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

Shenshen · 22-03-2016 08:19PM

The_Conductor wrote: »

Plenty of organisations have 'equality' units- which focus on measures to bring up participation in the organisational structure at various levels. To this end- they hold recruitment drives aimed at women- and minority groups (such as the disabled)- and hold the likes of interview preparation courses- specifically for women- in a stated attempt to get a more representative ratio of women in all ranks.

Where one gender- or section- of the population is specifically excluded- as *is* the case in the likes of internal promotion competitions in the civil service for example- it simply is discriminatory- even if the stated purpose of the discrimination is positive action (its anything but- if you're part of the discriminated against group).

While I really object to quotas as a measure to equalise numbers, I'm not really sure I would object to companies offering additional assistance to minorities in an effort to gain a more mixed workforce. I'm not really sure I would call interview preparation courses for disabled employees discriminatory, either?

gctest50 · 22-03-2016 08:22PM

FortySeven wrote: »

I didn't say safer. I said better. Parking and racing show this to be true. Women are safer because they have to be careful. Wecrash becausewe are careless.

I don't get all this we stuff

Some women are good drivers, some men are good drivers

Better to be in a yoke with a dented wing instead of wrapped around a tree though

FortySeven · 22-03-2016 08:27PM

gctest50 wrote: »

I don't get all this we stuff

Some women are good drivers, some men are good drivers

Better to be in a yoke with a dented wing instead of wrapped around a tree though

We were talking competetive advantage. Spatial perception is widely recognized as a higher developed trait in males. It is why the majority of us are better drivers. There are exceptions on both sides of course and you can continue to try to pretend it isn't so but everyone reading this knows it is true.

The_Conductor · 22-03-2016 08:28PM

Shenshen wrote: »

While I really object to quotas as a measure to equalise numbers, I'm not really sure I would object to companies offering additional assistance to minorities in an effort to gain a more mixed workforce. I'm not really sure I would call interview preparation courses for disabled employees discriminatory, either?

Interview prep courses are for pre-existing staff at promotional competitions- and are for women- men are not eligible for places on the courses. There are no reciprochal courses for men. This is common in most government departments, and also in some notable US multinationals in the country......

Sorry if I confused matters.

Ice Maiden · 22-03-2016 08:28PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Fair enough

Generally when anything facing women is brought up, my experience is that men are straight in with "but what about men". Or "not all men" when it was never implied. Not even as a genuine attempt to resolve issues, just to shout down.
International women's day? Half the response must have been "but what about MENS DAY HUH????" highest google results.

It would be less exhausting if we could all just work together to face the issues for everyone, like how to advance on this year's fatherhood guardianship legislation changes, etc.

God yeah, any time there is a discussion online about sexual assault of a woman, immediately with the "Men get sexually assaulted too" - when nobody said men don't.

Or if there is something about sexualisation of women (this is not something I have a problem with unless it is really extreme): "But the Diet Coke ad".

Why can't people discuss the issues that face men without turning it into a competition with women? And it is just as bad when men talk about issues that affect men and women come along and say "But what about women?"

There were non stop "What about International Men's Day - oh I suppose it would be sexist if there was one" tweets (the answer is 19th of November).

I do not agree with gender quotas by the way and would not like to get a job based on meeting a quota.

22-03-2016 08:32PM

Ice Maiden wrote: »

I do not agree with gender quotas by the way and would not like to get a job based on meeting a quota.

The female TDs all voted against it when it got brought in here afaik

PopePalpatine · 22-03-2016 08:41PM

Let me just step into the discussion about women drivers - pretty much the entire F1 grid and its feeder series' grids (the same could be said for MotoGP) are made up of people who have been driving (usually go-karts) since they were 3-5 years old. I'd hazard a guess that the wealthy families who can fund their children's attempt to get up the ladder with F1 as the ultimate aim aren't going to encourage a 3-6 year old daughter to take up go-karting.

The_Conductor · 22-03-2016 08:42PM

Ice Maiden wrote: »

God yeah, any time there is a discussion online about sexual assault of a woman, immediately with the "Men get sexually assaulted too" - when nobody said men don't.

Women are seen as more at risk of being sexually assaulted than men are- though of course men are sexually assaulted too (though in far lower numbers). Men (between the ages of 18 and 30) are over 9 times more likely to be physically assaulted than any female demographic group. Physical assaults- and sexual assaults are two completely different things of course.

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Or if there is something about sexualisation of women (this is not something I have a problem with unless it is really extreme): "But the Diet Coke ad".

Personally as long as the portrayal isn't degrading to the party concerned- I couldn't give a hoot- all the hoo-haw about sexualisation is overblown out of proportion- while a small amount of the shrill objections are very obviously justified, in my opinion- a large amount of it is not.

Ice Maiden wrote: »

Why can't people discuss the issues that face men without turning it into a competition with women? And it is just as bad when men talk about issues that affect men and women come along and say "But what about women?"

Its not just genders though- have a look at some of the forums here- unfortunately us Irish excel at being hyper competitive in often extreme portrayals of things that are just so wrong. In general- Irish men don't tend to open up- because we're so used to getting shut down- its acknowledged as one of the big reasons for the psychiatric issues in the Irish male population.

Ice Maiden wrote: »

There were non stop "What about International Men's Day - oh I suppose it would be sexist if there was one" tweets (the answer is 19th of November).

Many companies celebrate International Women's Day- often tweeting about their endeavours, often under an equality hashtag. With a few notable exceptions (Dell in Limerick, Intel in Leixlip and 2FM for example)- there is not a reciprochal recognition given to International Mens Day- or issues that predominantly affect men (such as the aforementioned psychiatric epidemic- including suicide- in this country).

Ice Maiden wrote: »

I do not agree with gender quotas by the way and would not like to get a job based on meeting a quota.

I'd hate it too. In my book- the best person for the job, should get the job. You're only going to foster resentment and longterm unhappiness, otherwise.

Wibbs · 22-03-2016 09:14PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that the wealthy families who can fund their children's attempt to get up the ladder with F1 as the ultimate aim aren't going to encourage a 3-6 year old daughter to take up go-karting.

Funny enough I know of a couple who did. Both good drivers when older too. I've known appalling drivers of both genders. I've also known good. Generally speaking though young women are safer than young men behind the wheel. That's pretty easy to observe and is backed up by the stats. Now the stats show they have more shunts, but they're generally smaller shunts at low speeds. Fender benders as it were. When young men have shunts they are much more likely to have big offs that change the local terrain.

Of racing drivers there have been a couple of competitive women. Some very competitive. The French Michelle Mouton was one helluva pilot behind the wheel. And not in some effete polite low powered end either, world class rallying driving truly insane and now illegal Group B rally cars at mad speeds in forests and the like(very basically F1 levels of power in 4 wheel drive lightweight works prototypes). She narrowly missed out on winning the world championship against guys like Walter Rohl who was a giant of driving. Here's herself breaking the record at the Pike's Peak hill climb back in the 1980's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NnmkeyraRc

By the end of that she apparently buggered the tendons in her right foot from holding down the throttle so hard on one of the deadly bends as she knew if she lifted she'd have lost the car and likely her life. Staggeringly talented driver with brilliant tactical skills and like anyone who drove Group B in anger gonads the size of melons.

You would think F1 would be ideal in many ways to level the gender playing field. Most of the drivers are teeny tiny guys and brains and stamina are big pluses. I suspect the muscular strength isn't there or likely to be there in a woman of equal size?

maudgonner · 22-03-2016 09:19PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Of racing drivers there have been a couple of competitive women. Some very competitive. The French Michelle Mouton was one helluva pilot behind the wheel.

Michelle Mouton is amazing. Our own Rosemary Smith wasn't half bad either, for a dress designer

ThinkProgress · 22-03-2016 09:50PM

maudgonner wrote: »

Aside from the obvious physical advantages men have over women (which is a given), I'm interested to hear of the many ways in which my gender is inherently inferior to his/yours. What inbred intellectual superiority do you have? (From birth - not due to education mind) What emotional superiority?

Because that post does not sound like it's talking about societal disadvantages - it's inherent inferiority that's being referred to. That women are a like a lesser species and should be grateful what we are allowed to have.

So can we deduce from your above remarks, then, that you consider physical differences to be the ONLY innate advantages that men have over women...?

And that being the case, we would also have to conclude that you believe those physical advantages are the sole reason that men rose up to become the dominant gender of our species for all of recorded human history?

Do really believe that's possible? That our propensity for larger musculature is the sole reason for our position of dominance for so long? :rolleyes:

Or do you just wish that was the reality?

(I'm not even going touch on the broader issue of how degrading and disrespectful that suggestion is to the all-round and hugely varied capabilities of men)

Ice Maiden · 22-03-2016 10:12PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And that being the case, we would also have to conclude that you believe those physical advantages are the sole reason that men rose up to become the dominant gender of our species for all of recorded human history?

True. There was that whole subjugation of women thing that the Suffragettes fought hard to end not terribly long ago.

B0jangles · 22-03-2016 10:14PM

Is this really the standard of discourse Boards is happy with these days?

A sad sack of a dude who claims that the only reason woman have any freedom at all is because men have chosen not to brutalize them into silent submission?

There is a loud and obnoxious subset of boards users who seem to spend 99% of the time looking into the darkest depths of the internet to find some isolated weird feminist blogger with extremist views and then claim this is they are the base standard of modern feminism, yet Boards has shown itself well able to produce some of the most obnoxious, the most bigoted and most pathetically misogynist sacks of **** possible and they post here with barely a whisper of complaint from the regulars.

Wibbs · 22-03-2016 10:16PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And that being the case, we would also have to conclude that you believe those physical advantages are the sole reason that men rose up to become the dominant gender of our species for all of recorded human history?

There is another angle, namely it could depend on how you frame the idea of the "dominant" gender itself. From a genetic point of view a different story may be in play. For example if we look at the genetic lines of women and the genetic lines of men, there are more of the former. Basically more women had more surviving children than men did. More male lines died out. Quite a few more. It seems that men are more the disposable gender. For obvious reasons. If a group of people faces a catastrophe that decimates the population along gender lines, the loss of child bearing age women is far more of a disaster(if childbearing. While men may be more disposable, women are more on a timer on that score). In a 50/50 split of say 100 people, if all but one or two of the men die, that group is still viable, if all but one or two of the women die then that group is on the short fuse to extinction. "Women and children first" makes a lot of sense on a purely survival of the gene front.

It could also be argued that progress and society building was done on the behalf of and behest of women, by men. The men who built societies or invented new stuff had more access to women and were more likely to have children to carry on their line. There can be an element of behind the scenes proxy to things too. The idea that "behind every great man is a great woman" effect. And in general if things went south, the woman was more likely to survive the southerly fall. Sure she may end up enslaved to another, but she was more likely to not be dead and might have more kids. Again, good for her genes.

It's an interesting area to muse on. For me anyway.

maudgonner · 22-03-2016 10:21PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Is this really the standard of discourse Boards is happy with these days?

A sad sack of a dude who claims that the only reason woman have any freedom at all is because men have chosen not to brutalize them into silent submission?

There is a loud and obnoxious subset of boards users who seem to spend 99% of the time looking into the darkest depths of the internet to find some isolated weird feminist blogger with extremist views and then claim this is they are the base standard of modern feminism, yet Boards has shown itself well able to produce some of the most obnoxious, the most bigoted and most pathetically misogynist sacks of **** possible and they post here with barely a whisper of complaint from the regulars.

They're a small subset of the men who post on here though? Most of the guys (and women) on here are perfectly reasonable and capable of carrying on a good debate, in my experience.

And quite a few of the regulars (male and female) will call out ridiculous comments, from either gender. Sometimes though, you're just banging your head against a brick wall and it does tend to derail any chance of sensible debate. I probably shouldn't have bothered reacting to the comment this evening, tbh. I normally wouldn't bother, but sometimes I'll take the bait in spite of myself

eviltwin · 22-03-2016 10:24PM

Is anyone else sick to death of all the gender stuff on Boards lately? Can we not just have a break from it please.

Ice Maiden · 22-03-2016 10:28PM

The_Conductor wrote: »

Women are seen as more at risk of being sexually assaulted than men are- though of course men are sexually assaulted too (though in far lower numbers). Men (between the ages of 18 and 30) are over 9 times more likely to be physically assaulted than any female demographic group. Physical assaults- and sexual assaults are two completely different things of course.

Personally as long as the portrayal isn't degrading to the party concerned- I couldn't give a hoot- all the hoo-haw about sexualisation is overblown out of proportion- while a small amount of the shrill objections are very obviously justified, in my opinion- a large amount of it is not.

Its not just genders though- have a look at some of the forums here- unfortunately us Irish excel at being hyper competitive in often extreme portrayals of things that are just so wrong. In general- Irish men don't tend to open up- because we're so used to getting shut down- its acknowledged as one of the big reasons for the psychiatric issues in the Irish male population.

Many companies celebrate International Women's Day- often tweeting about their endeavours, often under an equality hashtag. With a few notable exceptions (Dell in Limerick, Intel in Leixlip and 2FM for example)- there is not a reciprochal recognition given to International Mens Day- or issues that predominantly affect men (such as the aforementioned psychiatric epidemic- including suicide- in this country).

I'd hate it too. In my book- the best person for the job, should get the job. You're only going to foster resentment and longterm unhappiness, otherwise.

I am not sure much of that disputes me.

But with regard to International Men's Day, the fact so many men just decide it doesn't exist shows how little research they put into it - maybe they should make more out of it.

maudgonner · 22-03-2016 10:29PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Is anyone else sick to death of all the gender stuff on Boards lately? Can we not just have a break from it please.

It seems to go in cycles. A couple of weeks ago it was all politics threads. Lately it's been gender. But I see Lucretia has just started a religion thread, so I suspect that's where we might be going next

Arkady · 22-03-2016 10:33PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Is anyone else sick to death of all the gender stuff on Boards lately? Can we not just have a break from it please.

I'm afraid some people on both sides won't be satisfied until there is gender civil war. Meanwhile the silent majority know that some women don't have equal rights and should, some men don't have equal rights and should.

Instead of making about rights only for one gender and not another, it should be equal right for everyone regardless of their gender, but instead the drama stage belongs to those who demand rights for one gender and not the other.

B0jangles · 22-03-2016 10:40PM

maudgonner wrote: »

They're a small subset of the men who post on here though? Most of the guys (and women) on here are perfectly reasonable and capable of carrying on a good debate, in my experience.

And quite a few of the regulars (male and female) will call out ridiculous comments, from either gender. Sometimes though, you're just banging your head against a brick wall and it does tend to derail any chance of sensible debate. I probably shouldn't have bothered reacting to the comment this evening, tbh. I normally wouldn't bother, but sometimes I'll take the bait in spite of myself

My point is that their obnoxious attitudes are rarely, if ever questioned by the same boards 'Egalitarians' who spend so much of their time finding obscure weirdoes on the internet as examples of all that is wrong with modern feminism.

If they were true egalitarians they would be as active in fighting negative stereotypes about women as they are about men, but strangely enough, that never happens.

I know, weird, isn't it?

Foxtrol · 22-03-2016 10:51PM

B0jangles wrote: »

My point is that their obnoxious attitudes are rarely, if ever questioned by the same boards 'Egalitarians' who spend so much of their time finding obscure weirdoes on the internet as examples of all that is wrong with modern feminism.

If they were true egalitarians they would be as active in fighting negative stereotypes about women as they are about men, but strangely enough, that never happens.

I know, weird, isn't it?

The problem is you don’t have to go finding obscure weirdos on the internet to see examples of what’s wrong with modern feminism; it’s all over the mainstream media.

The mainstream media regularly jump on any chance to report on the latest outrage from that group, which many times has zero justification in evidence, but the outrage about it will still be reported.

darkpagandeath · 22-03-2016 10:52PM

To lighten the mood.

http://dpi.studioxx.org/sites/dpi.1.sxx.kommun-it.org/files/9-need-feminist.png

My irony meter exploded.

Ice Maiden · 22-03-2016 10:54PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

To lighten the mood.

http://dpi.studioxx.org/sites/dpi.1.sxx.kommun-it.org/files/9-need-feminist.png

My irony meter exploded.

But... maybe the culture being referred to on her sign is her own culture? What other culture would it be?

pragmatic1 · 22-03-2016 11:43PM

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.

"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".

Now that's one profession that's without a doubt dominated by women.

steddyeddy · 22-03-2016 11:48PM

B0jangles wrote: »

My point is that their obnoxious attitudes are rarely, if ever questioned by the same boards 'Egalitarians' who spend so much of their time finding obscure weirdoes on the internet as examples of all that is wrong with modern feminism.

If they were true egalitarians they would be as active in fighting negative stereotypes about women as they are about men, but strangely enough, that never happens.

I know, weird, isn't it?

I actually participate in Athena Swan which attempt to involve more minorities in STEM subjects. I am very definitely an egalitarian. Simply put it means I strive for equality of opportunity for all groups.

Why would I give myself a label that is representative of one group.

ThinkProgress · 22-03-2016 11:50PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Is this really the standard of discourse Boards is happy with these days?

A sad sack of a dude who claims that the only reason woman have any freedom at all is because men have chosen not to brutalize them into silent submission?

Throwing around insults doesn't add any more gravitas to your points. In fact it just makes you appear childish and petulant.

Where did I say anything about brutalizing women?

Without even realizing it, you are indicating that YOU TOO believe men's historical position as the leading gender of our species was/is solely down to our larger muscles and physical force. A truly ridiculous notion!

This is hugely degrading to the capabilities of men! As a man why would I not be insulted by this suggestion?

Whether you like it or not, men have been - and continue to be - the leading gender of our species. (alongside - predominantly in recent history - a great many very capable and competent women)

And I can guarantee you that there is a great deal more behind that position than merely just brawn. To think otherwise, just shows how little respect some people have for male capabilities and characteristics!

Ice Maiden · 22-03-2016 11:53PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, men have been - and continue to be - the leading gender of our species. (alongside - predominantly in recent history - a great many very capable and competent women)

Where does the lengthy time when women were considered inferior (no vote nd dat) fit into this?

hatrickpatrick · 22-03-2016 11:57PM

B0jangles wrote: »

My point is that their obnoxious attitudes are rarely, if ever questioned by the same boards 'Egalitarians' who spend so much of their time finding obscure weirdoes on the internet as examples of all that is wrong with modern feminism.

If they were true egalitarians they would be as active in fighting negative stereotypes about women as they are about men, but strangely enough, that never happens.

I know, weird, isn't it?

This is not some obscure weirdo on the internet nor is it an irrelevant forum post, it's an article in one of the most widely read e-papers in Ireland. That's just one example, want more?

23-03-2016 12:01AM

I hold men to a high esteem and a high standard.
They can handle compassionate non-judgmental but tough conversations. I know they can because I’ve had these conversations with them.

How awful, fetch my smelling salts

I want you to know how supported I feel when you share an article about rape culture online.
I want you to know how encouraged I feel when you denounce the latest lenient rape sentencing, when you decry sexual exploitation, when you interrupt a sexist joke, when you challenge male entitlement.

Terrible!
Hideous!

B0jangles · 23-03-2016 12:01AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is not some obscure weirdo on the internet nor is it an irrelevant forum post, it's an article in one of the most widely read e-papers in Ireland. That's just one example, want more?

Do you have anything whatsoever to say about Thinkprogress's appalling posts or are you siding with most of the one-sided bigoted asses as most 'egalitarians'?

Edit: Oh ****, the person in your quoted article she spoke abut her experiences of being abused and how such abuse is dismissed and sidelined?
You think THAT is a rebuttal of my calling out on the acceptance and normalization of casual misogyny on Boards?

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

Comments