Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

hondasam · 20-02-2012 10:52PM

MCMLXXV wrote: »

It doesn't put me out ar anything, in fact I feel it gives you less weight as a mod. Maybe I'm alone here but I think you should go back coz you don't seem like a 'real mod' to me anymore!

Sorry for the interruption people.

Stop you will make him cry in a minute. He is real, really he is.

Bannasidhe · 20-02-2012 11:14PM

hondasam wrote: »

Stop you will make him cry in a minute. He is real, really he is.

Not only is he a real MOD. He was the best one of the Monkees - waaaaaay better then that Davy Jones.

dark crystal · 20-02-2012 11:23PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not only is he a real MOD. He was the best one of the Monkees - waaaaaay better then that Davy Jones.

Take that back immediately..... Peter Tork was clearly the best Monkee.

Micky Dolenz · 20-02-2012 11:25PM

Mod

Ok, this thread has probably ran it's course.

Will be closed shortly.

Bannasidhe · 20-02-2012 11:27PM

dark crystal wrote: »

Take that back immediately..... Peter Tork was clearly the best Monkee.

Never!!!!

Let's gang up on the Mike Nesmith fans -him and his bobble hat and tippex millions. Pah!

Zulu · 21-02-2012 09:12AM

Zulu wrote: »

The quotas weren't a product of extreme feminism, were they? Have "extreme feminists" been awarded that victory??

I respect & acknowledge that proclaimed feminists on this thread haven't claimed to support the quotas, however, why haven't the feminist groups denounced the quota system loudly & publicly? If they had, the issue would be dropped quickidy-quick. However, they remain deafeningly silent. Why?

Surely there is a risk that a system like this only serves to diminish the achievements of female politicians that have succeeded in the current environment, as well lessening the achievement of future female politicians - "sure they're only there because we had to take them on to fill the quota".

Is the quota system not feminist brainfart? Isn't it just a perfect example of feminist sexism in action??

pickarooney · 21-02-2012 10:18AM

1000th post. Shut her down Micky.

Bannasidhe · 21-02-2012 10:27AM

Zulu wrote: »

I respect & acknowledge that proclaimed feminists on this thread haven't claimed to support the quotas, however, why haven't the feminist groups denounced the quota system loudly & publicly? If they had, the issue would be dropped quickidy-quick. However, they remain deafeningly silent. Why?

Surely there is a risk that a system like this only serves to diminish the achievements of female politicians that have succeeded in the current environment, as well lessening the achievement of future female politicians - "sure they're only there because we had to take them on to fill the quota".

Is the quota system not feminist brainfart? Isn't it just a perfect example of feminist sexism in action??

No quotas are not a feminist brainfart - they are a way of trying to force a change because no-one believes if left to its own devices Irish political culture will change in any way whatsoever.
What quotas are are an attempt to redress an imbalance built into the system and if critics had taken the time to read the reams of material a simple google search would throw up they would see the pro and cons debated endlessly
But what we got were demands for proof that this was not a massive feminist conspiracy to bring down democracy - with links.

here's the link to the google search -http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y11DT9SwJsmIhQex3Y2yBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQvwUoAQ&q=political+quotas+Ireland&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=8cd03b04ed71cad5&biw=1366&bih=667

Here's a google search on quotas in those horribly undemocratic Scandinavia failed economies....oh, wait....that's right, they are held as the model of the very equal societies many here say they favour and financially quite well off.
http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y11DT9SwJsmIhQex3Y2yBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQvwUoAQ&q=political+quotas+Ireland&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=8cd03b04ed71cad5&biw=136

and here's another google search on female participation in politics in Scandinavia http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=0WFDT5P4J5KZhQeh_uDfBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQvwUoAQ&q=female+participation+in+politics+Scandinavia&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=8cd03b04ed71cad5&biw=1366&bih=667
- knock yourselves out

I have taken the 56.7 seconds to do these searches as it would appear that some here are unable to do them and must be spoonfed links.

TBH - I was undecided about quotas -but the over reaction by some here and the attacks on the NCW for issuing a policy statement that was arrived at in a far more democratic process then our country is governed has got me thinking.

And I am thinking - my, what a lot of hyperbole about interfering with the democratic process and hysteria about candidates being 'parachuted in' (like that has never happened *cough patcox*cough) and cries of sexism but not one critic here made any attempt to address the merits of the idea - because they do exist - or offer alternative solutions. All this shouting about it is beginning to make me think its not such a bad idea after all cos it's looking like this is really getting some boy's boxer's in a twist...which does make me wonder why...:D

Bannasidhe · 21-02-2012 10:27AM

pickarooney wrote: »

1000th post. Shut her down Micky.

After the feminists have gotten their right of reply of course.

smash · 21-02-2012 10:29AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

After the feminists have gotten their right of reply of course.

After someone makes me some pancakes!

Bannasidhe · 21-02-2012 10:30AM

smash wrote: »

After someone makes me some pancakes!

http://www.bordbia.ie/aboutfood/recipes/eggs/Pages/BasicPancakes.aspx

Off you go - good man.

smash · 21-02-2012 10:31AM

Thanks. I actually wanted a good recipe. I'll add blueberrys though.

pickarooney · 21-02-2012 10:32AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

After the feminists have gotten their right of reply of course.

If this thread had a winner, it would be you.

Micky Dolenz · 21-02-2012 10:43AM

Mod

We'll wrap this up later today. Overall it's been interesting.

Zulu · 21-02-2012 10:53AM

pickarooney wrote: »

1000th post. Shut her down Micky.

If you are no longer interested, feel free to remove your subscription to the thread & stop posting. I don't see why you feel the need to wreck it for everyone else.

Zulu · 21-02-2012 10:59AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

TBH - I was undecided about quotas -but the over reaction by some here and the attacks on the NCW for issuing a policy statement that was arrived at in a far more democratic process then our country is governed has got me thinking.

Well you either agree with them or you don't, that's your prerogative. However my point still stands, it's attempting to use sexism to solve a perceived "sexist" issue, which is - in my opinion - complete tosh. How can a group who claim to abhor sexism stand by and watch further sexism be introduced?

Bannasidhe · 21-02-2012 11:25AM

Zulu wrote: »

Well you either agree with them or you don't, that's your prerogative. However my point still stands, it's attempting to use sexism to solve a perceived "sexist" issue, which is - in my opinion - complete tosh. How can a group who claim to abhor sexism stand by and watch further sexism be introduced?

Perhaps as they do not perceive it as sexism but as a necessary means to redress a sexist imbalance built into the very system. The same arguments were trotted out against The Sex Discrimination Act (it will force us to hire less qualified women over men!!!!), Equal Pay (small business' will go bust/ but men are the breadwinners!!!) Inter-Martial Rape (the State has no right to interfere in the sanctity of marriage!!!)

No one is saying stop men from running for parliament -that would be sexist. They are saying there is something deeply unfair in the selection process currently used by state funded political parties - so unfair that the State has been forced to take action by saying 30% (not 50% or 75% or 100%) of candidates put forward by these state funded parties must be members of a demographic which comprises at least 50% of the population - the electorate then decides for themselves who to vote for. After all, there is no reason women can't represent male electors now is there?

Do you not think the current selection process is so riddled with nepotism that even the Borgia's would think it's gone too far? Is the way candidates are selected now really so democratic that it must remain sacrosanct?
We can't tell as it all happens in private but if I were cynical I would wonder if prospective candidates bring a copy of their family tree with them rather then a policy statement.

Of course, if political parties really object to this untoward State interference in their internal workings - they do have the option of refusing to sign the terms and conditions and decline funding...
In fact, the State has already 'interfered' in how political parties fund themselves - restriction of corporate donation etc...where is the outcry about the democratic process being undermined?

Everyone in the country has been bleating about how our political system is not fit for purpose. How it has been hijacked by vested interests and is all about gombeenism and cronyism. 'Ohhhh' we collectively cry ' things must change, and if the powers that be won't change lets hope the EU/Troika/anybodyatall forces them to change'. Well, guess what...

Lastly - do you not think the State sticking its nose into how party politics runs makes a refreshing change from party politics sticking its nose into how the State is run (in to the ground)?

Zulu · 21-02-2012 11:40AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The same arguments were trotted out against The Sex Discrimination Act, etc....

Perhaps they were, but that doesn't make the argument invalid now. Having a quota is discrimination. Discrimination based on gender is sexism. Sexism is bad.

No one is saying stop men from running for parliament -that would be sexist.

True, but they are introducing a system where, all things being equal between two candidates of different sexes, one has a distinct advantage solely based on their gender - and that is sexist.

After all, there is no reason women can't represent male electors now is there?

True, and the converse applies.

Do you not think the current selection process is so riddled with nepotism that even the Borgia's would think it's gone too far?

It probably is; it certainly appears so. But introducing sexism into the fray isn't progressive.

Is the way candidates are selected now really so democratic that it must remain sacrosanct?

Democracy must remain sacrosanct.

Everyone in the country has been bleating about how our political system is not fit for purpose

Indeed, and the introduction of sexism is supposed to help? Sigh, it saddens me.

Well, guess what...

What?

Lastly - do you not think the State sticking its nose into how party politics runs makes a refreshing change from party politics sticking its nose into how the State is run (in to the ground)?

No I do not. We vote for the parties, so they are supposed to stick their nose into how the state is run - that's democracy.

In Russia perhaps, the state sticks it's nose into how the party runs.

Bannasidhe · 21-02-2012 12:15PM

Zulu wrote: »

Perhaps they were, but that doesn't make the argument invalid now. Having a quota is discrimination. Discrimination based on gender is sexism. Sexism is bad.

Yes, it is. That is the point. Women are far less likely to be selected under the current system. Is that not the result of sexism or are we Irish strangly devoid of capable women?

True, but they are introducing a system where, all things being equal between two candidates of different sexes, one has a distinct advantage solely based on their gender - and that is sexist.

That appears to already be the case.

True, and the converse applies.

Jeeze - what happened to all of that 'men and women think differently' stuff some poster have been so fond of trotting out?

It probably is; it certainly appears so. But introducing sexism into the fray isn't progressive.

Perhaps reducing the sexism already in the mix is progressive.

Democracy must remain sacrosanct.

Indeed. When can we have some in Ireland?

Indeed, and the introduction of sexism is supposed to help? Sigh, it saddens me.

No- the counteracting of the sexism currently built into the system is supposed to help.

What?

The Times they are...

No I do not. We vote for the parties, so they are supposed to stick their nose into how the state is run - that's democracy.

In Russia perhaps, the state sticks it's nose into how the party runs. :

No - I disagree, that is not democracy. That is party politics placed above the State. FF, in particular, were masters at that the old 'we will do what is best for the party...and for the country' line. No - do what is best for the country and feck your party.

Russia? What does Russia have to do with this? A democracy that is slowly emerging from centuries of being governed by either a Totalitarian Dictatorship or an absolutiest Monarchy really isn't terribly relevant here IMO.
(

The difference is that I see the current system as the result of a political institution that evolved when women were completely excluded from politics - institutionalised sexism goes to its very foundation.

Those who fought in 1916 recognised this and as part of the goals for the new independent Irish State was an official policy welcoming women's participation in the very highest levels of politics - hence this emerging State had a female Minister for Labour.

After the Civil War the female voice was silenced and the Ol boys conservative network was able to dig in and ensure everything worked exactly the way that suited them.
Ireland was not unique in this - where it is unique in Europe is its failure to deal with this issue decades ago. While most western democracies were debating this issue in the 80s - Ireland was getting around to making it illegal for a husband to rape his wife... we had also just managed to appoint the 2nd ever female Cabinet minister since independence And she was chosen more for her loyalty to Haughey during internal conflicts in FF then for any other reason- at the same time a woman became PM in the UK. .

When an attempt is made to redress a discriminatory and sexist existing imbalance is condemned as discrimination and sexism it seems to me to be just hyperbole and spin aimed at ensuring the status quo remains unchanged.

hondasam · 21-02-2012 12:35PM

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Following on from the male feminist thread, why is it so hard to discuss the topic in a clear reasonable manner?

Have you got the answer you were looking for ? Is there a marked improvement in the debate or has anyone really changed their views?

Let's see how it goes.

How did it go this time compared to other threads?

Zulu · 21-02-2012 12:36PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is that not the result of sexism or are we Irish strangly devoid of capable women?

We are certainly not devoid of capable women, however, capable women do not appear to have an interest in standing for politics. It's worth noting that this also applies for men. I would highlight that what we have currently do not represent the best men our society has to offer.

Perhaps reducing the sexism already in the mix is progressive.

While the concept of reducing sexism by adding sexism is novel, I believe it's flawed. Trust me, for years now I've been trying to reduce the effect of alcohol on my body by adding more. This is something I've never achieved - conclusively it's only made things worse.

No- the counteracting of the sexism currently built into the system is supposed to help.

By introducing more?

The difference is that I see the current system as the result of a political institution that evolved when women were completely excluded from politics - institutionalised sexism goes to its very foundation.

But the introduction of more sexism will not prevent that. It's tantamount to the old adage: beating will continue until moral improves.

After the Civil War the female voice was silenced and the Ol boys conservative network was able to dig in and ensure everything worked exactly the way that suited them.

So punish the grandson for the crimes of the grandfather?

Look, straight up honest question: as a feminist, do you support the quota system?

K-9 · 21-02-2012 12:36PM

Zulu wrote: »

True, but they are introducing a system where, all things being equal between two candidates of different sexes, one has a distinct advantage solely based on their gender - and that is sexist.

That kind of reminds me of the DUP saying the positive discrimination policy on Catholic recruitment for the PSNI was sectarian.

AeoNGriM · 21-02-2012 12:37PM

I think men and women are equally as good, bad, offensive, endearing, interesting, boring as each other.

But not sexy. Only women are sexy cos they have boobies.

REAL boobies I mean, not those lard induced man boobs Micky Dolenz has

:pac:

Bannasidhe · 21-02-2012 12:43PM

Zulu wrote: »

We are certainly not devoid of capable women, however, capable women do not appear to have an interest in standing for politics. It's worth noting that this also applies for men. I would highlight that what we have currently do not represent the best men our society has to offer.
While the concept of reducing sexism by adding sexism is novel, I believe it's flawed. Trust me, for years now I've been trying to reduce the effect of alcohol on my body by adding more. This is something I've never achieved - conclusively it's only made things worse.
By introducing more?
But the introduction of more sexism will not prevent that. It's tantamount to the old adage: beating will continue until moral improves.
So punish the grandson for the crimes of the grandfather?

Look, straight up honest question: as a feminist, do you support the quota system?

At the beginning of this discussion No.

Having seen some of the entrenched views expressed here and complete denial there is even a hint of sexism/discrimination in the current selection process I am coming around to the idea that drastic measures are required if anything is going to change.

Dravokivich · 21-02-2012 12:47PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

At the beginning of this discussion No.

Having seen some of the entrenched views expressed here and complete denial there is even a hint of sexism/discrimination in the current selection process I am coming around to the idea that drastic measures are required if anything is going to change.

I'm assuming this is in reference to Zulu asking if you favour a quota based system and you are responding indicating it looks like a viable option.

I'd be weary of a quota based system myself because if one is to be implemented, it will only act to limit the potential of both women and men due to a ratio needing to be met.

Zulu · 21-02-2012 12:50PM

K-9 wrote: »

That kind of reminds me of the DUP saying the positive discrimination policy on Catholic recruitment for the PSNI was sectarian.

That's nice. It's sexual discrimination no matter what way you try to dress it up & I for one disagree with sexual discrimination & sexism. Clearly others here don't. Which is sad.

Notably, this goes a long way to explain why some people really get their backs up when perceived "feminists" bleat on about combating sexism.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

At the beginning of this discussion No.

Having seen some of the entrenched views expressed here and complete denial there is even a hint of sexism/discrimination in the current selection process I am coming around to the idea that drastic measures are required if anything is going to change.

That's really sad. It saddens me that someone could start out close to an egalitarian but due to the (perhaps flippant) comments of a few others, would lean more towards an extreme & support sexist notions.

Micky Dolenz · 21-02-2012 12:56PM

hondasam wrote: »

Have you got the answer you were looking for ? Is there a marked improvement in the debate or has anyone really changed their views?

How did it go this time compared to other threads?

It was never about people changing other peoples views. It was about trying to change a culture of knocking a belief because it isn't agreed with. We should be able to completely oppose an opinion but still show a level of respect to the person who holds it.

I think this thread shows contentious issues can be discussed in a mature non point scoring way.

Bannasidhe · 21-02-2012 12:58PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm assuming this is in reference to Zulu asking if you favour a quota based system and you are responding indicating it looks like a viable option.

I'd be weary of a quota based system myself because if one is to be implemented, it will only act to limit the potential of both women and men due to a ratio needing to be met.

I also have reservations and concern that it will be a 'Christ - we need a women to make up the quota- quick, grab whatshername who made the sammichs and see if she wanst to run for the Dail - if she won't do it, what about your sister? Tell her she's in no danger of being elected like - it is Johnjoemickys seat after all, she'll just be there to make up the numbers' situation occurring.

However, it could also work the other way and make the selection process more open - a 'sorry Johnjoemicky, I know it was your granddaddy's and your daddy's seat and it should be your seat but since we have to meet this quota thingy we may as well have a proper look at all the possible candidates. Some of them women seem to actually know whet they are talking about...who knew!!!' situation as happened in Sweden.

I haven't seen any alternative option being proposed TBH - mostly it's been denials that there is a problem.

K-9 · 21-02-2012 12:59PM

Zulu wrote: »

That's nice. It's sexual discrimination no matter what way you try to dress it up & I for one disagree with sexual discrimination & sexism. Clearly others here don't. Which is sad.

And the PSNI policy is sectarian?

Bannasidhe · 21-02-2012 01:04PM

Zulu wrote: »

That's nice. It's sexual discrimination no matter what way you try to dress it up & I for one disagree with sexual discrimination & sexism. Clearly others here don't. Which is sad.

Notably, this goes a long way to explain why some people really get their backs up when perceived "feminists" bleat on about combating sexism.

That's really sad. It saddens me that someone could start out close to an egalitarian but due to the (perhaps flippant) comments of a few others, would lean more towards an extreme & support sexist notions.

I don't actually believe for a second that wanting to increase women's participation in government is an extreme view. I think is is working toward a more equatable society.

If I thought for a second that drastic measures were not required to combat the sexism built into the very system I would not even consider quotas as viable. But history has shown us that when left to their own devices successive Irish governments only act against discrimination when forced to - usually by the EU. That is the truly sad thing.

Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Comments