Equal right - Losing it's balance in favour of women?

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

As you can see from this suffrage for women only lagged a decade or two behind most men, and they killed Chartists.
Leaving aside the fact that some of the suffragettes actions if they hadn't been so incompetent would have been a civilian target bombing campaign weirdly thats never brought up by those all too willing to condemn political violence from others

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.

And STEM related jobs - women are 2-3 times more likely to get the job than the male with the same qualifications, due to people wanting to be seen to hire females.

And in some high paying professional jobs, women might make up a small percentage of those applying for an interview (don't have the figures on hand but iirc the figure I remember was 19%) but are more likely to get the job out of those pool of candidates (22%).


To say males have the advantage in "pretty much every circumstance" is simply untrue.

py2006 wrote: »

Is that deliberate or do you have a complete ignorance of the genuine criticism of modern feminism?

I'm still waiting for examples of Mullaly's vileness dude but good to see you've kept a sense of humour. That's important.

But yeah I understand genuine criticism of lots of things. Thanks for asking. I've just become so extremely bored of talk about feminism that sounds for all the world like talk of communism in 1950's America. Vile ideologies infiltrating the media - the language is a wee bit paranoid don't you think?

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.html

You 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.

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.

It's really that simple.

One fight isn't at the expense of the other. Or at least it shouldn't be.

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.

In most scenarios, yes, but there are instances when discriminatory is needed - for example, combat arms in the military. People like to point to the IDF's "mixed gender" units as proof that women can engage in combat, but those units come out with a weaker operational capacity and are more prone to injuries than other all-male units. It's just because women and men are physiologically different.

Lacey Green / Thread.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Could you cite some instances?

I already have done. In this very thread.

Jayop wrote: »

I already have done. In this very thread.

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.

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.

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.

1) I agree with you the family courts are very much skewed in the favour of woman when there's children involved.
2) There's no quotas for election.
3) AFAIK there's no quotas for woman in any workplace in Ireland but I stand to be corrected on that.
4) It wouldn't have mattered if your judge and barristers were all male the outcome for you would have been just as bad.

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 a man. Accepting the low wage is not a low paid position only for women.

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.

I don't think they do. I think they use comparable stats across industries. For example they say the average woman in a marketing company for 10 years will earn less than the average man in the same company for the same length of time. I guess you then have to take into account things like maternity leave, average sick days and stuff like that too.