Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Double Standards

12346

Comments

  • #152
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭iptba


    parker kent wrote: »
    Bit of a difference in what Elaine Byrne said and the Andy Gray/Richard Keys comments.
    One difference is that the Andy Gray/Richard Keys comments were off-air. I think a distinction should be made between what people say on-air and off-air. In general, I have to wonder about off-air comments leading to sackings. Should people lose their jobs for what they post on boards.ie for example? Sounds like we could turn in to some sort of police state. Not far off having "thought crimes".

    But Elaine Byrne didn't say too much explicitly so not worth hounding her on it or anything.


  • #153
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    iptba wrote: »
    One difference is that the Andy Gray/Richard Keys comments were off-air. I think a distinction should be made between what people say on-air and off-air. In general, I have to wonder about off-air comments leading to sackings. Should people lose their jobs for what they post on boards.ie for example? Sounds like we could turn in to some sort of police state. Not far off having "thought crimes".

    But Elaine Byrne didn't say too much explicitly so not worth hounding her on it or anything.

    People always bring out these Orwellian analogies, which is a massive over reaction. They were sacked because the leak and their comments brought Sky into disrepute. Sky couldn't have them on air when all credibility was lost. The genie was out of the bottle and it was inevitable sackings and resignations would follow.

    That is a long, long way from thought crimes.


  • #154
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭iptba


    parker kent wrote: »
    People always bring out these Orwellian analogies, which is a massive over reaction. They were sacked because the leak and their comments brought Sky into disrepute. Sky couldn't have them on air when all credibility was lost. The genie was out of the bottle and it was inevitable sackings and resignations would follow.

    That is a long, long way from thought crimes.
    Once the precedent is there that one can sack people for tarnishing a company's reputation and/or getting a bad reputation for oneself, could it not be used (sacking people for saying non-PC or simply stupid things) in other situations e.g. with smaller companies or whatever.


  • #155
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    iptba wrote: »
    Once the precedent is there that one can sack people for tarnishing a company's reputation and/or getting a bad reputation for oneself, could it not be used (sacking people for saying non-PC or simply stupid things) in other situations e.g. with smaller companies or whatever.

    People have been sacked for similar to what they did for a long, long time. This case is hardly setting a precedent. They were not just tarnishing the companies reputation by saying something non-PC. They were calling into question the ability of an assistant referee and the authorities that gave her the job. Thus, they had lost their on-air integrity. They are quite clearly not favouring the "Respect" campaign that will have often preached about on-screen. They had become a laughing stock and were bad for business.

    You cannot have 2 guys on screen who will be bad for business and who will alienate a large amount of the audience. That is not a new thing.


  • #156
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    This I have to say the following is sexist tripe of the highest order. I don't have a direct link but I have quoted it from here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64708492&postcount=62
    Quote:
    Senator Ivana Bacik:
    [..]
    This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of Lords who produced a very radical report last year on women in prison and who recommended, after a very thorough review, that prison places for women should essentially be abolished and that there should just be a small number of small detention units for women. Otherwise, alternative sanctions should be used. We could very much learn from the lessons of that report.

    I am happy to say that Baroness Corston will be visiting Leinster House on Thursday. Deputy Mary O’Rourke and I are hosting a meeting with her for all women Members of the Oireachtas. I am sorry that we cannot invite any male colleagues interested in this issue to the briefing with Baroness Corston.


    Senator David Norris: Why not?


    Senator Ivana Bacik: I would be happy to meet them to discuss the issues at another time.

    I would love to try and organise a meeting where only men of the Oireachtas could attend and see what would happen. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭iptba


    Donovan Brief Beech wrote: »
    I would love to try and organise a meeting where only men of the Oireachtas could attend and see what would happen. :rolleyes:
    Yes, that's a good example of where if you turn something around (replace men with women or women with men), some people who might initially not have had a big problem with it, might question their views/it.


  • #158
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    iptba wrote: »
    Yes, that's a good example of where if you turn something around (replace men with women or women with men), some people who might initially not have had a big problem with it, might question their views/it.

    Just realised that was your post originally! I was amazed when I read about that originally. Couldn't believe there wasn't uproar at the time.

    Ivana Bacik describes herself supposedly as a feminist which I think is rubbish really. I truly believe in sexual equality and am totally against positive discrimination. If this is what Ms. Bacik considers feminism then to hell with that.


  • #159
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The cso have published thier report on men and women in 2010
    http://cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/other_releases/2010/womenandmen2010.pdf


  • #160
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    The cso have published thier report on men and women in 2010
    http://cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/other_releases/2010/womenandmen2010.pdf

    Excellent, that should making reading. Thanks.


  • #161
    Count Duckula
    Closed Accounts Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Count Duckula


    I had a loud debate in a Nandos last week with my friends about this very topic. Dodgy looks from other chickeny-goodness eaters aside, it was a very interesting topic of conversation (indeed, those dodgy looks were quite clearly people just raring to join in but, obviously, they could not).

    My friends echoed the typical sentiment that's flying around the place at the moment - that Andy Gray and co were sacked for their sexist comments. That it was a travesty; political correctness gone mad; the pendulum swinging the other way and now men are being victimised.

    I could not disagree more. I was pleased to see I wasn't the only one arguing this, but the fact remains that it is not double standards. Those harping on about Loose Women et al are building up straw men; nobody is trying to compare the two. There are plenty of shows out there produced for men that will make the odd snide remark aimed at women, even in jest, just like Loose Women. Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear, for example, will often take aim at anyone who isn't a tall, white male (so anyone who isn't him, basically), and that includes women. Some unpleasant things said in a format that makes them sound funny is one thing, an entirely unfair comment that actually judges a person's ability to do a job based on their gender / skin colour / sexual orientation / creed is another.

    Perhaps this was blown a little out of proportion, but people are deliberately choosing to misrepresent the facts to further their own anti-feminist agenda. Andy Gray was not sacked because of the original comment. Now, we may never know whether it would have led to a sacking all on its own - it certainly was whipping up quite a frenzy, true - but he and Keys were let go because of all the other evidence that came to light. The final nail in his coffin was the video where he was asking Charlotte Jackson to "tuck him in down there", and then, when she failed to answer, asked her again! I'm sorry, but that is a sackable offence. If a woman in my workplace asked me to "tuck her in down there", and then proceeded to continue with that aggressive and overly-sexual line of conversation after I'd shown I wasn't willing to be drawn in, I would take matters further.

    It was unacceptable of them to say that, and though it is unfair of others on "women's shows" (a term I despise) to say things about males, it is not the same. Loose Women will get away with making silly generalisations as long as Clarkson can. But if a woman were to say, on a show dedicated to a traditionally female pastime, that a man couldn't do the job simply because he was a man (and mean it) there would be hell to pay.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Donovan Brief Beech wrote: »
    This I have to say the following is sexist tripe of the highest order. I don't have a direct link but I have quoted it from here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64708492&postcount=62



    I would love to try and organise a meeting where only men of the Oireachtas could attend and see what would happen. :rolleyes:

    That is just utterly bizarre. From what the report suggests, to Ivana Bacik' championing it, to the women only meeting.

    You are also right. The reverse situation would not be tolerated. I mean, imagine it. An English Lord comes over with a report suggesting men in particular have a hard time in prison, and as such we should imprison as few men as possible (No point discussing the chicks in prison, sure they're grand.). Then a male Senator comes out, says he agrees, and then turns to the female members of the Oireachtas and says. "Yeah sorry ladies, you aren't welcome at the meeting btw, this is just one for the lads". Ms Bacik stands up and says "what? why not?". "Ehhh well I don't really want to get into it right now. Come see me in my office some time and I'll explain it to you".

    There would be a fukking sh1tstorm.


  • #163
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    strobe wrote: »
    That is just utterly bizarre. From what the report suggests, to Ivana Bacik' championing it, to the women only meeting.

    You are also right. The reverse situation would not be tolerated. I mean, imagine it. An English Lord comes over with a report suggesting men in particular have a hard time in prison, and as such we should imprison as few men as possible (No point discussing the chicks in prison, sure they're grand.). Then a male Senator comes out, says he agrees, and then turns to the female members of the Oireachtas and says. "Yeah sorry ladies, you aren't welcome at the meeting btw, this is a just one for the lads". Ms Bacik stands up and says "what? why not?". "Ehhh well I don't really want to get into it right now. Come see me in my office some time and I'll explain it to you".

    There would be a fukking sh1tstorm.

    If this is true, it is bizarre and unprofessional and counter productive. Like it or not, the power in the land resides with men, they legislate and enforce the law, so I would imagine it makes more sense for men to also be at that meeting especially if it is important for women's issues to become visible rather than having occult meetings.

    If it is a case of equality and fairness during the meeting so everyone can speak and be heard without interruption there are ways around that.

    I dont know,yet again, what Ivana Bacik is thinking or is she thinking at all. IF you cant deal with men, dont go into politics.


  • #164
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    In the interests of fairness I have some direct evidence.

    Bingo, here's what I originally quoted: http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2008/05/20/00003.asp#N137

    And here's good old David Norris making a stand for equality:

    http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2008/05/22/00004.asp
    Senator David Norris: I congratulate our colleague, Senator Bacik, on raising the question of whether it is suitable to imprison women for minor offences. I regret male Members of the Houses are not invited to the meeting on this later because it is important that men, who are coequals as legislators, should be involved in these discussions. The overwhelming majority of the prison population is male and an overwhelming element of that population comes from certain inner city districts in our principal cities. I would like that issue examined and not just the rights of women because what is sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose.

    I think that is very damaging for women and particularly women in politics. It doesn't do anyone favours. Very easy for people to point to examples like this and claim that women aren't fit for politics etc.

    Surprised that such an educated woman would make such a silly error of judgement.


  • #165
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I'm sure a lot of men will see stuff like this and be wary of voting in any female politicians for fear that they will organise secret 'girl scout meetings'.


  • #166
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    Surely the fact the David Norris made the comments he did, is evidence enough that actions such as Ivan Bacik's are not just taken with a shrug of the shoulders?

    Edit: Obviously what she said was ridiculously wrong.


  • #167
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    parker kent wrote: »
    Surely the fact the David Norris made the comments he did, is evidence enough that actions such as Ivan Bacik's are not just taken with a shrug of the shoulders?

    While I'm happy to see Norris is not letting the issue slide, it hasn't exactly made big news. i'd have never heard about it where it not for Boards. You certainly don't see it on the front page of every newspaper, hear about it on every radio call in show etc.
    I think that's the double standard. Heck, this is far more newsworthy than a couple of soccer pundits getting the sack!


  • #168
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    It's time for her to get booted out of power. Bad for women and men equally.


  • #169
    Count Duckula
    Closed Accounts Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Count Duckula


    In fairness they're not affecting any legislation there though, are they? Forgive my ignorance (I'm not Irish so the politics of some situations escape me), but it seems they're just having a meeting. Ill-advised or not, it's not technically doing anything "wrong" by having a meeting about women that can be attended only by women.

    If it ever came to being voted on by your government, surely the men would still get to take part in that?


  • #170
    parker kent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    Galvasean wrote: »
    While I'm happy to see Norris is not letting the issue slide, it hasn't exactly made big news. i'd have never heard about it where it not for Boards. You certainly don't see it on the front page of every newspaper, hear about it on every radio call in show etc.
    I think that's the double standard. Heck, this is far more newsworthy than a couple of soccer pundits getting the sack!

    You don't exactly hear about most things that happen in the Seanad. If Mary Coughlan were to say something like this in the Dáil, it would likely get more attention.


  • #171
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Count Duckula wrote: »
    In fairness they're not affecting any legislation there though, are they? Forgive my ignorance (I'm not Irish so the politics of some situations escape me), but it seems they're just having a meeting. Ill-advised or not, it's not technically doing anything "wrong" by having a meeting about women that can be attended only by women.

    If it ever came to being voted on by your government, surely the men would still get to take part in that?

    The point is why exactly would they hold a meeting and actively exclude men from attending and why did they just presume this would be acceptable. Is it "they clearly wouldn't have anything of value to add they don't even have vaginas", is it "why would men care about women in prison", is it "if we let the men come they might take over the meeting with their big strong man presence". What exactly is having a couple of penises in the room going to disrupt? Why would men not be interested in the topic? Why would they not have a valuable viewpoint to add? Is it because the report itself is inherently sexist, that the Baroness and Ivana know this is the case and they just want to slash the risk that someone might point this out and embarrass everyone by screaming "hey hey, there is an elephant in the corner!" That's the only explanation I can think of. If anyone has a better theory I'd be happy to hear it.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    strobe wrote: »
    That is just utterly bizarre. From what the report suggests, to Ivana Bacik' championing it, to the women only meeting.
    Bacik represents the most odious form of SCUMesque feminism in Ireland. Her politics were born of those of late-eighties / early-nineties college politics, when that brand of ideology (along with the opposite pole) was receiving a final quickening in TCD and UCD in particular. I remember, around that time, attending a Women's group meeting in UCD that dealt with the topic of male-only membership of golf clubs - a meeting which was bizarrely followed by a women-only reception.

    Her appeal outside of her political allies in the Labour party I suspect is limited to a particular brand of Dublin middle-class college graduate. She may finally manage to get elected this time round, but with Eamon Gilmore as Labour's primary candidate in Dun Laoghaire, Richard Boyd-Barrett (who is far more active locally, I believe) splitting the left-wing vote and the negative reaction that her blatantly anti-male views have on many, there is more than a fair chance of keeping her out of the Dail. If so, she'll have to continue to content herself with appointed rather than elected positions.


  • #173
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    I was talking to my girlfriend last night, swapping our stories of the day.

    I mentioned this thread and the stuff I dragged up about Ivana Bacik. She was gob-smacked and the first thing she said was "If men did this there would be uproar". My girlfriend is a very intelligent young woman, who wouldn't allow herself be pushed around by either a male or female and she could blatantly see that this was obviously sexist.

    I couldn't see this style of feminism being very popular with a lot of women, a style which seems quite outdated to me anyway. It also brings up the question of "what is feminism?". Is it different to attempting to achieve sexual equality in society? Or is it merely a way of imposing the same inequality women have faced in the past on men? A case of the bullied becoming the bully so to speak.
    Bacik lives with partner Alan and two daughters in the Portobello area of Dublin

    I wonder is poor old Alan chained to the sink? :( .... :D


  • #174
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    I don't think it's popular with a lot of women.


  • #175
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I don't think I know any women who like that style of 'feminism'. In fact most would not consider it feminism since feminism strives for equality, not preferential treatment.


  • #176
    Butterbox
    Closed Accounts Posts: 50 ✭✭Butterbox


    It is not the same when women are sexist against men and so men should have thicker skins. The fact of the matter is that women only have equality for as long as men allow them too, and so they are right to be more defensive.


  • #177
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Galvasean wrote:
    I don't think I know any women who like that style of 'feminism'. In fact most would not consider it feminism since feminism strives for equality, not preferential treatment.
    I don't know about that! It's feminism, not egalitarism.

    @Butterbox: I hope thats a (bad) joke?


  • #178
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Butterbox wrote: »
    It is not the same when women are sexist against men and so men should have thicker skins. The fact of the matter is that women only have equality for as long as men allow them too, and so they are right to be more defensive.

    8de09-NotSureIfSerious.jpg


  • #179
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I don't think I know any women who like that style of 'feminism'. In fact most would not consider it feminism since feminism strives for equality, not preferential treatment.

    Yeah same here with me.

    If you look people like Ivana Bacik and guys that have been publicly accused of being sexist they come from a different generation. I think men and women in their 20's and 30's have a better appreciation for sexual equality etc. than the older generation. It's not seen as a big deal, just part of life really.


  • #180
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I don't think I know any women who like that style of 'feminism'. In fact most would not consider it feminism since feminism strives for equality, not preferential treatment.

    I would like to think calling this feminism in inappropriate. Its more like pink freemasonry.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    iptba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭iptba


    Count Duckula wrote: »
    In fairness they're not affecting any legislation there though, are they? Forgive my ignorance (I'm not Irish so the politics of some situations escape me), but it seems they're just having a meeting. Ill-advised or not, it's not technically doing anything "wrong" by having a meeting about women that can be attended only by women.

    If it ever came to being voted on by your government, surely the men would still get to take part in that?
    Are you saying you would be happy if male politicians had men-only meetings in your country to discuss some issue that affected men e.g. this one which was looking for easier sentencing?

    A few years back, Irish feminists were saying a men-only golf club was a disgrace (there are women-only fitness clubs). This was a big case that "everyone" in Ireland knows about and the Equality Authority spent a lot of money on it.

    A women-only meeting of members of our parliament to specifically discuss how their gender is treated in prison is a lot closer to power and the explicit aim of the issue was to discuss a gender issue (how to deal with female offenders) (rather than what might happen at a golf club). So there is a double standard in how women-only and men-only gatherings are seen it appears
    (note: I'm not saying you have this double standard as we don't know your views about men-only meetings).

    And the whole basis of the meeting (looking for women to be treated differently in sentencing) doesn't seem to be based on equality either. Indeed, men already face much worse conditions in Irish prisons.


Advertisement