Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Female only island to open off Finnish coast.

Options
1…567911

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    bear1
    Registered Users Posts: 12,812 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    meeeeh wrote: »
    You are preoccupied with men vs. women debates, I am just sick of them. I think I'll wrap up this.

    Fair enough, you're wrong but fair enough.
    g'luck :)


  • Options
    #243
    koumi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭koumi


    ..and that's how women do it.


  • Options
    #244
    Blazer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,419 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    bear1 wrote: »
    Please God if you are going to quote figures like this could you at least back them up?

    OR...... you could just google CEO's of top 100 hundred companies and then google the population of the planet broke down by male/female and work out the percentages?
    It's not that fcuking hard to do.


  • Options
    #245
    bear1
    Registered Users Posts: 12,812 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    Blazer wrote: »
    OR...... you could just google CEO's of top 100 hundred companies and then google the population of the planet broke down by male/female and work out the percentages?
    It's not that fcuking hard to do.

    If it's not that ****ing hard then the person claiming the figures can do it.


  • Options
    #246
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    bear1 wrote: »
    If it's not that ****ing hard then the person claiming the figures can do it.

    But, like, it's really really easy to work out. Primary school stuff. That's probably why that poster didn't bother. Because, do they need to, really? Even just a casual glance at the top 100 CEO list will tell you which gender has a better shot at being a CEO. The gender split worldwide leans slightly towards women. But the CEO would more noticeably lean the other way. There you go.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    bear1
    Registered Users Posts: 12,812 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    But, like, it's really really easy to work out. Primary school stuff. That's probably why that poster didn't bother. Because, do they need to, really? Even just a casual glance at the top 100 CEO list will tell you which gender has a better shot at being a CEO. The gender split worldwide leans slightly towards women. But the CEO would more noticeably lean the other way. There you go.

    Actually, brain fart fail. Re-reading the entire post properly and yep I'm wrong.
    Although the planet is closer to 8 billion than 7.


  • Options
    #248
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Of course they are closed off to most people. I haven’t mentioned a thing about gender quotas. I was taking about yer man’s asinine point about less desirable jobs.

    But to expand on your post, seeing as most CEO jobs are still filled by men and the gender split is roughly 50/50, what you say isn’t true, demonstrably. Quite literally, men still have a better shot at those high-level roles for whatever reason. I don’t believe in gender quotas personally and I’m all for meritocracy. So I think the best thing to do is examine WHY the gender split isn’t 50/50. The reasons will be many and complex. But even if gender quotas were brought in, it would do no more than equalise the “shot”. If the quota was 50/50 and the gender splits that way, it’s impossible for either gender to have more of a shot. Just isn’t mathematically possible.

    you seem to be arguing for weaker candidates getting promoted over stronger ones. In Cathy Newman speak "what's in it for men?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #249
    Rory28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Rory28


    silverharp wrote: »
    you seem to be arguing for weaker candidates getting promoted over stronger ones. In Cathy Newman speak "what's in it for men?

    So you're saying all men are now obsolete and should be sent to an island?


  • Options
    #250
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #251
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    silverharp wrote: »
    you seem to be arguing for weaker candidates getting promoted over stronger ones. In Cathy Newman speak "what's in it for men?

    I'm not at all. I literally said in the post you quoted that I don't agree with gender quotas. I said it would be interesting to know why men are more likely to end up in these positions but that doesn't mean I think it's wrong. Why do you think I'm arguing for weaker candidates to get those positions? I've no idea how you came to that conclusion.

    The purpose of my post was to point out that Professore's contention that women have a better shot at C-suite positions than men simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Again, HOW did you conclude from that that I think weaker candidates should get those positions? I am genuinely baffled.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Blazer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,419 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    bear1 wrote: »
    If it's not that ****ing hard then the person claiming the figures can do it.

    yeah his mistake..he obviously overestimated your intelligence level and made the mistake of assuming you'd be capable of double-checking his figure.
    But lets help you out.

    There are 32 woman out of the top Fortune 500 companies which is 6.4%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies


    There is currently 7,632,819,325 in the world which is steadily increasing of which 49.6% are female. (3,785,878,385)

    http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

    So
    32 divided by 3785878385 multiply by 100 gives you 0.000008 percent.

    For men:3,846,940,940 total population.
    So 468 divided by above and multiplied by 100 gives us 0.000001216.


  • Options
    #253
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    I'm not at all. I literally said in the post you quoted that I don't agree with gender quotas. I said it would be interesting to know why men are more likely to end up in these positions but that doesn't mean I think it's wrong. Why do you think I'm arguing for weaker candidates to get those positions? I've no idea how you came to that conclusion.

    The purpose of my post was to point out that Professore's contention that women have a better shot at C-suite positions than men simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Again, HOW did you conclude from that that I think weaker candidates should get those positions? I am genuinely baffled.

    you seemed to be ok with women have "a better shot" or that's how it came across. At the end of the day its a very individualistic position, what are we talking about here 1 person in hundreds of thousands. The only thing I find amazing is the interest in it.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #254
    bear1
    Registered Users Posts: 12,812 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    Blazer wrote: »
    yeah his mistake..he obviously overestimated your intelligence level and made the mistake of assuming you'd be capable of double-checking his figure.
    But lets help you out.

    There are 32 woman out of the top Fortune 500 companies which is 6.4%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies


    There is currently 7,632,819,325 in the world which is steadily increasing of which 49.6% are female. (3,785,878,385)

    http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

    So
    32 divided by 3785878385 multiply by 100 gives you 0.000008 percent.

    For men:3,846,940,940 total population.
    So 468 divided by above and multiplied by 100 gives us 0.000001216.

    Jesus, so I'm stupid cause I didn't read it properly? Check out what I posted after it.
    Calm your tits and don't be a dick.


  • Options
    #255
    Blazer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,419 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    bear1 wrote: »
    Jesus, so I'm stupid cause I didn't read it properly? Check out what I posted after it.
    Calm your tits and don't be a dick.

    my tits are calm :D yeah I didn't see your post as I was writing mine so no worries man :)


  • Options
    #256
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    silverharp wrote: »
    you seemed to be ok with women have "a better shot" or that's how it came across.

    Then you didn't read my post properly. When I talked about gender quotas being 50/50, it was quite clearly a "for instance" situation used for illustrative purposes. I was saying that even if there were 50/50 gender quotas, that would at the most give the genders a statistically equal shot, not women a better shot. Professore said that women now have a better shot at a C-suite position than men, I was showing that even if women were required to fill half the positions (and that's not the current reality), that still doesn't give them a better shot. It makes it at most an equal shot. It was purely illustrative, not anything I personally want or agree with. If women started filling more than 50% of the positions, then they would have a statistically better shot at getting a C-suite position.

    Your take on my post is an insight into your own thought processes to be honest.


  • Options
    #257
    bear1
    Registered Users Posts: 12,812 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    Blazer wrote: »
    my tits are calm :D yeah I didn't see your post as I was writing mine so no worries man :)

    No harm no foul :)


  • Options
    #258
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Then you didn't read my post properly. When I talked about gender quotas being 50/50, it was quite clearly a "for instance" situation used for illustrative purposes. I was saying that even if there were 50/50 gender quotas, that would at the most give the genders a statistically equal shot, not women a better shot. Professore said that women now have a better shot at a C-suite position than men, I was showing that even if women were required to fill half the positions (and that's not the current reality), that still doesn't give them a better shot. It makes it at most an equal shot. It was purely illustrative, not anything I personally want or agree with. If women started filling more than 50% of the positions, then they would have a statistically better shot at getting a C-suite position.

    Your take on my post is an insight into your own thought processes to be honest.

    on my part just sheer laziness , if the paragraph isn't fully clear ill let he other poster clarify.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #259
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    koumi wrote: »
    actually the whole thread is nothing more than the whimpering voice of a male boy child demanding
    They can't have it! They caaan't have it! It's not faaaaaayur
    koumi wrote: »
    They can't have it, They cant!, It's not FFFFFFFFFFFFaaaaaauuuuuYYYYYYYYUUUUUURR is about as intelligent a response as I can muster for them boy childs
    koumi wrote: »
    its not fayur
    koumi wrote: »
    *stomps feet*
    koumi wrote: »
    ..and that's how women do it.

    Mod note:You're extremely close to trolling. Engage in the discussion or move on.

    Thanks in advance,

    Buford T. Justice


  • Options
    #260
    koumi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭koumi


    Buford T. Justice V wrote: »
    Mod note:You're extremely close to trolling. Engage in the discussion or move on.

    Thanks in advance,

    Buford T. Justice
    could you be more clear, I received a warning for trolling, is it trolling or just extremely close to trolling?


  • Options
    #261
    DredFX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭DredFX


    koumi wrote: »
    could you be more clear, I received a warning for trolling, is it trolling or just extremely close to trolling?

    Trolling is deliberately provocative behaviour.

    You were clearly engaging in deliberately provocative behaviour.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    koumi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭koumi


    DredFX wrote: »
    Trolling is deliberately provocative behaviour.

    You were clearly engaging in deliberately provocative behaviour.
    mer the patreearchee


  • Options
    #263
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    koumi wrote: »
    could you be more clear, I received a warning for trolling, is it trolling or just extremely close to trolling?
    koumi wrote: »
    mer the patreearchee
    Mod note: Apologies, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in public.

    However, I now see the error of my ways.:)

    koumi, don't post in this thread again,

    Buford T. Justice


  • Options
    #264
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    You would actually need to subscribe to the hivemind idea for this to be the case. And you would need to take responsibility for other men if you're going to make all women responsible for some women.

    Obviously this isn't the case but I don't expect you to acknowledge that because it would strip the pretence and show this thread to be naked nonsense.
    It wouldn't be a El_Misrepresento post without a blatant misrepresentation.

    An organisation, by its nature is.... ah forget it.


  • Options
    #265
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,019 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Zulu wrote:
    It wouldn't be a El_Misrepresento post without a blatant misrepresentation.

    An organisation, by its nature is.... ah forget it.

    No, seriously represent yourself rather than drop an insult and move on. It would require engaging with the discussion rather than just discussing me.

    What did you mean in them' something something hivemind' post and how does it relate to this topic? Is feminism an organisation? Is this resort part of an organisation?

    Did you mean you can treat the other side as a hivemind or not? It wasn't clear


  • Options
    #266
    Sweetemotion
    Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    El_Misrepresento :D


  • Options
    #267
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,019 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Sweetemotion wrote:
    El_Misrepresento

    He'd much rather talk about El misrepresento than actually make a point. He's more interested in my good self than contributing to the discussion.


  • Options
    #268
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    anyone link this yet?
    http://www.returnofkings.com/32053/this-accidental-experiment-shows-the-superiority-of-patriarchy


  • Options
    #269
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Return of Kings? :D Yeah, not clicking on that.


  • Options
    #270
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Will Louise O'Neille be joining these fair ladies?

    SUCH a good idea. Can all of society's extremist thinkers pack themselves off to an island?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Return of Kings? :D Yeah, not clicking on that.
    link wrote:
    Quite a few years ago, I had the pleasure of watching the Dutch version of Survivor (Expeditie Robinson) with my feminist roommate. That particular season would have two islands, one populated by men and one populated by women. My roommate had been promoting that particular series to me and the other students in the house for weeks because it would show us, according to her, what a society run by women – free from the evils of patriarchy – would be like.

    And it did. Oh it did.

    ,,,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uc2EtMhoKU


Advertisement