Jayop wrote: » 2) There's no quotas for election.
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.
IrishTrajan wrote: » Gay marriage passed this year, but was illegal 20 years ago... Are you trying to say people hold the same beliefs forever?
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.
Tommy Rifle wrote: » Women have no less bodily autonomy than men. Neither have the right to pay to have surgery to remove whatever they want from their body. Neither are allowed to kill themselves.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Jayop wrote: » or instances of casual sexism like woman being badgered in pubs or walking around the streets.
Jayop wrote: » 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. Ah stahp. If you don't agree with abortion then just say that rather than trying to say that a man and woman have the same bodily autonomy when they clearly don't.
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.
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.
FortySeven wrote: » Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, Mary Robinson, Angela Merkel..... I could fill a page.
FortySeven wrote: » 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.
Icemancometh wrote: » While I was mainly irritated about gender quotas because of the way it was implemented (ie making state-funding conditional on meeting the requirements of the government of the day, I'm sure that won't come back to bite us), this logic annoyed me too. It came up an awful lot, and I think it simplified things too much, and made it into a "those parties are holding us back, they're the problem" situation. Research has consistently shown there are 5 main aspects affecting women's participation in the political process; cash, childcare, culture, confidence and candidate selection. The government's response was to take the easiest one to shoehorn a solution one, force it upon everyone, then declare job done.
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.
FortySeven wrote: » No she didn't. She displayed leadership qualities. Maggie was quite feminine and a motherly figure to her colleagues in office.
Jayop wrote: » AKA Step 1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
AtomicHorror wrote: » And to her people?
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
darkpagandeath wrote: » That would be misogynistic. This is problematic.
