Jayop wrote: » We may be in agreement about womans rights, however you could probably do with pulling you neck in at any perceived slight to woman. Una Munnelly is a horrible writer and is deliberately obtuse and controversial to get hits. I can't for the life of me understand why the Times pay her wages, but then most of their columnists are of the same ilk regardless of whether they are right wing, left wing, pro this or anti that they all same to be equally crappy writers.
IrishTrajan wrote: » Could you cite some instances?
Jayop wrote: » No-one is saying that it's not much much better than it was even a generation ago, but there are still some ways to go to ensure full equality of the sexes.
IrishTrajan wrote: » Gay marriage passed this year, but was illegal 20 years ago... Are you trying to say people hold the same beliefs forever?
Arkady wrote: » In some areas women don't have equal rights, in some areas men don't have equal rights. To me, everyone should have the same rights regardless of being female or male. I don't think seeking rights for just one sex, or the other is the answer to anything.
AnonoBoy wrote: » Okay. Go back and read my post in a sarcastic tone of voice. We're in agreement.
fatknacker wrote: » Women weren't even allowed to own property, the movement, like many (including the rebellion) paved the way for things to come. Here's an example of sh1te Irish women have had to wade through just one generation ago.http://www.irishcentral.com/news/how-things-have-changed-ten-things-that-irish-women-could-not-do-in-1970s-183526621-237593131.htmlYou think the attitudes that favoured any one of these restrictions have been eradicated after 40 years? Sure the last slave laundry only closed in 1996.
py2006 wrote: » Is that deliberate or do you have a complete ignorance of the genuine criticism of modern feminism?
Jayop wrote: » Not every post criticising a feminist writer is criticising feminism...:rolleyes:
Jayop wrote: » In pretty much every circumstance apart from the family courts the male will have an advantage. Woman are still the more oppressed of the two sexes.
AnonoBoy wrote: » Sure that's feminism's fault and all I'd say. Also I saw a woman playing tennis badly the other day. Feminism again. Also a woman was rude to me in the shop the other day. Again, feminism. Sure it's everywhere.
fatknacker wrote: » Women got the sh1te kicked into them for asking for the vote. That was less than 100 year ago. Something tells me this country or others won't be celebrating the suffragette movement in a tiny fraction of the scale that 1916 is.
Representation of the People Act 1884 - addressed imbalances between the boroughs and the countryside; this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised because of the property qualification. Between 1885-1918 moves were made by the women's suffrage movement to ensure votes for women. However, the duration of the First World War stopped this reform movement. See also The Parliamentary Franchise in the United Kingdom 1885-1918. Representation of the People Act 1918 - the consequences of World War I persuaded the government to expand the right to vote, not only for the many men who fought in the war who were disenfranchised, but also for the women who helped in the factories and elsewhere as part of the war effort. All men aged 21 and over were given the right to vote. Property restrictions for voting were lifted for men. Votes were given to 40% of women, with property restrictions and limited to those over 30 years old. This increased the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million with women making up 8.5 million of the electorate. Seven percent of the electorate had more than one vote. The first election with this system was the United Kingdom general election, 1918. Representation of the People Act 1928 - equal suffrage for women and men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions
fatknacker wrote: » Women got the sh1te kicked into them for asking for the vote. That was less than 100 year ago. Something tells me this country or others won't be celebrating the suffragette movement in a tiny fraction of the scale that 1916 is. Not to mention the creation of the Free State bode incredibly badly for women. The last 60-70 years has been an exercise in complete control and infliction of body horror that makes me wonder what was the point in celebrating freedom from the British empire to be imprisoned more horrifically by the church.
Maximus Alexander wrote: » When women are treated like human beings, everybody wins. I find it hard to be annoyed about feminism making the deck less hilarious stacked in my gender's favour.
seamus wrote: » Far from this idea that the "gains" by feminism are making life increasingly more difficult for young men growing up, it's in fact freeing them. Freeing them to be who they want to be rather than what they think they're expected to be. There is perhaps something of an imbalance in some regards where young boys are still being raised to conform to a particular way of life. But young women are not being raised to "fit" into the opposite side of that puzzle. And some commentators are claiming that this is resulting in increased disenfranchisement among young men who don't have the skills to cope in society. That doesn't mean that we're raising women wrong, it means we're raising men wrong.
Jayop wrote: » She's just an awful writer.
py2006 wrote: » Una Mulally who is a journalist (ehem, ammature blogger) for the Irish Times is a prime example of how the vile, poisonous influence of todays feminism has been allowed to infiltrate media.
SterlingArcher wrote: » Definitely getting ridiculous. I had a woman recently threatening me with court. I refused to pay for wheelchair access to her apartment. She claimed I had impeded her right to walk properly.
Maximus Alexander wrote: » Feminism is not an attack on you personally. It's not even an attack on men at all unless you listen to the fringe lunatics to whom the internet gives a voice.
