hatrickpatrick wrote: » If you use Reddit, you had early warning of the "mandatory consent classes" sh!tstorm here, because the same sh!tstorm happened in America back in 2014. Same applies to recent campaigns in the UK for universities to deny a platform to speakers with "objectionable" opinions - that sort of mob censorship was a craze which originated in the US and Canada maybe ~6 months before it started happening in the UK.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » It's not too surprising, most of this identity politics crap is being generated in America and then exported to other countries via the internet. Man shaming campaigns in Irish and British universities for instance are extremely predictable, since like clockwork they appear here roughly one academic year after they have taken hold in the US.
Jayop wrote: » The no platforming thing is a disgrace and will be a complete embarrassment to the liberal left when looking back on this era in the future.
Icemancometh wrote: » It's a problem in most research fields. America is producing an abundance of good quality research (that's also in English!); we just don't have the numbers here. Asking for research on Irish figures is asking for something you know doesn't exist.
AtomicHorror wrote: » You mis-stated my argument. I was pointing out that if the argument is that women can succeed on their own merits without quotas, then Maggie is a **** example of the same, because she succeed by being a man. Plenty of women have succeeded as women, that much is obvious. But you can give all the examples you like, and it won't matter a bit because they're hugely outnumbered by men.
Samaris wrote: » While yes, women in politics ARE outnumbered by men, it's pretty damned sexist to toss away some extraordinary achievements by Thatcher in gaining her position BECAUSE she's a woman who acted in a certain way. People is people and more than just their plumbing. You can have a woman who's tough, decisive, hard and abrasive who is -just as much a woman- as a man who is kind, affectionate and caring is still a man, dammit. To say otherwise is just perpetuating rubbishing stereotypes that help to breed all this.
Jayop wrote: » Another good point well made. :rolleyes:
Jayop wrote: » You see you're starting on the assumption that quotas don't work or are inherently wrong. I disagree with your starting point so of course I'm going to disagree with your end point. Take the PSNI, there was favourable hiring practices for Catholics to address a complete imbalance of hiring in favour of protestants for generations. Irish policics are attempting to do something similar with party sex quotas (quite unambitious ones) to redress the imbalance of pro male selections by the parties for generations.
Samaris wrote: » Girls do biology, boys do physics.
RDM_83 again wrote: » Why is biology often not considered a science when people talk about STEM? Back in the 2000's most of my biology classes had either equal or majority women in them? Is it just left out of the conversation because more women do it so it ruins the, women are put off from STEM thing or is it because its not considered "real science"?
IrishTrajan wrote: » The onus is on you to prove such sexism exists - and if it does, you'd surely have no problem finding cases in the European or UN Courts of Human Rights on the grounds of discrimination. Running a country and being a policeman are not really comparable, it takes a bit more ambition and skill to run for office than it would to train as a police officers. Maybe if you were talking about the upper branches of the police force it could be compared.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » 100% agreed, and I say that as a liberal lefty myself. It'll be hilarious if Donald Trump gets elected US president and the UK actually puts its "we don't like your politics so we're going to ban you" bullsh!t into practise. As somebody who despises Trump, it really makes me facepalm how some leftists don't understand that such tactics very obviously antagonise Trump's supporters and actually earn him new ones.
Samaris wrote: » Yeah, fair enough Although I'm going to toss in ...I know, horrors, personal anecdotal evidence... by saying that my experience, here, in -this- country was not encouraging for me as a female in getting into science. Not when subjects in single-sex schools down to the equipment available was so heavily gendered. Girls do biology, boys do physics. While yes, women in politics ARE outnumbered by men, it's pretty damned sexist to toss away some extraordinary achievements by Thatcher in gaining her position BECAUSE she's a woman who acted in a certain way. People is people and more than just their plumbing. You can have a woman who's tough, decisive, hard and abrasive who is -just as much a woman- as a man who is kind, affectionate and caring is still a man, dammit. To say otherwise is just perpetuating rubbishing stereotypes that help to breed all this.
Jayop wrote: » 1 in 73 and you can't see an imbalance? Madness. So are newly elected first time TD's running the country? It was for the upper branches of the PSNI as well as for new members.
Jayop wrote: » Lefty here too and like you I can see the long game in denying these speakers a platform. What's to then stop right wing organisations stopping liberals from having a platform and pointing to the left's attitudes here as a justification. Thatcher achieved a lot by getting to the top, unfortunately for a lot of woman who had to follow her she screwed over as many people as she could once she got their and for me set the womans rights agenda back a long long way.I don't think there's been a single female leader of either of the two main UK parties since her such was the traumatising effect she had.
darkpagandeath wrote: » When was the last Asian PM or Black ? Being a woman makes one a good PM or even right for being PM ?
Jayop wrote: » Thatcher achieved a lot by getting to the top, unfortunately for a lot of woman who had to follow her she screwed over as many people as she could once she got their and for me set the womans rights agenda back a long long way. I don't think there's been a single female leader of either of the two main UK parties since her such was the traumatising effect she had.
darkpagandeath wrote: » Or maybe not the right leadership credentials ? Being a woman makes one the best choice for the roll of party leader ?
Jayop wrote: » Asian 6.9% of UK Population Black 3% of UK populationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom While woman make up 51% of the UK population.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom Your argument is invalid.
Samaris wrote: » Hells bells, if one person can make you freak out at the idea of anyone from an entire gender should have power I think the issue is more with you! I'd hope that there hasn't been a female leader of either of the two main UK parties since isn't reflective of that attitude or, god help us, we have a lot further to go than I thought!
darkpagandeath wrote: » 24% of households in the UK have dogs too.
Jayop wrote: » Being a man obviously does. In the 146 UK general elections since the first PM there's only ever been one potential woman PM for the people to vote for. The population to their credit aren't sexist given they've voted for a woman the only chances they've gotten. It's the institutions that are sexist.
Jayop wrote: » Erm.... I'm arguing that there should be greater female representation in politics. Maybe have a wee look though my posts there first.
darkpagandeath wrote: » You a list of women who put their names forward for party leader and where not chosen ?
AnonoBoy wrote: » You know what? Feminism is class. See ye later. I'm bored of these conversations already.
Jayop wrote: » Really? That's the level of your logic?
Jayop wrote: » Seriously, after your last post I don't think I'll bother trying to have a reasoned discussion with you any more.
darkpagandeath wrote: » 67% of adults in the UK are fat we should make a Quota for that for politicians right ?
darkpagandeath wrote: » So you are assuming the institution is sexist with no evidence.
Jayop wrote: » You really are making a fool of yourself now. Anyways, I'd say looking at the current make up of the UK parliament those 67% are well represented. 1 in 73. We were told earlier that 1:2 in one sector was proof of evidence of sexist hiring in STEM roles, but 1:73 is somehow not proof of sexism in another area.
Irishcrx wrote: » Single father rights - Or lack there of, absolute joke of a system - Several friends of mine are single fathers and being dragged through hell to see their children even though they are great fathers. All the power with the ex girlfriend and the bitterness , the law says it protects the children but it really is protecting the mother and many abuse this position to exact revenge on an ex - Good father need rights equal to mothers regardless of marriage - Bad ones don't.
Irishcrx wrote: » female on male domestic violence being laughed at and generally looked upon as not being as serious as male on female, a man smacks a girls ass in a club it's sexual assault , a woman does it and it's funny, from looking at these boards alone from day to day you can tell most men have become almost afraid to approach a girl or say boo to them even when they are very in the wrong.
twin_beacon wrote: » then why bother posting?
Maximus Alexander wrote: » The fact that men still face difficulties of their own doesn't make feminism the enemy.
