Should this be tolerated?

missmatty

In all fairness, is Hillary not past the pmt stage by now?

Although the menopause is other thing entirely

I don't like the woman whatever way I approach the situation, but I would not at all be against a woman for president. If they were the better candidate :rolleyes:

citytillidie

Neither should be okay but your see more and more ads making men look stupid like the Capital one ad where the woman is jugging and talking to her friend while i man is holding onto her ankle.

LadyJ

citytillidie wrote: »

Neither should be okay but your see more and more ads making men look stupid like the Capital one ad where the woman is jugging and talking to her friend while i man is holding onto her ankle.

That's fair enough but as I said before the point I'm making is with regard to gender discrimination somehow being more acceptable than racial discrimination. I'm not talking about women vs men.

newbusiness

America has a tradition of freedom of speech that we don't have here.

Basically anyone can say anything about anyone else and have very little llikelyhood of being sued for slander/libel. It requires "acute malice".

The problem with that is that you can't believe almost anything anyone says about another person.

TequilaMockingBird

Perhaps we should hand over the reins to women all over the world, the men, if they think so differently to us, have made a right mess of it.

Sexist I guess...

citytillidie

LadyJ wrote: »

That's fair enough but as I said before the point I'm making is with regard to gender discrimination somehow being more acceptable than racial discrimination. I'm not talking about women vs men.

Sorry worded it wrong.

I meant to say raceisem and sexisem should not be tolerated in any kind of shape or form.

LadyJ

citytillidie wrote: »

Sorry worded it wrong.

I meant to say raceisem and sexisem should not be tolerated in any kind of shape or form.

Ah, I see.....and agree! So I guess everything's wrapped up in a neat little package!

St Bill

I have to agree....it's definitely more fashionable to be sexist than racist. An ad saying 'I wouldn't vote for a black person' would not be tolerated, and if an ad like that had been aired, I guarantee we would've heard about it on the radio on the way into work this morning

Wreck

St Bill wrote: »

An ad saying 'I wouldn't vote for a black person' would not be tolerated, and if an ad like that had been aired, I guarantee we would've heard about it on the radio on the way into work this morning

You say that like its a bad thing lol.

St Bill

Yeah 'course it is! I need my Britney/Kylie/Jordan/Brangelina fix in the morning, to hell with the worthy stuff

Time Magazine

WindSock wrote: »

Yes, and what does she do? Not much to do with the running of a country.

I think the power to refuse to sign any law into power is a pretty important act. I also think being the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces is also quite important, seeing as we're now at war.

GinnyJo wrote: »

Bless, encouraging violence:rolleyes:

A bucket of tar for you, then.

As a scientist I'd love to see the FACT you are linking to there, all that links to is your comment on some research that maybe be undergoing, somewhere, at sometime.

I'll look through JSTOR for links, but not now. Just to give you an idea of the amount of literature on this topic though, I point you to the current edition of The Economist which carries a report on whether physical appearance affects management performance. They mentioned controlling for factors such as sexual attraction. They did not need to account for gender: none of the hundreds of prominent business people they used were female. Do you wish to suggest that the r² on patriarchy is +1 and that none of this has to do with ability?

Also I'm concerned a self-proclaimed scientist didn't notice anything with the post I linked to. Have you a link to prove you're a scientist?

You can't declare something a scientific fact unless you have the papers and publications to back up the research and findings, any scientist knows that.

O RLY? The sky is blue. The sun is a star. The earth is approximately spherical. Your response: "pics or it didn't happen" :rolleyes:

LadyJ wrote: »

Surely a lot of things affect decision-making ability regardless of gender though?

Yes. I imagine being clinically insane affects your ability to make rational choices. Just as a response of "but being clinically insane is only one thing that affects choices, regardless of gender" doesn't really cut it, yours doesn't quite either.

Also, I think I walked past you at the junction of Tara Street and Pearse Street today. Were you wearing a purple hat?

Catari Jaguar

Ibid wrote: »

Three irrational days a month.

Hilary Clinton is 60 years of age. Cop yourself one. She's even beyond menopause. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

LadyJ

Ibid wrote: »

Yes. I imagine being clinically insane affects your ability to make rational choices. Just as a response of "but being clinically insane is only one thing that affects choices, regardless of gender" doesn't really cut it, yours doesn't quite either.

I take your point but I'm a little confused as to what we're arguing about tbh. I realise that the difference between the way men and women think is not equivalent to saying that a black man would have different decision-making abilities to a white man, however, I just think that in a political race people should be concerned with policies etc. as imo, it is far more relevant. Of course this is sadly not the case. In reality most people know little more than the names of the candidates and vote anyway.

Sexism and racism are different for sure but it is all discrimination regardless. I know that there are people who don't want a female precsident for whatever reason and there are surely some who don't want a black one too but I think it is just as irrelevant to show people saying they wouldn't vote for a woman as it is to show people saying that they wouldn't vote for a black guy.

My point is just that it is obviously far more contravertial to say on tv that you wouldn't vote for someone who is black than it is for people to come on and say they wouldn't vote for a woman. However, clearly no one seems to mind when it is the latter, which I find kind of annoying tbh.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't quite realise you were talking to me about periods. I was under the impression we were just discussing how the way in which men and women come to decisions is different.Not quite with it today! Good thing I'm not in charge of anything! Firstly, Clinton is surely passed all that and secondly, in what way are women's decision-making abilities affected by their period. Link me to something sciencey because I'm not too up to speed with this theory.

Also, I think I walked past you at the junction of Tara Street and Pearse Street today. Were you wearing a purple hat?

Pink hat! Though that's an argument for another day!

metaoblivia

Some people here do think that Clinton shouldn't be president because she's a woman, just like some people here think that Obama shouldn't be president because he's half black. However, the majority of these people would normally vote for a Republican anyway, considering the liberal stance on social issues taken by the Democratic party. Is it a backwards attitude? Of course. But they're entitled to it, and they're entitled to express it. There's not much the Clinton campaign can do about it, except to call it for what it is - ignorance - and use it to further galvanize her supporters.
Also, Clinton will gain votes on account of her gender. There are many socially liberal, empowered American women who would love to see a female president. I know I would, even thought right now I'm supporting Obama. But if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, I'll be voting for her come election day because she's preferable to the Republican options.

Lil' Smiler

Yeah but that's what a lot of people are just seeing now with Clinton and Obama, that either way if one of them wins it's going to be a historical moment for the US as they'll either have their first woman or first black president

This came up in a lot of the media coverage last week when the two candidates seemed to be making digs at each other and they have tried to keep it away from this now and try to get people to remember it's about their plans for the country to make it a better place etc and show them what they can do for the people rather than making their gender or race the main issue.

ferdi

LadyJ wrote: »

Why is it ok for women to be made fools of on tv but yet somehow taboo to do the same with regard to race? Seems crazy to me.

meh, it has been acceptable for men to be mocked and pilloried in the media and especially advertising for years now. Constantly been made out to be complete gobshites compared to their female conterparts in simple everyday things.

If its good enough for the Goose etc....

Jesus Wept

Give Billary a 3rd term, I like the cut of his jib.
His wife seems grand too.

Susannahmia

Ibid wrote: »

I think the power to refuse to sign any law into power is a pretty important act. I also think being the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces is also quite important, seeing as we're now at war.

?

So Ireland is at war now?

Dudess

ferdi wrote: »

meh, it has been acceptable for men to be mocked and pilloried in the media and especially advertising for years now. Constantly been made out to be complete gobshites compared to their female conterparts in simple everyday things.

Yeah, those ads depict women as complete kunts. There's a bank ad at the moment featuring two bints having a chat (no doubt over a skinny latté with lots of shopping bags - you go girls!) and one of them is talking about how she opened an account with this bank and got €150 for free so she and the fella were able to go to a fancy restaurant. Friend: "Oh great, so you got a free meal!" Money recipient: "Oh no, he still paid but I got to buy a fabulous dress and I was able to show it off in the restaurant!" With that, they both let out a seriously forced giggle and the ad ends.
Gas.

Ginny

Ibid wrote: »

Also I'm concerned a self-proclaimed scientist didn't notice anything with the post I linked to. Have you a link to prove you're a scientist?

Ibid wrote: »

This is an active research topic in the fields of Behavioural Finance and Corporate Leadership, within the Efficient Market framework. The empirical evidence is overwhelming that there is a statistically significant difference between the mean covariance of women's management and their menstrual cycles.

Of course many women get emotional and refuse to accept the cold, hard facts. This just proves the literature's findings.

This is the post you linked to, unless theres some mysterious link to some valid research I'm missing.
Pics or it didn't happen? no I'm looking more for the FACT you claim there was in the post you linked to, and yes there are numerous links to prove I'm a scientist, whats your point?

O RLY? The sky is blue. The sun is a star. The earth is approximately spherical.

Again here you're stating general stuff not stating FACT without backing it up.

St Bill

ferdi wrote: »

meh, it has been acceptable for men to be mocked and pilloried in the media and especially advertising for years now. Constantly been made out to be complete gobshites compared to their female conterparts in simple everyday things.

If its good enough for the Goose etc....

The OP is saying that it seems to be acceptable to be sexist in the election campaign ads e.g. I'm not voting for a woman, but would a racist comment be tolerated e.g. I'm not voting for a black person.
On a side note, those man-bashing ads give women a bad name! And they're highly unimaginative to boot (tsk, tsk lazy copywriters)

Time Magazine

Lil Kitten wrote: »

Hilary Clinton is 60 years of age. Cop yourself one. She's even beyond menopause. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Read my post like a good woman and stop jumping to irrational conclusions. I offered a reason; I didn't say I agreed with it. Nor am I saying it's likely, but it's possible. Now read my posts before you click the rolleyes smiley button five times again kthxbye.

Susannahmia wrote: »

So Ireland is at war now?

Good to know you follow current affairs. Next I expect you'll try pull me up on the definition of being at war.

GinnyJo wrote: »

This is the post you linked to, unless theres some mysterious link to some valid research I'm missing.
Pics or it didn't happen? no I'm looking more for the FACT you claim there was in the post you linked to

And I told you I'd get some links from JSTOR for you in time. I was in a rush to go to dinner earlier and it's past 11:30pm so it's going to have to wait.

I'm also waiting for your answer to the power of the patriachal variable.

GinnyJo wrote:

yes there are numerous links to prove I'm a scientist, whats your point?

GinnyJo wrote:

Ibid wrote:

O RLY? The sky is blue. The sun is a star. The earth is approximately spherical.

Again here you're stating general stuff not stating FACT without backing it up.

This is my precisely my point: It is (imho) widely known that is has been shown that women display differences in mental capacity/reasoning at different phases of their monthly "cleansing". Most reasonable people don't require a link to the works of Kepler or Einstein to accept the world is round and the sky is blue. Furthermore, the vast majority don't require such tedium and then claim to be a scientist without backing that up themselves...

Bottle_of_Smoke

LadyJ wrote: »

Sexism and racism are different for sure but it is all discrimination regardless. I know that there are people who don't want a female precsident for whatever reason and there are surely some who don't want a black one too but I think it is just as irrelevant to show people saying they wouldn't vote for a woman as it is to show people saying that they wouldn't vote for a black guy.

My point is just that it is obviously far more contravertial to say on tv that you wouldn't vote for someone who is black than it is for people to come on and say they wouldn't vote for a woman. However, clearly no one seems to mind when it is the latter, which I find kind of annoying tbh.

Not all discrimination is equally bad. Sexual discrimination makes more sense because men & women are different sexes, different psychological make-up & have different emotional responses.

Black produce a higher rate of melanin than whites. That's pretty much it. Therefore "I don't want a black man with his finger on the button" is much more unacceptable than "I don't want a woman with her finger on the button"

I doubt there'd be a thread like this in BGRH if they showed a woman saying she'd prefer a female president.

Jules

Nice to see a serious conversation going on but can we have less of the sly remarks and jibes.

Thanks!

Reku

Susannahmia wrote: »

I don't believe that men should be discriminated against either but what you just said was ridiculous. Men are still far more powerful in society and have been discriminating against women for centuries. How do women deserve their own medicine? Surely if you were to take that kind of mentality it would be the other way around?:eek:

An eye for and eye, and :eek:
We're all blind.

Besides, that men are more powerful in the current society is a bit untrue, wasn't a member of the Trinity college staff sacked only last year because of making a, rather true according to all the evidence, generalised differentiation between the male and female minds in specific areas, in spite of his repeated use of the words "in general". That entire thing was blown all out of proportion because some feminist groups latched on and decided to take offence that he dare state what all evidence supports, yet paternal rights groups get completely ignored to the point the have to do completely daft thing just to get any notice.

In recent years the concept of R'n'B seems to have gone completely out the window for simply if it's females putting down males in a song it's R'n'B. As for rap that tends to be equal oppertunity in that it's just angry music.

Susannahmia wrote: »

And what about the music videos that come with these songs, depicting half naked women, do you not think that's demeaning?

Yes... these women were forced to do this... as are the chippendales...:rolleyes:
If you're going to play the feminism/equality line at least put some real thought into your stance, if you really want equality you have to accept that some women's only ambition is to be admired, on a purely shallow level, by men and to pursue that is as much their right as it is others to pursue an entirely academic career.

GinnyJo wrote: »

As a scientist I'd love to see the FACT you are linking to there, all that links to is your comment on some research that maybe be undergoing, somewhere, at sometime. You can't declare something a scientific fact unless you have the papers and publications to back up the research and findings, any scientist knows that.

Well it's certainly not scientific evidence, simply an observation but there's one girl I know who around a certain time of the month is prone to bursting out crying at the drop of a hat.:(
If however as you claim that a woman's period has no effect on her behaviour and as such would not in any way affect decision making, then why the heck do men have to put up with a load of crap with women hiding behind the excuse that it's their period??? If you're going to be in a foul mood at least just be honest about it and don't hide behind something just because you know we can't counter the excuse since we have no experience of the condition.:mad:

Just want to state for the record I think Hillary could be a great president for the US, her husband was a great diplomat and while people say opposites attract they often don't stay together, as such I can only assume she has in many ways a similar mindset and as such is just what the US needs after Bush's let's fight everyone stance. Through her husband she has also already seen what it is really like to be president of the US, and as such the fact that she would put herself forward to me says she must really feel she can do it. Lets face it, even if she did slip up and let her feelings cloud her judgement due to hormones there's a senate there to limit the damage of it.
As for having to deal with the more sexist governments abroad I would hope that she would inspire them to repect women rather than illicit a view of weakness.

As for the racism being more acceptable than sexism:
(These are all on a broader level, ignoring any sects/cults/minorities of society which may have continued to practice what was in the main of society viewed as improper behaviour)
Who had the vote first, women or blacks (including black women obviously)?
Who would have been more recently considered a commodity for open sale on a market?
Who would it have been more recently acceptable to have taken out and whipped in public?
Basically I think blacks have a lot more right to be pissed off over how they and their ancestors were treated than females do about the treatment of women, as such racism can justifiably spawn far more animousity and I expect this to remain the case for many, many years to come.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not all discrimination is equally bad. Sexual discrimination makes more sense because men & women are different sexes, different psychological make-up & have different emotional responses.

Black produce a higher rate of melanin than whites. That's pretty much it. Therefore "I don't want a black man with his finger on the button" is much more unacceptable than "I don't want a woman with her finger on the button"

Great point! *claps*

gingerhousewife

Ok, I think we're all agreed that men and women think differently, now what I want to know is who decided that a mans way of thinking is more suited to politics/control than that of a woman?

I do not think that Hillary Clinton would automatically be a good president because she is a woman, but I do think she is a good candidate, as is Obama, and not simply because he is a man.

The fact that men and women think differently should add to the variety of candidates, in the same way that Republicans and Democrats think differently.

LadyJ

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not all discrimination is equally bad. Sexual discrimination makes more sense because men & women are different sexes, different psychological make-up & have different emotional responses.

Black produce a higher rate of melanin than whites. That's pretty much it. Therefore "I don't want a black man with his finger on the button" is much more unacceptable than "I don't want a woman with her finger on the button"

I understand what you're saying but as I was saying earlier, a lot of things would surely factor into how people respond emotionally, not just gender. I know on a whole women and men have different kinds of thought processes but you're forgetting about the nurture aspect of it all I think. Imo, nurture plays just as big a part as nature so someone's thinking can be influenced a great deal by the people around them and the way they are brought up.

So, while I do agree that you are right, being black does not equate to being a woman and I do see why gender is more relevant to some people than race would be, I still think, due to the fact that there are so many other factors involved in thought processes that either it's all relevant or none of it is when it comes to choosing a president.

Uh I hate debating in work. I can't clarify things as much as I should be able to but I'll call you later and make you agree with me!

I doubt there'd be a thread like this in BGRH if they showed a woman saying she'd prefer a female president.

Tbh, I think some of the people on the ad were women. Not just men saying it.

Ginny

Ibid wrote: »

And I told you I'd get some links from JSTOR for you in time. I was in a rush to go to dinner earlier and it's past 11:30pm so it's going to have to wait.

I'm also waiting for your answer to the power of the patriachal variable.



This is my precisely my point: It is (imho) widely known that is has been shown that women display differences in mental capacity/reasoning at different phases of their monthly "cleansing". Most reasonable people don't require a link to the works of Kepler or Einstein to accept the world is round and the sky is blue. Furthermore, the vast majority don't require such tedium and then claim to be a scientist without backing that up themselves...

You actually said

I'll look through JSTOR for links,.....Also I'm concerned a self-proclaimed scientist didn't notice anything with the post I linked to

Hence my linking your post.
"Monthly cleansing" seriously? thats how you describe a period?
Do you also know the % of women who are on the pill and so a % not have a period at all, plus your comment of 3 days is widely off when it comes to periods.
Where have I asked for a link to the sky being blue etc.?
I've asked for you to provide a link to your claim of scientific FACT, its not that hard to understand.

As for my links to being a scientist anyone can PM for verfication, I do not display my personal life for all the nutters about.

farohar wrote: »

Well it's certainly not scientific evidence, simply an observation but there's one girl I know who around a certain time of the month is prone to bursting out crying at the drop of a hat.:(
If however as you claim that a woman's period has no effect on her behaviour and as such would not in any way affect decision making, then why the heck do men have to put up with a load of crap with women hiding behind the excuse that it's their period??? If you're going to be in a foul mood at least just be honest about it and don't hide behind something just because you know we can't counter the excuse since we have no experience of the condition.:mad:

Problem is Ibid did declare it Scientific fact earlier in the thread.
Again your counting your own experiences as a general one, theres a girl you know...etc... there's always they odd few, as is theres the odd chauvinist pig around but I wouldn't tar all men with the same brush.

Third_Echelon

One point that I think is missing here is that when it comes to decision making time e.g. lets just say Hilary is president and there is a situation that involves the possibility of the big red button being pressed.......

She does not make this decision alone. There are teams of advisers in a lot of different fields with skills appropriate to the situation (both men and women). She ultimately makes the decision, but it won't be made on emotion. There are failsafes in place that help to prevent this.... It will be made upon the information/'facts' given to her at hand....

We all know how the US are in relation to facts. "Oh yeah, there are loads of WMD's over there"

....but that's a discussion for another time and place!

Rainman1

gingerhousewife wrote: »

Ok, I think we're all agreed that men and women think differently

I don't, in my experience when political power is involved, men and women seem to think exactly the same, when Thatcher was in power, Reagan described her as "the best man in England." and I'd like to hear what inspired thinking that she brought to the western political mindset, I'm sorry, but I won't hold my breath waiting for an inspired leader to emerge just because she is a women, I don't believe that there are any differences in the way that men and women think, just social models that both genders subscribe to,