooney wrote: »

More men were rejected than women there. It's not an easy sell to tell them it's their privilege to watch another man get the job. They don't even have a handy excuse to console themselves with. They couldn't even get hired as (straight white?) males. How pathetic are they?

Are you being facetious? I am genuinely asking because you didn't attach a smiley face.

It would not be, but the fact you had an 80% majority in the first place is.

Interestingly in that process they implemented a gender quota from applicant to candidate stage. So they had just over 70 applicants who were 80% male and therefore meant sure the candidates were the same.

It suggests women are less likely to apply, but to deduct from that that there is even a widespread belief of bias (let alone bias actually happening) is ridiculous. There are plenty of other reasons that far more men would apply other than bias or perception of bias.

Luckily I think it is evening out in a formal sense, this generation women are even slightly more likely to get employment right after college, but still progress slowly.

This is the hypocrisy, any time men have things better than women it's injustice. Any time women have things better than men (such as these employment rates, life expectancy, leaving cert results) it's progress.

pickarooney wrote: »

No, I'm not. I'm asking you to put yourself in the shoes of a man who repeatedly fails to get selected at interviews while being told all the time that he's the privileged one and imagine how your narrative fits to his reality.

I don't need to, I've been there, but ultimately they are privileged. They probably got closer to the job than they should have got and will learn from that. Of course it is a tough sell, admitting you're privileged is not easy, it's hard.

matthew8 wrote: »

It suggests women are less likely to apply, but to deduct from that that there is even a widespread belief of bias (let alone bias actually happening) is ridiculous. There are plenty of other reasons that far more men would apply other than bias or perception of bias.

Wthout telling you what I do you've already assumed there are a myriad of reasons why women wouldn't do it? For the record the exact same job with the exact same spec attracted 50% female applicants in Germany. I'm not talking about a conscious bias btw, I am talking about an inconcious bias.

swiwi_ wrote: »

I know you are genuinely sincere errlloyd but you seem to be generalising your experiences/worldview onto the rest of us.

I don't think I am alone in those experiences - I'd be surprised, but sure maybe I just have confirmation bias.