Should this be tolerated?

Dudess

Hmmm. Thatcher's way of thinking was particularly 80s though - she was Gordon Gekko in a twinset and pearls. Could one really use her as an example of someone who is representative of all womanhood?

Jules wrote: »

Nice to see a serious conversation going on

Indeed. As opposed to perfume, Valentines Day etc...

Reku

GinnyJo wrote: »

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.

Further problem being whenever I have mentioned about some scientific research conducted, which indicated that most women do not suffer the hormonal shifts and pain required to explain their "moodiness" and as such they are just playing up to the fact that it gives them an excuse to a no-holds-barred venting for a few days a month, I have always been met with responses along the lines of "ah hear now, sometimes it can be really bad" usually followed up with a personal memory from the female.
So basically it looks like feminism rears it's ugly head again in that these women want to have their cake and eat it, we have to tolerate them being downright bitchy a few days a month, yet we're not allowed to in anyway indicate that it happened or suggest that it might be a bad idea that someone prone to these "moods" might not be good in a role that requires making important decisions and diplomacy.
Damn I seem to be on an anti-feminist slant today, but don't worry I hate the chauvanists too!;)

Crumble Froo

Dudess wrote: »

Hmmm. Thatcher's way of thinking was particularly 80s though - she was Gordon Gekko in a twinset and pearls. Could one really use her as an example of someone who is representative of all womanhood?

Indeed. As opposed to perfume, Valentines Day etc...

can any woman be used as an example of someone who is representative of all womanhood?

LadyJ

Crumble Froo wrote: »

can any woman be used as an example of someone who is representative of all womanhood?

Imo, no.

Rainman1

Dudess wrote: »

Could one really use her as an example of someone who is representative of all womanhood?

Indeed, in the same way as horrible little weasels like Bertie Ahern and George Bush are not the kind of examples that we would hold up as representative of all manhood, but the point that I am trying to make is that there are no differences between the way men and women think in politics as was suggested earlier on. A more current example might be the behaviour of a typical over fed greasy politician, who decides that a jolly in the states to attend the super bowl is much more important than a crucial debate on government policy on cystic fibrosis and mental health care, that is pivotal to improving our crumblng health system. The actions of a typical male politician ?, no, the actions of our own wonderful minister for health Mary Harney, representitive of Irish women ?, no bloody way, representitive of the sleazy clique that run this country, absolutely.

gingerhousewife

Totally agree with you Rainman, each individual is responsible for his/her own decisions, and can not hide behind Gender as an excuse.

My point (although I didn't make it clearly enough) was that although it can be argued that men and women are different in a lot of ways, (as opposed to black and white people whose only inherent difference is skin colour) that is not to say that where there are differences, one gender is automatically superior to the other.

Reku

gingerhousewife wrote: »

My point (although I didn't make it clearly enough) was that although it can be argued that men and women are different in a lot of ways, (as opposed to black and white people whose only inherent difference is skin colour) that is not to say that where there are differences, one gender is automatically superior to the other.

Completely agree, just because, in general, one gender may be better at something in no way should this be used as an allowance to assume that any member of that gender is better than any member of the other gender in that regard, in fact you can't assume that the best person in the world at that thing is necessarily from the gender that performs better on average with regards it.
Heck, these days you can't even assume that any woman will have bigger breasts than any man (think the term is moobs?).;)

St Bill

farohar wrote: »

Further problem being whenever I have mentioned about some scientific research conducted, which indicated that most women do not suffer the hormonal shifts and pain required to explain their "moodiness" and as such they are just playing up to the fact that it gives them an excuse to a no-holds-barred venting for a few days a month, I have always been met with responses along the lines of "ah hear now, sometimes it can be really bad" usually followed up with a personal memory from the female.

How can you measure how much pain every woman needs to be in to allow for a change in mood? I hope they used an accurate 'painometer'.
During the time of the month, the side effects I have are pain, 'flu symptoms and an overwhelming desire to sleep. No moodiness.
Now, where's that button?

Black Swan

GinnyJo wrote: »

Because no song is ever about putting women down..

• Bad Girls, by Donna Summers?
• Stupid girls, by P!nk?
• Cold Hearted Woman, by Rainbow?
• Cold Hearted Woman, by Cross Canadian Ragweed?
• The list goes on and on...

Reku

St Bill wrote: »

How can you measure how much pain every woman needs to be in to allow for a change in mood? I hope they used an accurate 'painometer'.
During the time of the month, the side effects I have are pain, 'flu symptoms and an overwhelming desire to sleep. No moodiness.
Now, where's that button?

Damned if I know, how loud they screamed?:p
Sure while a scientist myself I still lack a great deal of respect for much of the scientific community, it was only two years ago that they finally came to the conclusion that fish can feel pain FFS:eek:, talk about slow learners!:rolleyes:
Then some of the research is just preposterous and wastes of funding.

Time Magazine

Evenin'. Now that I'm back from my three-day party and my essay is completed, I can play again.

GinnyJo wrote: »

"Monthly cleansing" seriously? thats how you describe a period?

I figured you were tetchy and tried to not offend you.

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.

I don't know the percentage of women on the pill. I don't think it matters, either, because there's a percentage that aren't. The three days was a colloquialism.

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.

Sigh, you still don't understand. It's quite simple, really, so if you can't understand it yet it's simply not worth my while trying to explain it again. Oh and Denmark's most published scientist has a paper here for you.

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.

That's fair enough.

[QUOET]Problem is Ibid did declare it Scientific fact earlier in the thread[/QUOTE]
And now I've had time to find a link to back it up.

AckwelFoley

DarkJager wrote: »

No song you hear on the radio will ever put women down because as usual, every female in the country would get her Ann Summers panties in a fcuking twist and complain about it.
.

you dont listen to ver much rap music.

where its ok to "rape ones mother", and "smack a bi**h"

Sleepy

The funniest thing I've noticed in this thread is that the most "sensible" reason for the US not to have a female president was given by the 13 year old Thaedydal quoted disparagingly. A female leader would not be taken seriously by the likes of Iran with whom the US has a testy relationship with at best. This could actually hold the potential to kick off another (although perhaps more justified) war in that region.

I'm not saying it's right that this is the situation and personally find Iran's (and other countries like it's) treatement of women abhorrent but it is a fact that's worthy of consideration when choosing the "leader of the free world"...

elly

To be a sexist or a racist you first have to be in a position of power to discriminate, and since women have never been in a position of power over men then it is impossible for a woman to be sexist towards a man.
In response to the OP, those kind of advertisements in my opinion are totally unacceptable and do nothing to help the situation of sexual discrimination.

Jesus Wept

elly wrote: »

To be a sexist or a racist you first have to be in a position of power to discriminate, and since women have never been in a position of power over men then it is impossible for a woman to be sexist towards a man.

Good grief you are talking via the wrong orifice.

Riann

Dudess wrote: »

It's probably also due to the fact that so many women wouldn't have a problem with discrimination against women - I've no doubt there is a sizeable number of American women who don't want a woman as their president.

You are right that American women are very apathetic about their own standing. So many literally believe that they belong at home, barefoot, in the kitchen pregnant, and don't even vote because they don't believe themselves worthy of being involved in the nation's politics. I say this because I live in America and see this first hand. It is very unfortunate, because things will not change until the women themselves take a stand, it is not men alone who are keeping it this way.

I myself did not vote for Hillary Clinton, but it had nothing to do with the fact that she was a woman, and far more to do with the fact that she is mistaking America as Sweden, where Democratic Socialism actually works . . .

Jesus Wept

Riann wrote: »

I myself did not vote for Hillary Clinton, but it had nothing to do with the fact that she was a woman, and far more to do with the fact that she is mistaking America as Sweden, where Democratic Socialism actually works . . .

It's America's elections that no longer work.

They no longer accurately represent the will of the people, which is actually democratically leaning.

Riann

gingerhousewife wrote: »

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.

This is absolutely the most logical thing that has been said thus far. Men and women think differently. Perhaps it's a fact. So what if it is? It has nothing to do with equality. That men and women are different but worth the same in regards to mental capacity etc is the point here. Saying that you don't want someone for president because they are a woman is intolerable. The same goes for not voting for someone because of their race.

I think this is the problem of many feminists, that they strive to be like the worst of men and not just equal to any hardworking, normal man. One can embrace feminity and still believe herself equal in all regards to a man. A woman would make a fine president, history eventually will show this to America.

Crumble Froo

Riann wrote: »

This is absolutely the most logical thing that has been said thus far.

...except maybe the bit about hillary being a good candidate....

Reku

elly wrote: »

To be a sexist or a racist you first have to be in a position of power to discriminate, and since women have never been in a position of power over men then it is impossible for a woman to be sexist towards a man.
In response to the OP, those kind of advertisements in my opinion are totally unacceptable and do nothing to help the situation of sexual discrimination.

You haven't really thought about this much is all I can assume, otherwise a large part of the world's population is apparently immune to bias. Then what about someone who has 2 jobs, one as a manager, one as a member of the general floorstaff (known a few Chinese who were like this, don't know how they managed the hours, know I certainly couldn't), say Romanian gypsies come in and he insists on standing beside them the entire time they're in the shop in both places. According to your logic, as a manager he is being racist by doing this but as a member of the general floorstaff he is not? Or what if he wasn't even employed there and decided it was his right to keep an eye on them while they were shopping because he didn't feel they could be trusted?
Anyone capable of sentient thought is capable of sexism/racism, you can even be sexist/racist against your own gender/ethnic group, it doesn't require you to be in a position of power over the people against whom you have a bias.

Riann wrote: »

Men and women think differently. Perhaps it's a fact. So what if it is? It has nothing to do with equality. That men and women are different but worth the same in regards to mental capacity etc is the point here. Saying that you don't want someone for president because they are a woman is intolerable. The same goes for not voting for someone because of their race.

I think this is the problem of many feminists, that they strive to be like the worst of men and not just equal to any hardworking, normal man. One can embrace feminity and still believe herself equal in all regards to a man. A woman would make a fine president, history eventually will show this to America.

Agreed. Each gender has pros and cons with regards any job, but for president I don't see any reason why either would be truely better suited than the other, and reality is you will always get those who fall far outside the standard for their gender, either in excellence or failings, so while you can let generalisations guide you, don't let them be the sole reason for the final decision making.

Dudess

Riann wrote: »

You are right that American women are very apathetic about their own standing. So many literally believe that they belong at home, barefoot, in the kitchen pregnant, and don't even vote because they don't believe themselves worthy of being involved in the nation's politics. I say this because I live in America and see this first hand. It is very unfortunate, because things will not change until the women themselves take a stand, it is not men alone who are keeping it this way.

Yeah, instead of constantly moaning about men being "bastards"...

LadyJ

I'd just like to clarify that I have absolutely no preference as to which candidate wins. I do not know an awful lot about their stance on many of the issues and I am in no way saying that Hillary would make a better president due to the fact that she is a woman and if I were an American I would not just be voting for a woman for the sake of it.

My initial opinion was simply just that showing people saying what was said seemed to me like a double-standard of sorts. Maybe it is relevant with regard to dealing with male dominated countries like Iraq though.

I'm enjoying hearing everyone's opinion on it.

Dragan

The simple fact is maybe nobody said that "i'm not sure i'd be happy with a ****** with his finger on the button".

Once again Free Speech gives people the right to say what they like, it's really that simple.

It's not about "tolerating" anything in my view, it's about the basic human right for someone to be allowed dislike the idea of something, whatever that may be and even if it be backward.

LadyJ

Dragan wrote: »

The simple fact is maybe nobody said that "i'm not sure i'd be happy with a ****** with his finger on the button".

Once again Free Speech gives people the right to say what they like, it's really that simple.

It's not about "tolerating" anything in my view, it's about the basic human right for someone to be allowed dislike the idea of something, whatever that may be and even if it be backward.

And I agree everyone is well within their rights to say wahtever they like. It was just that I wondered, if someone had said the latter, would it have been shown on tv? Probably not imo.

Dragan

LadyJ wrote: »

It was just that I wondered, if someone had said the latter, would it have been shown on tv? Probably not imo.

To be honest, the biggest indicator of anything was who made the show and what network ran with it.

There is no such thing as unbiased news reporting in the states. All the stations have owners, investors and angles. Chances are if you dig deep enough the money men at that station will all be voting Obama.

Sad but true.

LadyJ

Dragan wrote: »

To be honest, the biggest indicator of anything was who made the show and what network ran with it.

There is no such thing as unbiased news reporting in the states. All the stations have owners, investors and angles. Chances are if you dig deep enough the money men at that station will all be voting Obama.

Sad but true.

Sounds like you may be onto something there Dragan. It's hard to know what goes on.

Dragan

LadyJ wrote: »

Sounds like you may be onto something there Dragan. It's hard to know what goes on.

It's normally the way it works over there. Not sure if you have every been to the States but should you end up there then have a flick though the different news and current affairs channels. You'll get two completely different pictures of America if you look close enough.

Those with interests and leanings in the direction of either the Republicans or the Democrats will always have a very different spin on the same political event.

LadyJ

Dragan wrote: »

It's normally the way it works over there. Not sure if you have every been to the States but should you end up there then have a flick though the different news and current affairs channels. You'll get two completely different pictures of America if you look close enough.

Those with interests and leanings in the direction of either the Republicans or the Democrats will always have a very different spin on the same political event.

Hopefully heading there for a month in July but have never been before. My cousin has lived over there for about 5 years now so I get all my info from her! Soon I shall see for myself though.

Rattlehead_ie

Dragan is completely correct on that! Depending on the network its ran on! There is a v biased attitude towards either republicans or democrats . To answer an earlier question it has been aired on TV someone quoted as saying "I don't want a black in control" this was earlier on in the proceedings when they were down in the southern states. From my point of view and from what I know of the current ppl going up for president, I would want wither Obama or Clinton in rather than anyone else, unfortunately that's not going to happen.

To go back to the original post. I think it should be tolerated! People have their opinions and should be allowed air them. I personally understand the persons opinion although I don't agree with it. Same way as 8 years ago at last election ppl were probably saying I don't want someone with the brain capacity of a turnip with their finger on the button.

Reku

Rattlehead_ie wrote: »

Same way as 8 years ago at last election ppl were probably saying I don't want someone with the brain capacity of a turnip with their finger on the button.

I object!:mad:




That's completely unfair on turnips.:D