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

Jayop wrote: »

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.

I was not insinuating that the judge being female has any bearing on the outcome of my case. In fact I am happy with the way she has progressed matters. The LAW is the problem, not the person interpreting it. I was merely pointing out that in my situation, it is a woman in a position of high office. It does not equate to the feminist outcry over male domination, she is there because she worked hard and impressed someone and I applaud that. She belongs there. We don't require quotas to put more women there, they are clearly not excluded.

Quotas. I believe dail quotas were signed into law in 2012, I also believe there are quotas across many sectors within the civil service.

lawlolawl wrote: »

Pretty sure you are incorrect there. Plenty of talk during the election of parties having to run a certain amount of women candidates because they wouldn't receive campaign funding otherwise.

Well done ladies, you got your big chance by default.

There's quotas for parties to have a certain amount of female candidates. There's no quota for the electorate so they can still choose not to elect them.

Well done ladies, here's the chance you simply couldn't get before because of sexism within the parties not putting woman forward.

Jayop wrote: »

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.

I think this is more to do with the statistic that women in STEM related fields are 2-3 times more likely to get the job, due to people wanting to hire more women and be seen to be equal opportunities.

Jayop wrote: »

2) Surely the ratio of men Vs woman in other trades is skewed even more in favour of men. Bricklaying, carpentry, auto mechanics etc.

Which is more to do with their desire to work those jobs, and not the people hiring the jobs preferring one over the other (though of course there would be instances of companies contracting men instead of women). Comparing "masculine" fields (such as construction) with "feminine" fields (such as nursing) is flawed, you can't really compare them and expect to draw accurate results. STEM is probably the least biased of industries to compare in, there's plenty of female scientists and mathematicians, and plenty of male ones.

And there seems to be a recent leaning to favouring women over men.

Jayop wrote: »

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.

Anecdotal evidence, unfortunately, is not evidence, and if it is proved to be discrimination, you can go to the courts of compensation - there's not really much more you can do to achieve "equality".

Jayop wrote: »

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.

That's hardly something you can remedy, and while annoying, it's not really "sexist". I've had gay men badger me (I'm aware it is anecdotal). People harass people based, not solely on gender, but on the fact that Person A is an annoying cúnt.

Jayop wrote: »

There was a post on page one with instances of sexism.

You could add tot hat the whole issues surrounding bodily autonomy and the right to choose. Most of the sexism now isn't big grand scale institutionalised sexism because thankfully we've got laws to eradicate most of that.

So, if that has been eradicated, how is that relevant to the posit that there's still a lot more to do?

Bodily autonomy is tricky and not really sexist. A man can't have an abortion, I don't really think it is comparable in this instance.

Jayop wrote: »

Most of the the issues now are either things in private like the still alarming amount of woman being sexually assaulted or physically assaulted

And how do you combat this? Simply "raising awareness" and such isn't going to stop it, there are many instances of men being abused by women. People are aware it happens, there are laws against such acts, so what else is there to do?

Jayop wrote: »

or instances of casual sexism like woman being badgered in pubs or walking around the streets.

I've replied above, but absolutely a problem for many people (not so much a problem for men most of the time) but how exactly is this relevant to the discussion of equality among sexes?

Jayop wrote: »

There's quotas for parties to have a certain amount of female candidates. There's no quota for the electorate so they can still choose not to elect them.

Well done ladies, here's the chance you simply couldn't get before because of sexism within the parties not putting woman forward.

Do you think Thatcher only got to lead the UK because of gender quotas and not on her own skill and grit? People should be put forward on their merit, not because of their gender.

Jayop wrote: »

There's quotas for parties to have a certain amount of female candidates. There's no quota for the electorate so they can still choose not to elect them.

Well done ladies, here's the chance you simply couldn't get before because of sexism within the parties not putting woman forward.

Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, Mary Robinson, Angela Merkel..... I could fill a page.

None of these women needed quotas to get elected and to rise to the top. Plenty of them also had children that did not seem to hold them back. They are the very embodiment of contradiction of the feminist argument that women somehow need a bit of help to succeed.

If we are going to fight for equality then so be it. Let us talk about the allocation of social welfare, let us talk about the standards of gender sentencing of criminals. The distribution of social housing and homelessness. Let us talk about the whole broad spectrum of equality. Equality is not about furnishing women the ability to have their cake and eat it. It is a two way street and feminism seems to have forgotten to take a look over it's shoulder once in a while and mend the glaring holes left behind in the rapid advance forward.

I'm all for equality, but we passed that marker a few decades ago as far as I am concerned.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Do you think Thatcher only got to lead the UK because of gender quotas and not on her own skill and grit? People should be put forward on their merit, not because of their gender.

lol. One female PM in a several hundreds of years old democracy is surely evidence of a lack of sexism.

Sure there's no racism in the States either, what with Obama being elected President.

I think the OP has the beginnings of a point i.e. I've come across an emerging piece of stupidity where some women seem to think that equality means that the boot is simply on the other foot. How widespread this is I don't know and neither does anyone else here. I'm seeing something stupid but whether it continues to turn into something more institutionalized remains to be seen. I think men need to start saying things like this despite the inevitable backlash.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You think Thatcher is evidence that women will succeed on their merit? Thatcher succeeded because she demonstrated traditionally male characteristics. That's what you get when you don't try to level the playing field, an environment that filters out women who display anything less than classical male traits.



And how many pages would we fill with the men? You can name as many women in power as you like, but the numbers are indisputable. Men dominate, and that means our political institutions are not representative of our people.

Yeah to hell with a person who is right for the job has the right experience. It's like quotas for black people, Being black does not make you good at a job or right for the position. Care to point to the glass celling stopping women being voted in ?

Jayop wrote: »

IrishTrajen you've posted a few times your stats about STEM jobs and the fact a woman is 2/3 times more likely to get a job., Surely there's a wealth of evidence to back this up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/14/study-finds-surprisingly-that-women-are-favored-for-jobs-in-stem/

Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci think so. As the co-directors of the Cornell Institute for Women in Science, they have spent much of the past six years researching sexism in STEM fields. And according to their latest study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, women are no longer at a disadvantage when applying for tenure-track positions in university science departments. In fact, the bias has now flipped: Female candidates are now twice as likely to be chosen as equally qualified men.

Jayop wrote: »

A lot of the rest of the posts you've agreed that sexism is there and just simply brush it aside with a "ah sure what can we do about that attitude". It's relevant to the post because imo woman still receive a lot of ****e in their daily life simply for being woman and that's very relevant in a discussion about equality among sexes.

You've stated there's "a ways to go". How exactly do you stop people on being annoying cúnts? I've had women be annoying cúnts, I've seen men be annoying cúnts. There's really no gender divide, it's a "prick vs not-a-prick" divide.

Your "discrimination" in the work place is anecdotal at best and already illegal, what more do you want?

Jayop wrote: »

lol that's a good one.

I tell you what, if we're all going to discuss her can we first all agree that she was an epic see you next tuesday and then at least we're all on the same page?

I don't think in all I've read and watched about Thatcher and having been brought up in NI during her reign have I heard her referred to as maternal and feminine.

That would be misogynistic. This is problematic.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And to her people?

That is another thread entirely. Maggie was a brutal demon.

Jayop wrote: »

lol that's a good one.

I tell you what, if we're all going to discuss her can we first all agree that she was an epic see you next tuesday and then at least we're all on the same page

You seem biased to dislike her, you'll just discredit her having got there on her own. There's no point in furthering this debate.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And to her people?

Should she have had to be softer on her people just because she was a woman?