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

Extreme radical "feminists" suffering sexual oppression unto them

12357…27

Comments

  • #122
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    I don't identify as a feminist but I don't get people not calling themselves one because of what others think. That's like the "I don't believe in god but I would never call myself an atheist because of smug atheists" thing. You are what you are; I don't like this apologising lark.

    Those antiquated laws are being enforced still because of an outdated constitution as a whole. And I find the view that feminists would agree with fathers having limited custody of their children to be strange. Surely feminists would want help with parenting and would want fathers to have an active role as a father? Vengeful women who like to torture their ex by not letting him see his children don't have to be feminist at all. If anything I reckon they're less likely to be, tbh. Any woman I have encountered who bitches and moans about men ironically can't live without a man at all times, and has very little time for other women. Anecdotal I know, but worth putting out there - things aren't always as they seem.


  • #123
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Wibbs wrote: »
    True. Thankfully, while there are always ways we can improve, we're not nearly so bad in this particular area of law. TBH I can see how if you're male in the US and have come up against this kinda thing in a no fault divorce where you stand to lose your shirt and kids why you could buy into the RoK/Manosphere/MGTOW(men going there own way) stuff in a big way. There does seem to be a cultural change afoot in US as far as many men are concerned. Fewer getting married and the age for marriage going steadily up. Getting married there seems to be much more of a financial and emotional risk than getting married here.

    It's probably why there is also so much anti government sentiment. And not just from men, from many people. So many people have been screwed over by the courts and the police for nonsense. You can get a restraining order if someone calls you a ****, for example. But once it's put in the "domestic violence" frame work, it;s verbal and emotional abuse. But if that applied to the public, half of potty mouthed New Yorkers stuck in traffic would be getting restraining orders.There is absolutely no way anyone can deny that lefty feminism had influences in giving courts these powers with the domestic violence campaigns etc.

    However with families changing in shapes and formats, with gay couples and lesbian couples and step parents etc, these rules that were originially intended to protect women, are still in place and used in all sorts of contexts and circumstances.

    The common denominator is the courts and the legislation.

    So I was reading this interview here, and there are some interesting things in it about ideology. I think I might read his book.
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11128

    One of feminism's superhero poster girls, was in fact a feminazi in its most eugenics sense of the word. No feminists can come out and say oh yeah but she is one of the more extreme radical ones. Well duh. But she is still a glorified icon, so you can't really argue for justifying feminism with these moderate's are alright?

    "I guess you could say Margaret Sanger was the original “feminazi.” Within a day of researching Margaret Sanger’s papers in the Library of Congress, I found a speech from 1932 in which she called for a massive system of concentration camps housing between 15 and 20 million Americans. Her eugenic dream would have been a nightmare for the poor and uneducated, both of whom would have been sent to the camps along with drug addicts, criminals, and others she saw as unfit for reproduction. Her plan is blunt and unambiguous: it would have imprisoned about one out of every six or seven Americans. The significant thing is not that I stumbled upon this information, but that not one of the dozen or so biographies of Sanger that I’ve examined even makes a fleeting reference to Sanger’s plan. This cover up is a scandal. Margaret Sanger is a towering figure in American history who is depicted as a champion of reproductive freedom and choice. This portrayal doesn’t hold up when you know that she advanced an American gulag and forced sterilization to prevent reproduction by massive portions of society."


    More on Margaret Sanger. And when you read about her and some of the ideology that motivated her, it;s really not that different from what the OP is saying.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger


  • #124
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me get wound up every time I hear the word 'feminism' mentioned. It's very easy to throw out statistics like that to claim we live in a world where women are discriminated against. Of course, it completely ignores jobs where women outnumber men. Also, basing something on statistics from 20 years ago? Come on.

    At the time of writing (middle of last year) they were the newest available; if there are newer stats I'd be happy to update the numbers.

    I wrote it to counter the idea that the "pendulum has swung too far and women control everything"-type comment that so regularly comes out. I think most people would agree that the vast majority of the power of the state is controlled by the government, the judiciary and to a lesser extent, the police force.

    In this country anyway, these three bodies are still massively male dominated - particularly at the top levels.

    I don't think anyone can deny that this is still the case?

    I'd be interested in seeing statistics on political power wielded by jobs/careers where women are more heavily repesented than men.


  • #125
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    B0jangles wrote: »
    At the time of writing (middle of last year) they were the newest available; if there are newer stats I'd be happy to update the numbers.

    I wrote it to counter the idea that the "pendulum has swung too far and women control everything"-type comment that so regularly comes out. I think most people would agree that the vast majority of the power of the state is controlled by the government, the judiciary and to a lesser extent, the police force.

    In this country anyway, these three bodies are still massively male dominated - particularly at the top levels.

    I don't think anyone can deny that this is still the case?

    I'd be interested in seeing statistics on political power wielded by jobs/careers where women are more heavily repesented than men.

    Does it really matter whether women take up half the police force and the supreme court? Seriously, what difference does it make whether its men or women?


  • #126
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Of course, it completely ignores jobs where women outnumber men
    Eh, no. Quite the opposite: it highlights that those positions that are most vested with power and money are predominately held by men. The rather obvious (if implicit) corollary to this is that those fields in which women outnumber men carry less pay and less power

    As an example, the fact that most most nurses are female in no way excuses the fact that most consultants (a much better paid and prestigious role) are male. Similarly, women being in the majority in teaching has no absolutely bearing on men dominating the highest judicial and political bodies in the country


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Does it really matter whether women take up half the police force and the supreme court? Seriously, what difference does it make whether its men or women?


    Of course it matters, why on earth would you think it doesn't?

    If it wasn't gender, but a racial difference, would you think it was ok that a racial group who made up 50% of the population were largely absent in the seats of state power?

    Edit: newer Garda numbers: (from 2009)

    eo2MMUo.jpg


  • #128
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,190 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    So no mention of most military forces are male dominated? Most conscriptions are male only and no mention of it?


  • #129
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Women have been fighting across the world to be ALLOWED to join armies, and I think the danger of being conscripted is pretty much gone for anyone living in the first world so that's nothing but a red herring.


  • #130
    Daqster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 723 ✭✭✭Daqster


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    It's not remotely a red herring to say that anti father laws have their origins in traditional notions of the mother as the carer and the father as the provider.

    I never said it was a red herring, just for someone to merely make the statement. What I said was that it is a red herring to use that fact as some kind of justification of why those laws and bias remain today. As I said in my post, many sexist laws that have their origins in that time have had legislation put in the place to redress them and so it is far from an adequate explanation as to why the bias still exists today, to just keep restating that well accepted point, which is what generally happens whenever this topic is raised.
    And it's not about blaming the "patriarchy" (a term I hate), it's just stating how things were - no more, no less.

    Oh but that is untrue.

    It's is not just said to state how things were, that is the point, it is said to as a means of administrating blame for how things are.
    Plenty of men supported it and plenty of women with no feminist inclinations supported it.

    You can't deny the roots of it in order to blame feminism.

    I did not deny the roots of it, did you miss:
    Many sexist laws and sexist legislation was drafted and passed during that time period

    Does that sound like someone who is denying the roots of laws based on traditional values? Nope, it does not.


  • #131
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    What about the jobs where women can be employed but for the most part make no effort to do so? Construction, mining, etc. Jobs that risk ones life or health. Surely someone interested in equality should want an equal gender split across all careers, and not just those which give power?

    Make no effort?

    I know a few women who trained for and began careers in traditionally very-male dominated, physical jobs but who ended up leaving after a couple of years.

    It wasn't the work that drove them out; it was the co-workers. These are not jobs that welcome women into their ranks without a fight.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Which could just as easily be used to claim that men are more greedy and power hungry than women. It all depends on how you spin it
    Yep. And one theory has it that the first humans were born from Ymir's armpit. Not all ideas are equally valid. Anyone who believes that men deserve to dominate society's key institutions because they are "more greedy and power hungry than women" is simply regurgitating sexist tropes.

    But, more to the point, the key is that the stats that B0jangles produced are very much relevant to this thread and can't be handwaved away so easily
    What about the fact that, in the western world at least, most jobs that put an individuals life or health in danger are male dominated? Are we allowed to talk about that?
    If you can relate that back to why that should inform the composition of Ireland's leading political, judicial and economic organisations, sure
    Depends on whether there are equal numbers from each gender/race/(whatever you want to substitute) applying for these positions.
    No it doesn't. This is very basic: a grossly disproportionate imbalance in genders/sexes/whatever at the top of the tree suggests that there is something wrong several levels below. It's not simply that people are being openly discriminated against (vagina = no job) but that people aren't applying for a reason. Now this might be that their route to professional advancement is blocked or that education channels them into a sector with poor prospects or there's simply the assumption that 'it's a man's job' or whatever.

    The problem with the Dail, to take an example, isn't that there's some conspiracy there to keep the number of women down but that, for a multitude of reasons, there aren't enough women moving into and progressing upwards in politics

    It doesn't always come back to some form of the Penal Laws


  • #133
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,322 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    What about the jobs where women can be employed but for the most part make no effort to do so? Construction, mining, etc. Jobs that risk ones life or health. Surely someone interested in equality should want an equal gender split across all careers, and not just those which give power?
    Indeed. And on the jobs with power front, take politics. How many women are going into politics and standing for office in the first place? If there were the same number of them as men(which I seriously doubt), then it would be down to the electorate which is 50% women(and AFAIR women tend to vote more) to say yay or nay. How is this an unequal playing field?

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #134
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Women have been fighting across the world to be ALLOWED to join armies, and I think the danger of being conscripted is pretty much gone for anyone living in the first world so that's nothing but a red herring.

    Wrong.

    American males have to sign up for selective service in case the draft is re-activated. Women do not.

    Also a 62 year old man in the US military has far more stringent fitness tests to pass than a 21 year old female, because adjustments are made for gender but not for age.


  • #135
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Indeed. And on the jobs with power front, take politics. How many women are going into politics and standing for office in the first place? If there were the same number of them as men(which I seriously doubt), then it would be down to the electorate which is 50% women(and AFAIR women tend to vote more) to say yay or nay. How is this an unequal playing field?

    Yes. And maybe they don't want to, just like possibly men don't want to go into nursing.

    But the bureaucrats with their excel spreadsheets [must make an acronym for that] and the academics in their ivory tower want to tell the world what they should want, rather than just deal with what they actually want.


  • #136
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Wrong.

    American males have to sign up for selective service in case the draft is re-activated. Women do not.

    Also a 62 year old man in the US military has far more stringent fitness tests to pass than a 21 year old female, because adjustments are made for gender but not for age.

    As far as I understand, there are basically 0 penalties for failing to sign up for selective service unless you are applying for a college grant or are seeking naturalization. It's still bullshít that all US men are still expected to do so, but it's not feminism's fault.


  • #137
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Did anyone say it was?

    Given the turn the thread has taken, it is strongly implied unless it was intended to be irrelevant.


  • #138
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    B0jangles wrote: »
    As far as I understand, there are basically 0 penalties for failing to sign up for selective service unless you are applying for a college grant or are seeking naturalization. It's still bullshít that all US men are still expected to do so, but it's not feminism's fault.

    Oh right, and who isn't going to sign up for a college grant? Yes I'd call that a penalty.

    No one said it was feminisms fault. You made a point that nowhere in the world has unequal military conscription policies. I was contradicting you.


  • #139
    Mike747
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 383 ✭✭Mike747


    Gummy Panda wrote: »
    These women be crazy!

    I know women who worship the D like the apes in 2001around the black monolith.

    Thanks for making me laugh out loud in the library.

    Then again that whole article practically had in me tears laughing.


  • #140
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    When did I say that men deserve to dominate society's key institutions? There seems to be a couple of people looking to put words in peoples mouth in this thread to strengthen their own arguments. I agree, by the way, not all ideas are equally valid. What makes you so sure your idea is correct? You're misinterpreting my position, intentionally or not (and going by your willingness to twist my words to strengthen your position, I'm going to go with the former)
    I put no words in anyone's mouth. I stated that anyone who believes that men deserve to dominate those institutions, for whatever innate reason, is wrong and sexist. I never ascribed those to you

    (Although that of course begs the question as to why bring that nonsense up in the first place)
    Those stats that are 20 years old for the most part? They're relevant, sure, if you actually care who holds these positions. If women held more of these positions, I wouldn't care. The men currently in these positions don't share my views simply because they share my gender, I see no reason to assume women in similar positions would be any different.
    1) If you've got more up to date stats then please share them. Particularly if the picture that they paint has changed and women now occupy the majority of the roles in question

    2) It matters. No one has suggested that a man will automatically have the same views as another man because that would be silly. What's being suggested is that the overwhelming preponderance of men in positions of power points to a society in which equal opportunities are not available for men an women
    The point, which you seem determined to miss, is that there are some people out there claiming to campaign for equality, while really only seeking equality within positions of power. Why not across the board? Surely that would be true equality?
    Yeah. Who's arguing against that? Who's arguing that women shouldn't have every right to serve in the army or that nursing should be exclusively female? That's a complete red herring
    What if the reason is they don't want the job? Thats bound to be the case at least some of the time, let it gets overlooked all the time. I have no interest in any such job, for example. Some people just don't. Why assume discrimination?
    Why are you talking individuals? This isn't about "some people", it's about "a sizeable enough number of people to make a statistical difference"

    It will of course be the case some of the time that some people don't want a particular job but, logically, that shouldn't be defined by gender. If, as is the case, young girls don't want to be engineers because it's considered a 'boy's career' then that's a problem. If some women are wary about taking a promotion because of the perception that executive roles are for men then that's a problem. Not least because such preconceptions tend to funnel women into relatively lower paying industries and roles; eg nurses rather than consultants


  • #141
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Reekwind wrote:
    What's being suggested is that the overwhelming preponderance of men in positions of power points to a society in which equal opportunities are not available for men an women
    But equal opportunities do exist, there's nothing stopping women applying for more senior roles. If they feel they've been discriminated at any stage of the recruitment process then they're more than welcome to bring a case against it.

    To take the Dáil as an example, women candidates have roughly the same chance as being elected as male candidates. The issue is that they are not putting themselves forward for elections as much as men.
    Yeah. Who's arguing against that? Who's arguing that women shouldn't have every right to serve in the army or that nursing should be exclusively female? That's a complete red herring
    The point is that there's no one arguing for it. If modern feminism wants equality then it should be arguing for it across the board. Not just in the roles that they want to get into because they feel they have all the power.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    On mobile now so I have limited functionality, but if you check the last page I posted updated Garda statistics from 2009.

    They are still terrible.


  • #143
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Ok, but why are you assuming the reason for this is sexism? Do you know anyone who wants to be a Garda? Are more of them male or female?

    First I'd like an answer to my original scenario - if the numbers were switched as I described, would you think there was an imbalance, or would you be happy to accept that status quo?


  • #144
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    tritium wrote: »
    I do wonder how many posters who were outraged for the return of kings thread are just going to dismiss this blog as a single nutter though :)...
    Ah... you got a pre-emptive dig in. Good for you. ":)"
    Who said the RoK stuff was anything more than a tiny minority?
    If anything, it'll be people claiming this woman and her followers are more than a tiny minority.
    seenitall wrote: »
    I just pity her.
    I find it hard to pity her tbh - yeh I know she must have problems, but hateful venom is hateful venom wherever it comes from.
    clairefontaine wrote: »
    Does it really matter whether women take up half the police force and the supreme court? Seriously, what difference does it make whether its men or women?
    Well it does put paid to the insistence that the pendulum has swung too far and women are the ones in charge of everything now, that kind of shyte.


  • #145
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    But equal opportunities do exist, there's nothing stopping women applying for more senior roles. If they feel they've been discriminated at any stage of the recruitment process then they're more than welcome to bring a case against it.

    To take the Dáil as an example, women candidates have roughly the same chance as being elected as male candidates. The issue is that they are not putting themselves forward for elections as much as men.
    I've addressed this in a previous post, including specifically singling out the Dáil as an example
    The point is that there's no one arguing for it. If modern feminism wants equality then it should be arguing for it across the board. Not just in the roles that they want to get into because they feel they have all the power.
    It would be pretty inane to actively argue and campaign in favour of access to low paid roles, while paying less attention the egregious examples of the dire gender imbalance in Ireland's leading institutions. Not that the former are somehow exempted from the principle of equal access, regardless of gender
    Doctor Jimbob wrote:
    Why would I need to have more up to date stats to point out that 20 year old stats can hardly be deemed relevant?
    Are you being wilfully obtuse? The balance of genders in those stats has not changed significantly in the past two decades. The Dáil still is still predominately male, as are the courts and the boardrooms. The value of updated stats lies in comparing the progress made between then and now, which is not the focus of this conversation

    And if you do have an issue with this, if you do want to see just where we are today, then feel free to go out and produce some stats of your own
    Because viewing people as individuals makes a hell of a lot more sense than taking group averages and applying them across the board.
    Not in a discussion about social trends and gender groups it doesn't. At some point any such position has to to beyond people that you know or hypothetical case studies. Otherwise it's like trying to discuss a banking crisis exclusively in terms of your local Credit Union
    Why shouldn't it be defined by gender? Another poster made the point of a lack of male nurses, no one claims thats discrimination. Maybe men just don't want to be nurses? I see no reason why the same shouldn't apply to females for certain other jobs
    And that's exactly what I was talking about: the idea that professions are segregated, with some for men and some for women. Almost invariably the careers that are supposed to be for men (engineers, consultants, etc) bring more pay and prestige than those reserved for women (housewives, HR, nurses, etc)

    Fundamental to feminism, and all equality, is challenging the assumption that X is for girls and Y is for boys. So yes, women should be allowed to enlist and fight in the military and men should be able to work as nurses, both without the perception that they have crossed over into another gender's profession

    What that means is that all jobs are not just available to all people but that the less obvious social barriers that limit people's career choices also be dismantled


  • #146
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,190 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    B0jangles wrote: »
    On mobile now so I have limited functionality, but if you check the last page I posted updated Garda statistics from 2009.

    They are still terrible.

    Unless you have statistics to show how many men/women actually applied, it's useless. I refuse to believe women aren't getting into the Gardaí cos of sexism, I would think it's proportionate the percentage of people who applied and graduated across both genders.

    Again you express outrage at the lack of women in the police but not the army.


  • #147
    Reekwind
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,126 ✭✭✭Reekwind


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Working in construction and mining isn't low paid, very well paid in fact. Better than a lot of the positions you're arguing more women should be in. Since this is apparently at least partially about pay, that seems a bit strange to me
    Fine, whatevs. I was thinking particularly of building or factory work. But obviously the point still stands as you move up these careers: there is absolutely no good reason as to why these industries should be predominately male
    But why does it matter? I've already said that for me at least, it doesn't matter whether these positions are taken up by males or feamles, they don't represent my views at the moment with a male majority. I see no reason why they would represent my views any less with a female majority.
    Gender equality is either there or it isn't. There is absolutely no point in removing the open forms of discrimination without tackling the various social forces that support the glass ceiling. The overwhelming preponderance of men in our leading economic and political institutions quite clearly indicates that Ireland continues to lag in tackling the latter

    And that's what you still don't grasp. In a world in which the top jobs are generally occupied for women, it means that men are not climbing the professional tree and are restricted to the less important/influential roles
    Why would I go out and produce stats, I'm not the one trying to prove anything.
    You either agree with the picture that the latter paints or you don't. If it's the latter then produce the stats, if it's the former then stop going on about them
    Averages mean very very little over such a large sample size.
    I find it hard to politely express just how wrong that statement is. An increasing sample size is exactly when averages prove increasingly useful and individual examples (aka anecdotes) become useless
    Why do you discuss only the good jobs for men, leaving out the bad ones? Engineers get paid more than nurses regardless of gender.
    Here's a challenge: how many well-paid and professional careers can you name that are more or less exclusively female?
    The thing that has to be remembered as well though, is that males and females are different.
    Not before the law and not in any sense that should see men occupy the highest positions


  • #148
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    Unless you have statistics to show how many men/women actually applied, it's useless. I refuse to believe women aren't getting into the Gardaí cos of sexism, I would think it's proportionate the percentage of people who applied and graduated across both genders.

    1. See garda stats by gender and rank in 2009 here:

    http://i.imgur.com/eo2MMUo.jpg

    Note that while you have 25% of gardaí being female at the lowest rank, the percentage tends to drop significantly the higher up in the ranks you go:

    12% of Sergeants
    7% Inspectors
    5% Superintendents
    6% Chief Superintendents
    9% Assistant Commissioner
    0% Deputy Dommissioner
    And the Chief Commissioner is also a man
    Again you express outrage at the lack of women in the police but not the army.


    2. See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88546527&postcount=145


  • #149
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I've already said It doesn't matter to me who has power since they don't represent my views anyway. Of course you're only asking so you can tell me I'm lying anyway, so whats the point?


    Ok, firstly thanks for the pre-emptive gibe, and secondly you were the one who said feminism is no longer needed and so-called egalitarianism is the way forward - I merely demonstrated that women are still very underrepresented in the three bodies that control the State, therefore there is most definitely still room for activism that seeks to redress this imbalance.


  • #150
    Daqster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 723 ✭✭✭Daqster


    Another laughable quote from the article in the OP:
    That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act.

    If she feels men see women as "instruments for penetration" one wonders what she thinks of rampant rabbits.

    As no doubt if the same number of men had a plastic vaginas at home in their bedside locker, as woman have phallic shaped ones tucked away in similar, that would be seen as smoking gun evidence of precisely what men think of woman in a sexual capacity.
    IvySlayer wrote: »
    Unless you have statistics to show how many men/women actually applied, it's useless. I refuse to believe women aren't getting into the Gardaí cos of sexism, I would think it's proportionate the percentage of people who applied and graduated across both genders.

    Aye and if anything, there are probably fewer men getting into the Gardai because of sexism, than fewer women.

    Wibbs wrote: »
    How many women are going into politics and standing for office in the first place? If there were the same number of them as men(which I seriously doubt), then it would be down to the electorate which is 50% women(and AFAIR women tend to vote more) to say yay or nay. How is this an unequal playing field?

    Indeed and sure didn't this FG politician threaten to quit politics as a result of the very opposite of what has been suggested here:

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/fg-politician-hussey-quits-race-over-gender-quotas-250024.html


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,190 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    B0jangles wrote: »
    Ok, firstly thanks for the pre-emptive gibe, and secondly you were the one who said feminism is no longer needed and so-called egalitarianism is the way forward - I merely demonstrated that women are still very underrepresented in the three bodies that control the State, therefore there is most definitely still room for activism that seeks to redress this imbalance.

    What do you want, quotas?

    More men apply for those jobs, that's hardly their fault.


Advertisement