How do you view Feminism in Ireland?

newport2 · 23-11-2017 03:03PM

silverharp wrote: »

I'd say a lot of that clothes pressure is generated by women? for example there is a whole mini industry in filming female celebs without makeup, the market isnt men.

This. And if you wear pretty much the same outfit every day - like most male politicians do - there's nothing to comment on. The reason women's outfits generate a lot more attention is a) a lot of women are interested in them and b) there is a large diversity in what women wear, hence there's more to talk about.

silverharp · 23-11-2017 03:23PM

newport2 wrote: »

This. And if you wear pretty much the same outfit every day - like most male politicians do - there's nothing to comment on. The reason women's outfits generate a lot more attention is a) a lot of women are interested in them and b) there is a large diversity in what women wear, hence there's more to talk about.

Part of the inspiration for women's fashion is a display of wealth coupled with a lack of practicality, though saying that female power dressing has developed in the last few decades, but otherwise the signal is, not being someone that has to do manual or low paid work or even signalling not having to work at all because they are married to high value men. That is why men don't wear high heels, the signal is we got shiiit do to and have to get from A to B in the quickest time possible

El_Duderino 09 · 23-11-2017 09:44PM

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I agree about the people at the top wanting to stay at the top.

And childcare which tends to fall along biological lines and has the effect of taking women out of the workforce through parental leave, part time working, child related emergencies and ultimately results in pay differences.

Like I said, if there were women at the top instead of men, I suspect you’d see it as a gender problem as well as a social class problem.

I always think it’s interesting how women in politics, have their clothes commented on. Obama emptied his wardrobe and got white shirts, a blue suit and a navy suit and a couple of ties. He had a wardrobe full of the same suits like batman. He did it so there was no decision to make around what to wear. I don’t think anyone really commented on his clothes.

Teresa May has to have a different outfit nearly every day. They have to be different to avoid criticism, and conservative to avoid criticism, and elegant to avoid criticism, not too expensive to avoid criticism, and not too cheap to avoid criticism.

The pressures on men and women at the top, and every other level, are not the same and are not necessarily equal.

I'd say a lot of that clothes pressure is generated by women? for example there is a whole mini industry in filming female celebs without makeup, the market isnt men.

So what if it is generated by women? I don’t think it’s exclusively women btw but even if we grant that it’s primarily women. So what? My point was that men and women face different and not necessarily equal challenges.

silverharp wrote: »

for biologically essential reasons i would always expect more male than female leaders, if it reversed i'd expect to see men being legally handicapped.

Could you explain what you mean by that. It’s an expectation with a hefty belief system behind it so it would be great if you would explain what you mean, why you think it’s true and give a rough estimate of the ratio that you think would naturally result. How much of the difference is biological and how much is social, in your estimation?

You also ignored the response to your claim about men being boxed into gendered roles - women also being boxed into gendered roles e.g. child care which has a knock on effect on work and pay.

johnnyskeleton · 23-11-2017 10:34PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So what if it is generated by women? I don’t think it’s exclusively women btw but even if we grant that it’s primarily women. So what? My point was that men and women face different and not necessarily equal challenges.

So what? Well it basically disproves the suggestion that there is an evil male patriachy that stops women entering politics.

Now that that is established, can we finally move on from feminism and stop attributing blame for every single problem that every woman or indeed any woman has ever encountered to patriarchy?

silverharp · 24-11-2017 09:53AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Could you explain what you mean by that. It’s an expectation with a hefty belief system behind it so it would be great if you would explain what you mean, why you think it’s true and give a rough estimate of the ratio that you think would naturally result. How much of the difference is biological and how much is social, in your estimation?

as a product of evolution, the most successful males got to pass on more genes more through human history. As a simple experiment, Ill call it an hypothesis but maybe its been done test a sample of leaders in various fields, i would bet my bottom dollar that they would have higher testosterone levels than average. Clearly women can be leaders too but the pool of women that can compete with men at the very top is smaller. And again yes there is a socilisation element and expectation etc but I believe there will be a permanent gender gap unless we end up living in a very authoritarian state where merit is discounted and its all quotas

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You also ignored the response to your claim about men being boxed into gendered roles - women also being boxed into gendered roles e.g. child care which has a knock on effect on work and pay.

what about it?

El_Duderino 09 · 24-11-2017 10:26AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So what? Well it basically disproves the suggestion that there is an evil male patriachy that stops women entering politics.

Now that that is established, can we finally move on from feminism and stop attributing blame for every single problem that every woman or indeed any woman has ever encountered to patriarchy?

That’s never been my contention that there’s an evil male patriarchy etc. If that’s all you’re focused on, I can see why you might miss the broader issue.

Triceratops Ballet · 24-11-2017 11:45AM

silverharp wrote: »

as a product of evolution, the most successful males got to pass on more genes more through human history. As a simple experiment, Ill call it an hypothesis but maybe its been done test a sample of leaders in various fields, i would bet my bottom dollar that they would have higher testosterone levels than average. Clearly women can be leaders too but the pool of women that can compete with men at the very top is smaller. And again yes there is a socilisation element and expectation etc but I believe there will be a permanent gender gap unless we end up living in a very authoritarian state where merit is discounted and its all quotas

I don't understand this point, I mean if we're talking about leadership of a tribe where the physically strongest person is the leader, then sure there is a testosterone advantage, but I don't see how that's applied across intellectual fields?

Sleepy · 24-11-2017 11:57AM

Testosterone increases the desire to compete. Those that reach the top won't have done so unopposed.

El_Duderino 09 · 24-11-2017 12:06PM

silverharp wrote: »

as a product of evolution, the most successful males got to pass on more genes more through human history. As a simple experiment, Ill call it an hypothesis but maybe its been done test a sample of leaders in various fields, i would bet my bottom dollar that they would have higher testosterone levels than average. Clearly women can be leaders too but the pool of women that can compete with men at the very top is smaller. And again yes there is a socilisation element and expectation etc but I believe there will be a permanent gender gap unless we end up living in a very authoritarian state where merit is discounted and its all quotas

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You also ignored the response to your claim about men being boxed into gendered roles - women also being boxed into gendered roles e.g. child care which has a knock on effect on work and pay.

what about it?

So would you also accept other differences as biological such as men living shorter lives than women, or boys performing less well in education?

Would it take “a very authoritarian state where merit is discounted and its all quotas” for those differences to balance out too?

silverharp · 24-11-2017 12:24PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I don't understand this point, I mean if we're talking about leadership of a tribe where the physically strongest person is the leader, then sure there is a testosterone advantage, but I don't see how that's applied across intellectual fields?

men tend to do dominate innovation , start ups , setting up new businesses. to do this you need to be a risk taker among other things. Its well documented that men take on more risk than women, so that's one element of biology.

silverharp · 24-11-2017 12:46PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So would you also accept other differences as biological such as men living shorter lives than women, or boys performing less well in education?

Would it take “a very authoritarian state where merit is discounted and its all quotas” for those differences to balance out too?

education is an easy one, the system should consider how boys and girls learn. there is no 1 objectively good education system. Going back a bit they seemed to acknowledge the m/f differences by having technical schools which mostly boys would attend. One would think boys dropping out of education is important as the social costs are very high in terms of welfare/crime and not having a functioning adult? so not one to be gloating over winners and losers
As for shorter lives, there maybe an overall biological gap that will never be breached but certainly education and personal choice is a huge factor so one would always expect a public discussion on things like obesity or other heath risks

El_Duderino 09 · 24-11-2017 01:01PM

silverharp wrote: »

education is an easy one, the system should consider how boys and girls learn. there is no 1 objectively good education system. Going back a bit they seemed to acknowledge the m/f differences by having technical schools which mostly boys would attend. One would think boys dropping out of education is important as the social costs are very high in terms of welfare/crime and not having a functioning adult? so not one to be gloating over winners and losers
As for shorter lives, there maybe an overall biological gap that will never be breached but certainly education and personal choice is a huge factor so one would always expect a public discussion on things like obesity or other heath risks

So why is there an immovable target for leadership, and the target for education can be moved to make sure boys achieve the same overall results as girls?

What if there’s a biological reason for girls to out perform boys in education? If that’s the case, should we also gloss over different gender outcomes education in the way you would like to do with leadership?

silverharp · 24-11-2017 01:25PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So why is there an immovable target for leadership, and the target for education can be moved to make sure boys achieve the same overall results as girls?

Leadership I'd argue is a free market, I don't care who the leader is once they have competed for it.

I'd didn't say that so no point commenting on it

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What if there’s a biological reason for girls to out perform boys in education? If that’s the case, should we also gloss over different gender outcomes education in the way you would like to do with leadership?

there is no objective education system, its clear some people are more academic than others or some people are more practical than others, some people are more arty than others. The UK system at the end teaches a smaller range of subjects compared to the Irish system, the German system has 3 types of schools based on ability.
At a minimum a school system shouldnt produce failures, if more boys are academically weak then they should be offered something else , or girls that are failing too, acknowledging that their adult options will be in a different direction

El_Duderino 09 · 24-11-2017 01:39PM

silverharp wrote: »

Leadership I'd argue is a free market, I don't care who the leader is once they have competed for it.

I'd didn't say that so no point commenting on it

there is no objective education system, its clear some people are more academic than others or some people are more practical than others, some people are more arty than others. The UK system at the end teaches a smaller range of subjects compared to the Irish system, the German system has 3 types of schools based on ability.
At a minimum a school system shouldnt produce failures, if more boys are academically weak then they should be offered something else , or girls that are failing too, acknowledging that their adult options will be in a different direction

Is there an objective leadership system that has to have men at the top?

silverharp · 24-11-2017 01:40PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is there an objective leadership system that has to have men at the top?

that doesn't seem like a serious question

El_Duderino 09 · 24-11-2017 01:48PM

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is there an objective leadership system that has to have men at the top?

that doesn't seem like a serious question

It’s the essence of your argument.

Education doesn’t have an objective standard, so you can play around with the format. Your argument assumes that there is an Objective standard for leadership. Is there, in your opinion?

silverharp · 24-11-2017 02:03PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s the essence of your argument.

Education doesn’t have an objective standard, so you can play around with the format. Your argument assumes that there is an Objective standard for leadership. Is there, in your opinion?

I wouldn't have thought so, competing ideas, competing styles , different landscapes. if an entity keeps employing poor leaders they will fail eventually, if leaders are seen as forward thinking etc. people will write books about them and other leaders or potential leaders can learn from their styles and ideas.

El_Duderino 09 · 24-11-2017 02:25PM

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s the essence of your argument.

Education doesn’t have an objective standard, so you can play around with the format. Your argument assumes that there is an Objective standard for leadership. Is there, in your opinion?

I wouldn't have thought so, competing ideas, competing styles , different landscapes. if an entity keeps employing poor leaders they will fail eventually, if leaders are seen as forward thinking etc. people will write books about them and other leaders or potential leaders can learn from their styles and ideas.

Well this brings us back to asking why you drew a distinction between education and leadership on the basis that there’s no objective standard for education.

Your argument to explain your expectation that there should be more male leaders than female has included, biological differences hinging on testosterone and competition and men will naturally win out absent authoritarian state intervention. There’s nothing to be done here.

Conversely when women do better due to biological differences in education, we should do whatever it takes to even the score. You haven’t said explicitly whether or not you think that amounts to authoritarian state intervention, but I presume you think the state intervention to help boys is right and proper. Would that be true?

silverharp · 24-11-2017 02:29PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well this brings us back to asking why you drew a distinction between education and leadership on the basis that there’s no objective standard for education.

Your argument to explain your expectation that there should be more male leaders than female has included, biological differences hinging on testosterone and competition and men will naturally win out absent authoritarian state intervention. There’s nothing to be done here.

Conversely when women do better due to biological differences in education, we should do whatever it takes to even the score. You haven’t said explicitly whether or not you think that amounts to authoritarian state intervention, but I presume you think the state intervention to help boys is right and proper. Would that be true?

im shocked you cant see the difference

cfuserkildare · 24-11-2017 02:35PM

From memory,
I recall the fact that it was the older women that told girls/women how to act and behave, not older men!
So why is this even a thing?
Society is shaped by Matriarchs, and yet sooo many people seem to forget this fact!!

El_Duderino 09 · 24-11-2017 06:28PM

silverharp wrote: »

im shocked you cant see the difference

You shouldn’t be so shocked. You made an assertion, then relied on ‘objective standard’ as the distinction Then you admit neither has an objective standard. So your back to simply making an assertion and being shocked that I don’t agree with you.

The main difference I see is that the one you support helps men and the other doesn’t. That’s par for the course in your arguments. It doesn’t bring you any closer to demonstrating reasons for your original assertion.

silverharp · 24-11-2017 06:53PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You shouldn’t be so shocked. You made an assertion, then relied on ‘objective standard’ as the distinction Then you admit neither has an objective standard. So your back to simply making an assertion and being shocked that I don’t agree with you.

The main difference I see is that the one you support helps men and the other doesn’t. That’s par for the course in your arguments. It doesn’t bring you any closer to demonstrating reasons for your original assertion.

apples and oranges. Failing boys will be a huge societal cost in the future, crime, welfare costs , violence , playing their part in teenage pregnancies. There isn't a utopian solution but making education attractive is a variable and its not a win lose proposition and its not displacing girl's education. its just a good thing to do. You are exactly like the guys in the news piece with Hoff Summers. You do get that these failing boys are never in the CEO target market. its prison versus possible useful member of society. So why wouldn't a state supplied service try to do a better job?

Who ends up being leaders is the market's job to work out, I don't care. If companies run by women do better than ones run by men, then set up a hedge fund and short companies run by men and buy companies run by women assuming the market is wrong. Otherwise I don't care that some women on 200K per year wishes they were on 400K per year, they should make their case when they go for an interview to be a CEO.

El_Duderino 09 · 24-11-2017 07:36PM

silverharp wrote: »

apples and oranges. Failing boys will be a huge societal cost in the future, crime, welfare costs , violence , playing their part in teenage pregnancies. There isn't a utopian solution but making education attractive is a variable and its not a win lose proposition and its not displacing girl's education. its just a good thing to do. You are exactly like the guys in the news piece with Hoff Summers. You do get that these failing boys are never in the CEO target market. its prison versus possible useful member of society. So why wouldn't a state supplied service try to do a better job?

Oh I think the we should improve education. You don’t need to sell that idea to me. The objective is to explain why we should work to improve men’s education outcomes and by extension their job and earning outcomes, and not work to improve women’s outcomes.

If women on lower wages were a more costly problem and societal danger closer to the uneducated men you mention above, then would your attitude to women’s outcomes be the same as it is towards men?

silverharp wrote: »

Who ends up being leaders is the market's job to work out, I don't care. If companies run by women do better than ones run by men, then set up a hedge fund and short companies run by men and buy companies run by women assuming the market is wrong. Otherwise I don't care that some women on 200K per year wishes they were on 400K per year, they should make their case when they go for an interview to be a CEO.

I get that you don’t care but this assumes there aren’t any unnecessary or artificial barriers to women in the workforce -to anyone in the workforce for that matter.

silverharp · 25-11-2017 11:06AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh I think the we should improve education. You don’t need to sell that idea to me. The objective is to explain why we should work to improve men’s education outcomes and by extension their job and earning outcomes, and not work to improve women’s outcomes.

If women on lower wages were a more costly problem and societal danger closer to the uneducated men you mention above, then would your attitude to women’s outcomes be the same as it is towards men?

its why you shouldnt use all men versus all women prisms,its as much a class issue as anything else, remember when the left used to concern itself with such :P

you set up the contrast not me, girls that fail in education will more likely become single others and efforts should be made lower their failure levels after all, working class teenage mothers are more likely to raise the next generation of failing boys (and girls)

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I get that you don’t care but this assumes there aren’t any unnecessary or artificial barriers to women in the workforce -to anyone in the workforce for that matter.

it ends up in very foggy arguments which simply comes down to if there are more men in something good=muh oppressed which lacks any understanding of the complexities of society and what men and women are trying to achieve

flaneur · 26-11-2017 03:25AM

My view of if is I don't see much difference at all between the the sexes, other than plumbing and child bearing stuff. For the most part to me they're all "the lads" and I've plenty of male and female friends and colleagues and I don't treat them any differently.

I'm a big supporter of the equality aspect of feminism and I will stand up for everyone to get equal opportunities. I'd also advocate way better paternity leave to balance out women taking time out of the work place and I genuinely think it's good for kids to get time with their dad too and good for guys to get to bond with their kids. It's also very unfair to expect women to just do all that stuff automatically - it's got to be shared.

I don't think what sometimes describes itself as feminism, but is actually just like some kind of revenge attack on centuries of sexism against women by attacking men, is really feminism at all. Or, at least it's some kind of extension of it that's stretching three meaning. To me, that's just sexism turned on the opposite gender to the traditional target.

I can appreciate the anger at the patriarchal history, but I'm not part of it, nor do I take any responsibility for it and two wrongs don't make a right.

How do you view Feminism in Ireland?

Comments