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
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.
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.
Jayop wrote: » Not every post criticising a feminist writer is criticising feminism...:rolleyes:
py2006 wrote: » Is that deliberate or do you have a complete ignorance of the genuine criticism of modern feminism?
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.
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.
IrishTrajan wrote: » Gay marriage passed this year, but was illegal 20 years ago... Are you trying to say people hold the same beliefs forever?
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: » Could you cite some instances?
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.
AnonoBoy wrote: » Hmmmm... you've misread my post. I don't care for her writing either. I was making a joke - imitating dudes who blame feminism for everything. I wasn't attacking your opinion of her writing.
Jayop wrote: » I already have done. In this very thread.
Jayop wrote: » OK I think I get what you were saying now. Crossed wires and all that.
Jayop wrote: » It's my opinion not a researched viewpoint so I'm not going to be handing out sources. 1) 2:1 hiring rations I take it you're referring to things like nursing and teaching? If so then it's much much more likely that it's purely down to the fact that that's the ratio of people entering those fields and not discriminatory hiring practices. In fact in the case of NS teaching I've been told that schools are crying out for male teachers. 2) Surely the ratio of men Vs woman in other trades is skewed even more in favour of men. Bricklaying, carpentry, auto mechanics etc. 3) There's laws against discrimination in hiring but it's very hard to prove that it takes place. I work in a HR type job now and I can assure you that certain employers will favour white male new hires over most others including more qualified candidates. 4) There's more discrimination or sexism than just in employment. Go to a pub on a Saturday night and see woman being harassed constantly by plebs who seem to assume that just because the woman are out then they're fair game to annoy for the night.
IrishTrajan wrote: » The only example I could find was your state "in every circumstance" post, which I've already replied to, unless I'm just being a bit thick and can't find the post. I was asking for specific instances where males are disproportionately favoured.
FortySeven wrote: » I'm in family court at the minute. To say it is biased is an understatement. I won't go into details but if I had done what my ex has done, I would be in prison now. Nothing. Nothing has happened to her. As for employment equality, the judge is a woman, the two sides solicitors are women, the court clerk is a woman, even the garda on the door is a woman. My psychiatrist is a woman (I'm bipolar) as is my counsellor. The headteacher and all the teachers at my childrens school are all women. My GP is a woman. The whole equality in employment is well and truly put to bed for me by my own experience. I believe women should have equal rights, I don't believe they should be allowed to abuse those rights to bypass normal societal practices. By this I mean quotas for elections, quotas for employment etc. This is not a welcome practice in my book. Talent will be elected or employed regardless of gender. Shoehorning in candidates based on dna is as relevant as hiring someone because their daddy worked there. It is not a meritocracy. As for mens rights in the family. Those rights to children and family homes. Disgraceful in this nation. The remnants of a catholic ethos that has no place in a modern society coupled with the (perhaps good intentioned) influence of modern feminism upon the courts has made destruction of men as fathers a simple task for a vengeful mother.
Jayop wrote: » 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
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Hint: The answer is right there in the previous sentence.
darkpagandeath wrote: » Why do they always misrepresent jobs pay stats ? They use low paid jobs that women tend to take to pull the figures down. Men receive the same pay in those jobs. It's also Illegal to pay a woman less than an man. Accepting the low wage is not a low paid position only for women.
Jayop wrote: » Aye I know why, but not why they, The Irish Times, would want to go down that Daily Mail click bait bollocks route.
