The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

Deleted User wrote: »

The question was simple.

If a genuinely open, tolerant and liberal person would not call into question a person's gender in arriving a decision about whether or not to hire them, why do you think it fair that the state makes moves to compel them to do so?

It is a theoretical, perhaps philosophical question.

.

Ok ,lets engage again

if after 50 years of ''genuinely open, tolerant and liberal '' people in society ,why has every worthwhile social change had to be dragged kicking and screaming in to existence or even more likely imposed from above by the EU or ECJ , and why do you think it will be different going forward .

I do think you are posing a philosophical question and one that on a certain level is completely reasonable . But fails in a real world environment

K-9

Yourself isit wrote: »

I don't answer to "links please" trolls. None of my statements needed links. Please argue your point.

Mod:
Well you are kind of in the wrong forum then. Please provide links when requested in future and stop calling others trolls for simply asking for an example.

osmiumartist

It's interesting that one side of this argument is 100% backing discrimination based of gender while the other side is 100% anti-discrimination.
Only it's the exact opposite of the sides you might expect...

marienbad wrote: »

I did you ,you just didn't like it .

this?

marienbad wrote:

The very same can be said for your post , all motherhood and apple pie stuff
We had have 50 years of waiting for ''liberty, openness and tolerance from being allowed to foster in society ''
And what have we got without the added prompt of legislation ?
Pat Hickey and his gob****e cronies totally unqualified for the job .
John Delaney on his 430.000 euro salary (more than any other Association head in Europe as far as I know) and more money than the FAI dispense to the League Of Ireland .
After 130 years one woman on the board of the IRFU .
And I could go on through other sporting bodies where the governance is inept and cronyism is rife . Scandal after scandal year after year .
liberty openness tolerance my arse . I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush , if they were all as well run as the GAA and the IRFU who definitely have an eye on the future and best practice it might be ok but they are not .
What wrong with some fresh eyes on the scene ?

Answers absolutely nothing to do with what I asked.

The question was simple.

If a genuinely open, tolerant and liberal person would not call into question a person's gender in arriving a decision about whether or not to hire them, why do you think it fair that the state makes moves to compel them to do so?

To legislate and force them to go against their open, tolerant and liberal disposition? To make them discriminate?

It is a theoretical, perhaps philosophical question.

marienbad wrote: »

Pat Hickey John Delaney Fergal Carruth et al , be the best that we can be what ?

No. And I think you'll find I've made zero effort to defend any of them. I am questioning the idea that the state should mandate that a persons' gender must be considered in hiring decisions. When we as a society have worked hard explicitly against this for years.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So the reason that there are dramatically fewer women in senior roles in almost all sections of society is that women are inherently less talented?

Not in the slightest. It is strange that you suggest these extreme dichotomies.

What are the age profiles of the average senior position you are talking about?

What were the paths taken to get there?

Were those paths available to both men and women from the time that would be required to have a 50/50 (or somewhat more equal distribution) in these roles?

Just as the day after universal suffrage was finally earned, it could not be expected that there would immediately be a 50/50 split of parliamentarians, I can't see how it's fair to suggest that we should be seeing a more 'natural' dispersal of genders in any senior roles yet.

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting

Maybe you missed this? Care to engage?

I did you ,you just didn't like it .

Pat Hickey John Delaney Fergal Carruth et al , be the best that we can be what ?

marienbad wrote: »

The very same can be said for your post , all motherhood and apple pie stuff

Interesting

Deleted User wrote:

None of those characteristics matter when it comes to any of the decisions that a genuinely open and tolerant person makes. I would suggest that forcing anyone to consider another person's arbitrarily defined as 'important' characteristics is almost totally backwards for that person. Would you like to attempt to engage that opinion and change my mind?

Maybe you missed this? Care to engage?

Deleted User wrote: »

This is very little but noise.

.

The very same can be said for your post , all motherhood and apple pie stuff

We had have 50 years of waiting for ''liberty, openness and tolerance from being allowed to foster in society ''

And what have we got without the added prompt of legislation ?

Pat Hickey and his gob****e cronies totally unqualified for the job .

John Delaney on his 430.000 euro salary (more than any other Association head in Europe as far as I know) and more money than the FAI dispense to the League Of Ireland .

After 130 years one woman on the board of the IRFU .

And I could go on through other sporting bodies where the governance is inept and cronyism is rife . Scandal after scandal year after year .

liberty openness tolerance my arse . I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush , if they were all as well run as the GAA and the IRFU who definitely have an eye on the future and best practice it might be ok but they are not .

What wrong with some fresh eyes on the scene ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Genuine question: is it your firmly-held belief that the reason there are no women on the executive boards of the GAA, the FAI or the IRFU is that there are no women who are the right people for the job?

No. Is this the sole dichotomy of the situation?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you ruling out the possibility that women are not even being considered for these roles, simply because they are women (albeit that this bias may well be subconscious)?

No, is this the sole dichotomy of the situation?

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you accept the possibility that women are in fact discriminated against, but you oppose gender quotas, what mechanism would you propose to help end such systemic discrimination?

You are asking me to insist upon discrimination in case there has been discrimination. Mandate discrimination. Force it.

That is simply an absurd thing to work towards imo. The suggestion that discrimination is a problem is sound. The suggestion that we should mandate its use as a tool against possible discrimination? Infinite regress issue.

Count Dooku wrote: »

If woman has talent, then she will manage to get position which she deserves

So the reason that there are dramatically fewer women in senior roles in almost all sections of society is that women are inherently less talented?

legocrazy505

Count Dooku wrote: »

The only real contribution from last government to some kind of economic growth was staying away from failed socialist policies of fianna fail and following IMF plan. They could do much better job if they wouldn't spend so much time SSM

Except there's a problem with your statement, the IMF has already concluded what they were selling to the Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugals of the world is ****:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/27/austerity-policies-do-more-harm-than-good-imf-study-concludes

http://fortune.com/2016/06/03/imf-neoliberalism-failing/

Deleted User wrote: »

If Y is the best person for the job, they should get the job.

Genuine question: is it your firmly-held belief that the reason there are no women on the executive boards of the GAA, the FAI or the IRFU is that there are no women who are the right people for the job?

Are you ruling out the possibility that women are not even being considered for these roles, simply because they are women (albeit that this bias may well be subconscious)?

If you accept the possibility that women are in fact discriminated against, but you oppose gender quotas, what mechanism would you propose to help end such systemic discrimination?

Count Dooku

marienbad wrote: »

Why is that a bad thing ?

Why gender must have priority?
If woman has talent, then she will manage to get position which she deserves

Yourself isit wrote: »

I made a point. When women were discriminated against, it was by law. Removing legal impediments isn't the same as a quota system.a quota system is a return to legal discrimination

I am not arguing solely for quotas systems , I actually think they are a blunt instrument . It was one of the other posters brought it up and it had now turned to a discussion on quotas

If the same change can be brought about by just changing the law I am all for it - like SSM , or repeal the 8th, or disability access .

But in lots of areas that isn't enough .

marienbad wrote: »

I didn't ask for links , I asked for examples , how can we argue a point if you refuse to make it .

I made a point. When women were discriminated against, it was by law. Removing legal impediments isn't the same as a quota system.a quota system is a return to legal discrimination

marienbad wrote: »

Just listened to it and it is just the usual stuff trotted out for decades against any and all change - in the USA ,people of colour in the military, gays in the military , in N.I. catholics in virtually anything , here married women etc etc .

And it is funny how the 'best person for the job manta 'is always trotted out but that never seemed to matter when the imbalance was created in the first place .

This is very little but noise.

I am staunchly against quotas of any sort. If we want to strive towards a gender neutral, sexuality neutral, religion neutral, genuinely liberal, open and tolerant society, then I believe that 'baking in' identity politics is a disastrous mis-step that will do far more harm than good.

None of those characteristics matter when it comes to any of the decisions that a genuinely open and tolerant person makes. I would suggest that forcing anyone to consider another person's arbitrarily defined as 'important' characteristics is almost totally backwards for that person. Would you like to attempt to engage that opinion and change my mind?

If that ideal does hold true, then quotas of any nature are inherently damaging to one's ability to genuinely practice tolerance, liberty and openness.

marienbad wrote: »

So now that they have been given notice lets see how fast voluntary change happens . Of course they could always just stop taking taxpayers money. Money which comes from ALL society

What is the societal benefit that accrues from forcing female representation on the upper echelons of by-and-large voluntary sporting bodies in Ireland?

Is that benefit greater than the cost of preventing liberty, openness and tolerance from being allowed to foster in society?

I would suggest not a hope.

Count Dooku

marienbad wrote: »

Believe it or not we can always do more than one thing at time , if we couldn't we would still be back in the stone age .

The last government managed to improve the economy (however imperfectly), also managed to fcuk-up Irish water - and still brought forward the SSM referendum !

The only real contribution from last government to some kind of economic growth was staying away from failed socialist policies of fianna fail and following IMF plan. They could do much better job if they wouldn't spend so much time SSM

Yourself isit wrote: »

I don't answer to "links please" trolls. None of my statements needed links. Please argue your point.

I didn't ask for links , I asked for examples , how can we argue a point if you refuse to make it .

Deleted User wrote: »

Cliona Foley talks about it at length on the 'Off The Ball' podcast last week.

http://www.newstalk.com/player/embed.php?mediaType=podcast&id=170859

Worth listening to if you actually can't figure out why mandating non gender-neutral treatment is pretty much antithesis to what human rights groups in general have always worked for.

If Y is the best person for the job, they should get the job.

Gender doesn't matter right? We are all equal and should be treated equally.

Quotas tell us that not only does it matter, it matters enough to explicitly state so and punish situations where arbitrary bounds have been breached.

Just listened to it and it is just the usual stuff trotted out for decades against any and all change - in the USA ,people of colour in the military, gays in the military , in N.I. catholics in virtually anything , here married women etc etc .

And it is funny how the 'best person for the job manta 'is always trotted out but that never seemed to matter when the imbalance was created in the first place .

I wouldn't worry too much yet though as this government hasn't the muscle to push it through . It will come though and '' if it be not now ,yet it will come-the readiness is all ''

So now that they have been given notice lets see how fast voluntary change happens . Of course they could always just stop taking taxpayers money. Money which comes from ALL society

Nevertheless northern Ireland has a non-quota based system.

http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/err_issue04%20christopher.pdf

marienbad wrote: »

Examples please

I don't answer to "links please" trolls. None of my statements needed links. Please argue your point.

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

Cliona Foley talks about it at length on the 'Off The Ball' podcast last week.

http://www.newstalk.com/player/embed.php?mediaType=podcast&id=170859

Worth listening to if you actually can't figure out why mandating non gender-neutral treatment is not pretty much antithesis to what human rights groups in general have always worked for.

If Y is the best person for the job, they should get the job.

Gender doesn't matter right? We are all equal and should be treated equally.

Quotas tell us that not only does it matter, it matters enough to explicitly state so.

..or religion, or colour.

marienbad wrote: »

Why is that a bad thing ?

Cliona Foley talks about it at length on the 'Off The Ball' podcast last week.

http://www.newstalk.com/player/embed.php?mediaType=podcast&id=170859

Worth listening to if you actually can't figure out why mandating non gender-neutral treatment is pretty much antithesis to what human rights groups in general have always worked for.

If Y is the best person for the job, they should get the job.

Gender doesn't matter right? We are all equal and should be treated equally.

Quotas tell us that not only does it matter, it matters enough to explicitly state so and punish situations where arbitrary bounds have been breached.

Deleted User wrote: »

30% gender quotas in public sporting body boards.

http://www.thejournal.ie/sports-bodies-gender-quotas-3133752-Dec2016/

Why is that a bad thing ?

marienbad wrote: »

Examples please

30% gender quotas in public sporting body boards.

http://www.thejournal.ie/sports-bodies-gender-quotas-3133752-Dec2016/

Sand wrote: »

Well, you may say they didn't help you, but you were encouraged to produce a better metaphor and you did with your second cartoon. So they did help you develop your views.

My views didn't change. I offered a second image with precisely the same underlying message, but without the opportunity for pendants to seize upon some irrelevant aspect like box-counting, and with helpful captions in case they still managed to miss the point.

So, in a sense, I learned something: when you're having a conversation with people who are threatened by the point you're making, you have to go to great lengths not to give them an excuse to tell you that you were making a different point all along. Which is a pretty depressing lesson, to be honest.

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

If I say "it's not about resources", and someone replies that of course it's about resources, they're not trying to help me "develop my views" (there's a nice patronising sentiment); they're just refusing to accept that the conclusion they jumped to is wrong.

Well, you may say they didn't help you, but you were encouraged to produce a better metaphor and you did with your second cartoon. So they did help you develop your views.

Sand wrote: »

People pointing out that it offers no useful lesson or guide are trying to help you develop your views.

If I say "it's not about resources", and someone replies that of course it's about resources, they're not trying to help me "develop my views" (there's a nice patronising sentiment); they're just refusing to accept that the conclusion they jumped to is wrong.

Yourself isit wrote: »

That forms of feminism was OK. It wasn't affirmative action but opposition to legal discrimination against women (or catholics) . Now you want legal discrimination for upper middle class women against men. (Nobody cares about gender ratios in non elite jobs).

Examples please