Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

What?

Reward wrote:

I never said that radical feminim equals all feminism, not once.

This entire debate was fuelled by your claim that female politicians that considered themselves feminists were nothing but radical feminists sneaking their radical policies in - you have been continually linking feminists with radical feminism, it's completely dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.

You exalt patriarchy while considering the attack on those who wish female subordination to be akin to Nazism? Patriarchy is the flip side of the gender extremist coin - no better than any of the worse exponents radical feminism has to offer.

I'm tired now.


Here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056124012

Reward wrote: »

Taliban is the flip side of radical feminism, patriarchy is not.

"Those who wish female subordination" who are you talking about exactly?

Why don't you do everyone a favour and look up "patriarchy" in a dictionary at the same time you are looking up "feminism" - it would make for much easier discussion if everyone has the correct definitions rather than throwing around terminology completely out of context.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why don't you do everyone a favour and look up "patriarchy" in a dictionary at the same time you are looking up "feminism" - it would make for much easier discussion if everyone has the correct definitions rather than throwing around terminology completely out of context.

Three fallacies and contradiction.

Setting goal posts, a veiled personal attack and the obligatory deferral to short and inadequate definitions in the dictionary. For example, the dictionary definition doesn't cover the belief in female supremacy, hate and legal inequality that is carried in certain strains of feminism. Also, the dictionary definition of patriarchy gives no historical context, eg. in the absence of modern technology that provides us with reliable bc, female friendly jobs and a great many creature comforts, men have to look after women.

You are saying that feminism is the flip side of the dictionary definition of patriarchy, but you are also saying that feminism is defined by its dictionary definition, so is patriarchy about equality or is feminism a female lead social system?

If I don't agree with aspects of a political construct and the various frauds, deceptions and human and civil rights abuses and reductions that it lobbies for, it doesn't mean that I'm stupid, it means that I don't agree with aspects of a political construct and the various frauds, deceptions and human and civil rights abuses and redictions that it lobbies for.

Answer mine- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056124012

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, I said patriarchy is the flip of radical feminism - you can't even read my posts properly, far less dictionary definitions. I can't believe I'm still posting, tbh.

Reward, I'm not looking at anything you've written elsewhere until you give the numerous sources you have been asked for on this one. If you can't do that then I have to agree with KOtJ, it's impossible to debate with someone who won't hold to the general rules of debate and just want to rant and rave and make random statements and move the debate into areas they are more comfortable with when asked to define their claims.

You won't clarify and back up your own claims, you either ignore, stonewall or talk-around everyone else's points by suggesting fallacies and ad-hominems to side-step having to answer the questions. If your vitriolic resentment of women and feminism is a barrier to your being intellectually honest and preventing you do little more that jump up and down shouting "lah, lah, lah" then I'm not going to waste another post on you.

I wish you all the best and I really hope what ever is driving your irrational feelings on this resolves itself.

"I refuse to read X (that Ive already read) untill you do what I'm pretending that you haven't already done (and if you are stupid enough to jump through that hoop, I'll just use another set of rhetorical tricks and fallacies and personal attacks to claim that these duplicate sources are invalid too)".

Yet I'm being called irrational and intellectually dishonest.

Feminist education is provided in a womb, protected from outside peer review. It will equip you with an ideology, lots of rhetorical tricks and fallacies and a distorted view of the nature of reality, but it will not protect you from things like peer review, logic and facts in the outside world. That is why feminist areas of the internet are usually heavily censored.

Ive somethings to add about the dictionary definition of feminism.

Some dictionaries have dropped the reference to "legal equality" (probably, IMO because equal or advantageous outcome cant be generated without discrimination against men) and have also added a definition that makes no reference to equality at all and simply defines it organised advocacy on behalf of women.

Also, the recent well publicized feminist celebrations and acceptance of education inequality in favour of women, pay inequality in favour of women and the disproportionate job losses for men (they haven't realised yet that the private sector pays for the public sector) and hostility towards mens, fathers and the rights of politically incorrect abuse victims is a far cry from the much relied upon dictionary definition of feminism.


I disagree with your saying that radical feminism is the flip side of patriarchy, rad feminism to my mind is a hate movement, it has more parallels with the definition and characteristics of a hate movement than it does patriarchy, patriarchy is not hate, there are hate movements that have been patriarchal, but that doesn't make patriarchy a hate movement.

And I stand by my initial assertions.

There is no glass celing for women in irish politics for women, the number of women in politics v's men is proportional to the number of women that seek jobs in politics and work as hard and as long to get there v's that of men.

Quotas are designed by a radical feminists for radical feminists to circumvent and subvert democracy, Conservative feminists and non feminist women are not included and Labour party feminist quotas resulted in a glut of radical women in the Labour party and they have committed various well publicized frauds, deceptions and lobby for legal injustice against men. (see links I provided).

Go to www.saveindianfamily.org to see the same pattern happening in India.

My "vitrolic resentment of women"

when all else fails, go with a false accusation of misogyny. I know these arguments backwards. What next, wife beating and rape?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Reward: I give up. Your inability to draw a distinction between radical feminisim and feminism itself means I see little point on continuing this discussion. Especially your attempts to compare nazism and Islamic fundamentalism to feminism.

There are some extremely eloquent and informed posters debating with you, maybe they can get through to you where I've been unable to.

Regards,
KOTJ
A feminist

Can you post an example of my inability to differentiate between radical feminism and other forms of feminism or stop making false assertions about me. I compared radical feminism, not all feminism to nazism and islam and I support equity and liberal feminism.

Silverfish wrote: »

Reward, at this stage I'm going to recommend you continue this in the Humanities or Conspiracy Theories forum, as at this stage you are close to breaking the charter of this forum, and certainly in breach of the ethos of the forum.

I'm just responding to baseless assertions about me and logical fallacies with sources that back up what I saying.. surely there is enough intellectual integrity here to up hold that.

Perhaps of the baseless assertions and logical fallacies were policed rather than the sourced claims the thread would be less messy and we wouldn't have to resort to censorship.

If my standing up for myself by backing up what I say when requested and defending myself from false assertions and pointing out fallacious arguments is considered a breach of ethos, what is the ethos?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Source? It's exactly these unsubstantiated claims of truth-hood that make your posts look like nothing more than hyperbolic flimflammery. You say X, Y or Z as if it were fact, provide no source of evidence as to where you got the information to make such a claim and then blame everyone else for refusing to get involved in debating such subjective allegories with you.

It's also why your posts sound so irrational - claiming that feminist education is provided in a womb? What does that even mean? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds and how such dismissive, fallacious and emotive language regarding any topic immediately renders it's claimant as biased and prejudicial, especially when espousing such nuggets without providing any verifiable evidence to back up the specific claims being made. If you claim feminism is taught in a womb then you need to show how you reached that conclusion and provide evidence to convince everyone else you are making the claim with good authority and balanced consideration and not lashing out with emotionally driven illogicality.



I thought you might - when all else fails in defining something the way you want it to, change the definition.



Source? Again, without sources it is just politicised personal ramblings. By well publicised are you referring to the Daily Mail again?



You don't view an andocentric movement that relies on female subordination and males as the primary authority figure and subjugators as being a hate movement - a movement that is inherently unequal and unjust between the sexes proposal male dominance and female subservience and yet you think radical feminism which would seek to have female dominance and male subjugation is wicked and terrible - and you can't see why you may look irrational or blindly vitriolic? Seriously now?



I was never so optimistic as to presume anything anyone is saying could possibly get through.



If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know you were repeating what I and others have already stated - although we somehow managed to do so in a less hysterical, dispassionate manner.



Still awaiting the sources for that - first it was a glut of radical feminists in the labour government magically independently passing legislation, now it's female only labour politicians committing frauds, deceptions and legal injustice against men - do you have any sources other than a conservative american politician and a trashy tabloid to back up your assertions because repeating them while still refusing to provide respectable sources is making your arguments look foot-stompingly infantile.



There are women's groups campaigning against men and anti-female legislation or legislative proposals just as there are men's groups campaigning against women and anti-male legislation/legislative proposals. I'm not sure why you think presenting one half of that fact equates to a well presented and balanced argument. I would much rather be in the rational middle ground looking for equal rights and legal protection for everyone rather than looking cock-eyed at a complicated situation; putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with an enraged 5.



Look back over your posts, your language, your tone and the way you present your points compared with everyone else - can you see a difference? You have steadfastly avoided answering the questions put to you on this thread while demanding everyone else follow your postings on other threads. You have cherry-picked replies that you found easier to respond to and repeatedly padded out your replies with over-emotional non sequiturs and deductive fallacy after deductive fallacy to the point that any logical point you may have been trying to reach is rendered impotent.

As KOtJ states, you take a group of politicians who refer to themselves as feminists and fallaciously try to pin legislative moves that are debated and passed by a majority male house of commons as the actions of radical feminists - which is nothing short of paranoid fantasy. You demand democratic election of politicians while demanding that feminists should be kept out of government - a complete contradiction, made more absurd by citing a female politician democratically elected continuously for nearly 20 years as the epitome of all that is evilly undemocratic.

Okay, that really is my last. I would respectfully suggest you read up on both debate methodology and source provision - and would also make the observation that sometimes when it's everyone else, it's worth looking a bit closer to home. All the best. :cool:

Im not going to go through all that.

I will answer this

"claiming that feminist education is provided in a womb? What does that even mean?"

It means, as I said there is no peer review outside of the ideology, like having Christian creationism sciences reviewed by creationists only.

Ive backed up all my original assertions about labour quotas, the deceptions and frauds and legal inequalities. I think that you should accept that and move on. There is more to this thread and conversation than you repeatedly going after me caliming that I didnt back up what I said when I did.

Now your friends are moving to ban me if is don't stop countering your claims and pointing out your fallacious arguments.

If I re-publish my original statements about labour gov, quotas and the frauds along with the sources, can you just move on and accept them because this has being going on for pages and its nothing but harassment because I provided sources for information that you didn't like.

or

we delete our four pages of my defending myself from your false assertions and fallacious arguments.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

A conservative politician with a glut of personal motivations of their own, a trashy tabloid and generalised statistics papers that make no conclusions about feminists do not equate to backing up your point - I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty seeing that.

Perhaps if I get my mate to write an article about this topic, or quote nothing but a rabid feminist paper and propose that gives a balanced and credible backing to my arguments you'll understand where I'm coming from?

Lastly, the old everyone's picking on me/it's your mates fallacy - again, you'll probably notice you are banging a lone drum - I note not just on this thread either; you have a choice, you can either finger point and try to pass it off as everyone else being the nasty big bullies or you can accept that perhaps other people have a point worth listening to.

That just attacking sources, derailing, shifting the focus and making more false assertions and further spoiling the thread because you don't want to acknowledge that I backed up what I said initially and are prepared to harass me page after page in order to create the illusion of your being right when you first attacked me personally for talking about the true story of quotas for radical feminists, frauds, deceptions and bigoted legislation produced by radical feminists in the UK Labour government, which I subsequently backed up.

And yeah bullying, an attempt to bully someone that has published facts that you do not like, thats what this is.

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe if your "facts" were... well more factual, it may help. As for published? Paper won't refuse ink and keyboards won't refuse fingers. Published doesn't mean as much as it did or should.

Ok. Ill publish the whole thing again this time I'll use multiple sources on the Labour radical feminist quotas, deceptions, frauds and bigoted legislation and this time include the full Stern report that (written by feminist Baroness Stern) that specifically requests the labour minister for equality to stop misleading the public on rape convictions and the official inquiry that lead to the same minister being told to stop misleading the public on wage gap.

Which labour government? of which country?

As requested

Labour feminists wage gap fraud

Very basic explanation of how it works. Wage gap fraud is international. The family wage is counted as the main workers wage alone and when the other adult in the family choses not to work, their share of the family wage is recorded as zero. In the case of the secondary adult chosing part time work, their part time wage is counted as their only income and the main workers is counted as theirs alone. Men and women make different choices and men are mich more likely to be the main taxpayers and women the non taxpayer and part time worker. (it would be interesting to see how much the gap works in favour of women if we counted the family wage as what it really is).

The other gaps are explained by different work/lifestype choices (women have more flexibility) and the glass ceiling meme is debunked by the fact that women women do make choices that are similar to men, they often out earn them for the same work.

The difference is then presented to the public as proof of a conspiracy against women, politicians can swing votes, certain political organisations can recruit, fund raise, fear monger and legislate against men on the strength of this deception by promising to fix this conspiracy to oppress by an unseen hand.

More here..

"Radio 4’s flagship, the Today programme, has fallen for a common misrepresentation of the gap in pay between men and women.
Or is it a misrepresentation? It depends on who you are talking to, as various bodies interpret this key statistic in various ways.

Introducing an item on Today on July 29, Sarah Montague accepted at face value the assertion by the Women and Work Commission that women are paid, on average, 23 per cent less than men. But the Office of National Statistics quotes a figure of 12.8 per cent, just over half as much.

And if that isn’t confusing enough, the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes the gap is 17.1 per cent.

These differences matter, so it would be nice to achieve a common basis for estimating them. Until we do, journalists should beware of accepting whatever figure is thrown at them. Government bodies with different objectives can easily come up with different figures – and may honestly believe they are right.

Earnings comparisons are best made on the basis of median, rather than mean, earnings. This is because the salaries at the top of the scale are often high enough to distort the mean. On measures of “average” salaries, most people earn less than average.

Both the ONS and the Women and Work Commission, which is part of the Government Equalities Office, do use the median. (The EHRC, just to be awkward, uses the mean – of which more later.)

So why the difference between the ONS and the GEO? The ONS only counts full-time work, whereas the GEO includes part-time work, three quarters of which is done by women. This increases the apparent gap in pay between the sexes.

Which is right? The Statistics Authority cogitated over this in a report published in June. Neither measure is satisfactory, it admits, but it does come down in favour of not combining the two, as the GEO does. Its recommendation is to present the two estimates, for full-time and part-time employees, separately.

It publishes rather a striking table (Table 2 in the UKSA’s note) that actually shows that women working part-time earn 3.4 per cent more than men in median hourly earnings. This isn’t a figure you’ll find the GEO or the Women and Work Commission quoting very often.



Where does all that leave us? Of those in full-time work, women earn 12.8 per cent less than men. Women in part-time work earn fractionally more than men, but less than full-time men or full-time women. When full- and part-time work are combined, the preponderance of women in part-time work produces the 22.6 per cent gap headlined by the GEO and accepted without question by Today.

So what about the rogue figure of 17.1 per cent quoted by the EHRC? It uses mean earnings rather than median, justifying it by saying that women are over-represented at one extreme of the distribution and men at the other, which results (it says) in gaps calculated from the median understating the size of the problem.

It then goes on to claim, remarkably, that for women working part time, the gap is 35.6 per cent. This dizzying figure is achieved by comparing part-time women with full-time men – a comparison hard to justify on any rational basis. As the Statistics Authority remarks, this estimate “needs particularly careful explanation and justification if it is not to mislead”. (Translation: it’s misleading.)

The gender pay gap is a jungle, where journalists should not venture without careful preparation and a trusty guide. Discussions are going on between ONS and GEO to determine how the results should be presented in future, and we may see some results when the 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings is published in November.

But somehow I think it’s going to take a lot of persuasion to get the equality-wallahs to abandon the high estimates to which they are so attached. 35.6 per cent? Whew!"
http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/gender-inequality-its-jungle-out-there

Labour feminist Harriet Harman has been engaging in wage gap fraud, and has been asked by the Office of National Statistics not to use their research to mislead the public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8096761.stm

more on labour feminist rape conviction fraud

"Nigel Hawkes
is Director of Straight Statistics. As a journalist he has written about science, health, and international affairs, mostly for The Observer and The Times.

Scaremongering over the rape conviction rate
TAGS: VIOLENCE, HOME OFFICE, GENDER
AUTHOR: NIGEL HAWKES

Sharp words in today’s report on rape by Baroness Stern (pictured) over the constant bandying of the claim that only 6 per cent of reported rapes lead to convictions.
This was the subject of a long analysis on Straight Statistics by Robert Whiston last September, and the Stern Review, commissioned by the Home Office and the Government Equalities Office, makes many of the same points.

While for all other crimes the conviction rate describes the percentage of all the cases brought to court that result in a conviction, the report says, rape is different. For rape, the term has come to mean the percentage of all cases recorded by the police as rape that result in a conviction of rape. This makes it impossible to compare rape with other crimes.

The actual conviction rate for rape, measured conventionally, is 58 per cent. More cases should come to court and the review backs the Government’s efforts to achieve that.

But it is very critical of the way the 6 per cent figure has come to dominate public discussion “without explanation, analysis or context”. This has been to the detriment of public understanding and is not in the interest of victims of rape, who may be discouraged from reporting the incident in the belief that there is no chance of a successful conviction, it says. “We feel that the presentation of the statistics should be looked at again and we so recommend” the review concludes".

http://www.straightstatistics.org/blog/2010/03/15/scaremongering-over-rape-conviction-rate

Full Stern Review here http://www.equalities.gov.uk/staimm6geo/pdf/Stern_Review_of_Rape_Reporting_1FINAL.pdf

I could go on with Labour feminist involvement is domestic violence fraud and discrimination..

So anyway, I believe that gov. quotas for feminists dressed up as quotas for feminists under the pretense that there is a glass celing are a bad idea, given the track record in the UK and there are enough problems with corruption in gov as it is and there is no glass ceiling, women can get to the top of politics on their own merit, we have female politicians, have had two female presidents in succession and we have a popular and openly gay politician.

I also find it funny that some of the same people here that are saying "not all feminists are like that" have worked pretty hard to suppress information about the wrong doings of and protect their radical sisters in the UK from criticism and not one feminist has come forward in my defense here, perhaps that is why so many tar you all with the same brush, perhaps they are right.

Ickle Magoo, we had a deal - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056124012

Silverfish wrote: »

No, it's 'Government quotas for female politicians'.

Seeking equality (note not supremacy) for women is not a bad thing. I'm not sure why you're painting it that way. It's been explained to you multiple times in this thread that feminism does not equal radical feminism, feminism does not equal misandry.



Can you, clearly and concisely, explain who has 'suppressed' this information here, and where these women were identified as 'sisters'.



The only person doing that so far is you.

Please note, this is not your first time pushing an agenda on this forum, based on nothing that was actually posted.

Yeah right. Im of the opinion that gov quotas for women are simply quotas for radical feminists dressed up as quotas for women under the pretense that there is some sort of glass celling. You are free to take it at face value and support undemocratic "quotas for women" for your own reasons.

Silverfish wrote: »

This is where I think you are deliberately misconstruing the answers in this thread. I believe the majority of the posters are not in favour of quotas.

Can you please address the rest of my points? You've made some insinuations that I would prefer to be cleared up.

No, it looks like you are projecting and deliberately misconstruing, I never said that the majority here are were pro quotas, I said that some people were working very hard to keep information about the wrong doings and disgusting policies of UK gov feminists off the board.

I just published my opinion and backed it up, as requested, that is all.

You are free to take quotas at face value, I am free the interpret them them as quotas for mainly radical feminists dressed up as quotas for women, democracy subverted and circumvented under the pretense that there is some mysterious hand keeping women out of politics, when clearly, there isn't.

I should free to have that opinion and publish it with out being mobbed.

Silverfish wrote: »

Second time to ask, who did this and where?



This is the ladies lounge, if you come in and accuse any feminist and/or poster of being radical feminists and misandrists, then you can expect posters to respond and refute.

Oh go away, I was talking about UK radical feminists in gov, nobody here on this board. If you interpret that incorrectly as my referring to you personally or another, I'm sorry. Go back and check, read again.

I was talking about the disgusting and corrupt behavior of radical feminists in the Labour gov.

Silverfish wrote: »

I don't think Labour are in power in the UK.

And secondly, this is a thread discussing Ireland.

So I think, once again, the Humanities or the Politics forum would be best for your take on the discussion.

Yes, I was talking about the labour party and the labour gov when they were power. Its useful to look at what happened with similar policies in other countries when discussing implementing them in others.

Can you stop badgering me. I just wanted to post my opinion and I backed it up as requested by other users, I was mobbed and badgered for pages because of my opinion, which spoiled the thread. I'm sorry if you think that I was directing comments about UK labour feminists at you or other users personally, I wasn't as you can see by following the thread.

Stheno wrote: »

The first post of yours that I've quoted here would rather blatantly contradict the latter two posts I've quoted

And given that I've pointed out that your argument in relation to Labour implementing a quota was incorrect I'd be interested to read your response to that

No thats a clearly lie, the first quote was in retrospect and about the will of a minority here to keep information about these radical women off the board and the silence about their disgusting policies and behaviour.

You see, you in continuing to badger and push the sources back in to the thread, it looks like you and other are colluding to protect these disgusting people and their policies, hence the first comment I made wondering if thats why many don't believe that "not all feminists are like that".

Its likely that feminists here that are working to suppress the information I published are at least a little "like that".

Stheno wrote: »

You clearly stated



Therefore from that post I interpreted that as you posting your opinion as to the thoughts/motives arguments of posters on her, and the further opinion you then extrapolated that they are defending their "sisters"

No-one has come forward to "defend" you as your arguments are not 100% supportable, as I've already pointed out regarding quotas, something that you are consistently ignoring under the guise of:


You refuse to engage in debate, but rather feel that you can simply post up reams of links supporting your point of view, yet when challenged consistently fall back upon the argument above that you are being harrassed.

When that fails you sink further with your debating skills by posting that I or anyone who disagrees with you is :


No one but you has actually posted:


apart from you.


It does as despite your endless posting you certainly appear to be unable to tolerate real discussion or debate, to take on and argue viewpoints of others, and to intelligently respond when questioned as to the sources of your information or indeed the logic behind posting sources that are then shown to be incorrect.

Ok I will repost the sources about radical feminist in the UK gov and you can show how they are incorrect.


Can you logically demonstrate how these sources are incorrect or do you judge correct and incorrect according to something other than fact and logic?