Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

Reward

Stheno wrote: »

No I mean quotas that require a minimum represantation of women regardless of political leaning.

What feminist installed that law if you don't mind me asking?

Note I'm against quotas each to their own in terms of ability and ambition would be my view.

But if its in terms of their own ability and ambition, there is no need for a quota in the first place, women on the right do well when they chose a political career and the underrepresentation of women in politics in western countries is down to personal choice. And anyway gov quotas are for giving seats to feminists of a certain political leaning. They are not supposed to go to anti feminist or Conservative women. Plus the race or gender of a politician is not important to me, other factors determine whether I want them to represent me or not.

Ickle Magoo

What?

Reward wrote:

I never said that radical feminim equals all feminism, not once.

This entire debate was fuelled by your claim that female politicians that considered themselves feminists were nothing but radical feminists sneaking their radical policies in - you have been continually linking feminists with radical feminism, it's completely dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.

You exalt patriarchy while considering the attack on those who wish female subordination to be akin to Nazism? Patriarchy is the flip side of the gender extremist coin - no better than any of the worse exponents radical feminism has to offer.

Reward

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What?



This entire debate was fuelled by your claim that female politicians that considered themselves feminists were nothing but radical feminists sneaking their radical policies in - you have been continually linking feminists with radical feminism, it's completely dishonest to suggest otherwise.



You exalt patriarchy while considering the attack on those who wish female subordination to be akin to Nazism? Patriarchy is the flip side of the gender extremist coin - no better than any of the worse exponents radical feminism has to offer.

No, I said that gov quotas are designed by radical feminists for radical feminists. The posters here keep claiming I'm saying that all feminists are radical feminists but thats just something that they are saying.

Non radical feminists might support quotas because they don't understand their meaning or realise that they are not really invited, but thats just a mistake on their part.

However, I do think that most feminists enable radical and gender feminists and have let the lunatic fringe steal the movement.

Taliban is the flip side of radical feminism, patriarchy is not.

"Those who wish female subordination" who are you talking about exactly?

Reward

I'm tired now.


Here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056124012

CDfm

I rarely post here, but I have been reading up on this recently on issues of history and economics.

While at one level you have elected parliments you also have what is termed the Corporate State which is unelected but still has enormous influence and power.

For example, the unions are part of the Corporate State and were part of the Social Partnership , and as a country we have been operating on this model since circa 1960 during the Lemass Administration - 50 or so years. Womens groups are also part of the Corporate State.

Simple number crunching of elected parlimentarians does not give an accurate comparison.

To illustrate the power look at the implementation of the Croke Park Agreement which is held up by agreement on privilage days. Economists estimate that the delay of the cost savings implementations agreed now have reached the amount it will have cost to bail out Anglo Irish Bank since the start of the negotiations in April 2008. David Begg ,the Trade Unionist was on the Board of the Central Bank.

When I studied economics, there was a field of study "transactional analysis" that studied relationships and I wonder if you are giving enough weight to these.

Now, it might help any proper discussion to look at the power,budgets and influence of the Corporate State in this context and the clientist model of service delivery.

I don't have a point to make either way, but, maybe quota's are worthy of consideration. Surely if other areas of government are as screwed and inefficient as the example I have given then this type of debate is timely and should be widened as it is fundamental to our democracy. You can have welfare cuts but not cost savings is hardly fair.

If the system is to be reformed then women as citizens should be going in the front door and not in the side entrance as should all other decision makers and decision makers should be elected and accountable.

Ickle Magoo

Reward wrote: »

Taliban is the flip side of radical feminism, patriarchy is not.

"Those who wish female subordination" who are you talking about exactly?

Why don't you do everyone a favour and look up "patriarchy" in a dictionary at the same time you are looking up "feminism" - it would make for much easier discussion if everyone has the correct definitions rather than throwing around terminology completely out of context.

Lockstep

Reward: I give up. Your inability to draw a distinction between radical feminisim and feminism itself means I see little point on continuing this discussion. Especially your attempts to compare nazism and Islamic fundamentalism to feminism.

There are some extremely eloquent and informed posters debating with you, maybe they can get through to you where I've been unable to.

Regards,
KOTJ
A feminist

Reward

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why don't you do everyone a favour and look up "patriarchy" in a dictionary at the same time you are looking up "feminism" - it would make for much easier discussion if everyone has the correct definitions rather than throwing around terminology completely out of context.

Three fallacies and contradiction.

Setting goal posts, a veiled personal attack and the obligatory deferral to short and inadequate definitions in the dictionary. For example, the dictionary definition doesn't cover the belief in female supremacy, hate and legal inequality that is carried in certain strains of feminism. Also, the dictionary definition of patriarchy gives no historical context, eg. in the absence of modern technology that provides us with reliable bc, female friendly jobs and a great many creature comforts, men have to look after women.

You are saying that feminism is the flip side of the dictionary definition of patriarchy, but you are also saying that feminism is defined by its dictionary definition, so is patriarchy about equality or is feminism a female lead social system?

If I don't agree with aspects of a political construct and the various frauds, deceptions and human and civil rights abuses and reductions that it lobbies for, it doesn't mean that I'm stupid, it means that I don't agree with aspects of a political construct and the various frauds, deceptions and human and civil rights abuses and redictions that it lobbies for.

Answer mine- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056124012

Ickle Magoo

No, I said patriarchy is the flip of radical feminism - you can't even read my posts properly, far less dictionary definitions. I can't believe I'm still posting, tbh.

Reward, I'm not looking at anything you've written elsewhere until you give the numerous sources you have been asked for on this one. If you can't do that then I have to agree with KOtJ, it's impossible to debate with someone who won't hold to the general rules of debate and just want to rant and rave and make random statements and move the debate into areas they are more comfortable with when asked to define their claims.

You won't clarify and back up your own claims, you either ignore, stonewall or talk-around everyone else's points by suggesting fallacies and ad-hominems to side-step having to answer the questions. If your vitriolic resentment of women and feminism is a barrier to your being intellectually honest and preventing you do little more that jump up and down shouting "lah, lah, lah" then I'm not going to waste another post on you.

I wish you all the best and I really hope what ever is driving your irrational feelings on this resolves itself.

Reward

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, I said patriarchy is the flip of radical feminism - you can't even read my posts properly, far less dictionary definitions. I can't believe I'm still posting, tbh.

Reward, I'm not looking at anything you've written elsewhere until you give the numerous sources you have been asked for on this one. If you can't do that then I have to agree with KOtJ, it's impossible to debate with someone who won't hold to the general rules of debate and just want to rant and rave and make random statements and move the debate into areas they are more comfortable with when asked to define their claims.

You won't clarify and back up your own claims, you either ignore, stonewall or talk-around everyone else's points by suggesting fallacies and ad-hominems to side-step having to answer the questions. If your vitriolic resentment of women and feminism is a barrier to your being intellectually honest and preventing you do little more that jump up and down shouting "lah, lah, lah" then I'm not going to waste another post on you.

I wish you all the best and I really hope what ever is driving your irrational feelings on this resolves itself.

"I refuse to read X (that Ive already read) untill you do what I'm pretending that you haven't already done (and if you are stupid enough to jump through that hoop, I'll just use another set of rhetorical tricks and fallacies and personal attacks to claim that these duplicate sources are invalid too)".

Yet I'm being called irrational and intellectually dishonest.

Feminist education is provided in a womb, protected from outside peer review. It will equip you with an ideology, lots of rhetorical tricks and fallacies and a distorted view of the nature of reality, but it will not protect you from things like peer review, logic and facts in the outside world. That is why feminist areas of the internet are usually heavily censored.

Ive somethings to add about the dictionary definition of feminism.

Some dictionaries have dropped the reference to "legal equality" (probably, IMO because equal or advantageous outcome cant be generated without discrimination against men) and have also added a definition that makes no reference to equality at all and simply defines it organised advocacy on behalf of women.

Also, the recent well publicized feminist celebrations and acceptance of education inequality in favour of women, pay inequality in favour of women and the disproportionate job losses for men (they haven't realised yet that the private sector pays for the public sector) and hostility towards mens, fathers and the rights of politically incorrect abuse victims is a far cry from the much relied upon dictionary definition of feminism.


I disagree with your saying that radical feminism is the flip side of patriarchy, rad feminism to my mind is a hate movement, it has more parallels with the definition and characteristics of a hate movement than it does patriarchy, patriarchy is not hate, there are hate movements that have been patriarchal, but that doesn't make patriarchy a hate movement.

And I stand by my initial assertions.

There is no glass celing for women in irish politics for women, the number of women in politics v's men is proportional to the number of women that seek jobs in politics and work as hard and as long to get there v's that of men.

Quotas are designed by a radical feminists for radical feminists to circumvent and subvert democracy, Conservative feminists and non feminist women are not included and Labour party feminist quotas resulted in a glut of radical women in the Labour party and they have committed various well publicized frauds, deceptions and lobby for legal injustice against men. (see links I provided).

Go to www.saveindianfamily.org to see the same pattern happening in India.

My "vitrolic resentment of women"

when all else fails, go with a false accusation of misogyny. I know these arguments backwards. What next, wife beating and rape?

Reward

Sorry about the double post everyone, I just want to clear this up.

Four pages ago I said that quotas resulted in a glut of radical women in the UK Labour gov. and that they perpetuated various frauds, deceptions and lobbied for legal inequalities including the closure of female prisons, it is repeatedly being claimed here that I refused to provide evidence.

GO TO PAGES 14 AND 15 FOR THE LINKS THAT ARENT WORKING

73% of the women in the recent New Labour government are feminists due to quotas

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/c...~3~149/149.pdf

More quotas that have benefited mainly feminists

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvo...hadow-cabinet/

Feminist move to shut down female prisons

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6444961.stm

Sex trafficking fraud headed by labour gov feminist

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ex-slaves.html
New - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/13/prostitution-humantrafficking

Low rape conviction rate fraud under Labour gov

http://www.straightstatistics.org/ar...s-orchestrated

Wage gap fraud under the labour gov feminist equality minister

http://www.straightstatistics.org/ar...ngle-out-there

Various bigoted polmic legislation by labour feminists.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039445/Erin-Pizzey-champion-womens-rights-says-radical-feminist-plans-let-victims-domestic-abuse-away-murder-affront-morality.html

If anyone wants to allege that because of the daily mails tabloid status or political affiliations that the stories are fictitious or invalid, cross reference them with another source or back up your claim that the DM is manufacturing events rather than covering them with an element of sensationalism.



Also, honest input on this thread welcome http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69654817#post69654817

Reward

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Reward: I give up. Your inability to draw a distinction between radical feminisim and feminism itself means I see little point on continuing this discussion. Especially your attempts to compare nazism and Islamic fundamentalism to feminism.

There are some extremely eloquent and informed posters debating with you, maybe they can get through to you where I've been unable to.

Regards,
KOTJ
A feminist

Can you post an example of my inability to differentiate between radical feminism and other forms of feminism or stop making false assertions about me. I compared radical feminism, not all feminism to nazism and islam and I support equity and liberal feminism.

Stheno

Reward wrote: »

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/c...~3~149/149.pdf
http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvo...hadow-cabinet/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ex-slaves.html
http://www.straightstatistics.org/ar...s-orchestrated
http://www.straightstatistics.org/ar...ngle-out-there

None of the above links work getting page error, page not found or page does not exist.

Silverfish

Reward, at this stage I'm going to recommend you continue this in the Humanities or Conspiracy Theories forum, as at this stage you are close to breaking the charter of this forum, and certainly in breach of the ethos of the forum.

Reward

Stheno wrote: »

None of the above links work getting page error, page not found or page does not exist.

Ah ok, you will have to go to pages 14 and 15 to the original links, the ones here are just c/p's and are not the complete addresses.

Reward

Silverfish wrote: »

Reward, at this stage I'm going to recommend you continue this in the Humanities or Conspiracy Theories forum, as at this stage you are close to breaking the charter of this forum, and certainly in breach of the ethos of the forum.

I'm just responding to baseless assertions about me and logical fallacies with sources that back up what I saying.. surely there is enough intellectual integrity here to up hold that.

Perhaps of the baseless assertions and logical fallacies were policed rather than the sourced claims the thread would be less messy and we wouldn't have to resort to censorship.

If my standing up for myself by backing up what I say when requested and defending myself from false assertions and pointing out fallacious arguments is considered a breach of ethos, what is the ethos?

Ickle Magoo

Reward wrote: »

Feminist education is provided in a womb, protected from outside peer review. It will equip you with an ideology, lots of rhetorical tricks and fallacies and a distorted view of the nature of reality, but it will not protect you from things like peer review, logic and facts in the outside world.

Source? It's exactly these unsubstantiated claims of truth-hood that make your posts look like nothing more than hyperbolic flimflammery. You say X, Y or Z as if it were fact, provide no source of evidence as to where you got the information to make such a claim and then blame everyone else for refusing to get involved in debating such subjective allegories with you.

It's also why your posts sound so irrational - claiming that feminist education is provided in a womb? What does that even mean? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds and how such dismissive, fallacious and emotive language regarding any topic immediately renders it's claimant as biased and prejudicial, especially when espousing such nuggets without providing any verifiable evidence to back up the specific claims being made. If you claim feminism is taught in a womb then you need to show how you reached that conclusion and provide evidence to convince everyone else you are making the claim with good authority and balanced consideration and not lashing out with emotionally driven illogicality.

Reward wrote: »

Ive somethings to add about the dictionary definition of feminism.

I thought you might - when all else fails in defining something the way you want it to, change the definition.

Reward wrote: »

Also, the recent well publicized feminist celebrations and acceptance of education inequality in favour of women, pay inequality in favour of women and the disproportionate job losses for men (they haven't realised yet that the private sector pays for the public sector) and hostility towards mens, fathers and the rights of politically incorrect abuse victims is a far cry from the much relied upon dictionary definition of feminism.

Source? Again, without sources it is just politicised personal ramblings. By well publicised are you referring to the Daily Mail again?

Reward wrote: »

I disagree with your saying that radical feminism is the flip side of patriarchy, rad feminism to my mind is a hate movement, it has more parallels with the definition and characteristics of a hate movement than it does patriarchy, patriarchy is not hate, there are hate movements that have been patriarchal, but that doesn't make patriarchy a hate movement.

You don't view an andocentric movement that relies on female subordination and males as the primary authority figure and subjugators as being a hate movement - a movement that is inherently unequal and unjust between the sexes proposal male dominance and female subservience and yet you think radical feminism which would seek to have female dominance and male subjugation is wicked and terrible - and you can't see why you may look irrational or blindly vitriolic? Seriously now?

Reward wrote: »

And I stand by my initial assertions.

I was never so optimistic as to presume anything anyone is saying could possibly get through.

Reward wrote: »

There is no glass celing for women in irish politics for women, the number of women in politics v's men is proportional to the number of women that seek jobs in politics and work as hard and as long to get there v's that of men.

If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know you were repeating what I and others have already stated - although we somehow managed to do so in a less hysterical, dispassionate manner.

Reward wrote: »

Quotas are designed by a radical feminists for radical feminists to circumvent and subvert democracy, Conservative feminists and non feminist women are not included and Labour party feminist quotas resulted in a glut of radical women in the Labour party and they have committed various well publicized frauds, deceptions and lobby for legal injustice against men. (see links I provided).

Still awaiting the sources for that - first it was a glut of radical feminists in the labour government magically independently passing legislation, now it's female only labour politicians committing frauds, deceptions and legal injustice against men - do you have any sources other than a conservative american politician and a trashy tabloid to back up your assertions because repeating them while still refusing to provide respectable sources is making your arguments look foot-stompingly infantile.

Reward wrote: »

Go to www.saveindianfamily.org to see the same pattern happening in India.

There are women's groups campaigning against men and anti-female legislation or legislative proposals just as there are men's groups campaigning against women and anti-male legislation/legislative proposals. I'm not sure why you think presenting one half of that fact equates to a well presented and balanced argument. I would much rather be in the rational middle ground looking for equal rights and legal protection for everyone rather than looking cock-eyed at a complicated situation; putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with an enraged 5.

Reward wrote: »

My "vitrolic resentment of women"

when all else fails, go with a false accusation of misogyny. I know these arguments backwards. What next, wife beating and rape?

Look back over your posts, your language, your tone and the way you present your points compared with everyone else - can you see a difference? You have steadfastly avoided answering the questions put to you on this thread while demanding everyone else follow your postings on other threads. You have cherry-picked replies that you found easier to respond to and repeatedly padded out your replies with over-emotional non sequiturs and deductive fallacy after deductive fallacy to the point that any logical point you may have been trying to reach is rendered impotent.

As KOtJ states, you take a group of politicians who refer to themselves as feminists and fallaciously try to pin legislative moves that are debated and passed by a majority male house of commons as the actions of radical feminists - which is nothing short of paranoid fantasy. You demand democratic election of politicians while demanding that feminists should be kept out of government - a complete contradiction, made more absurd by citing a female politician democratically elected continuously for nearly 20 years as the epitome of all that is evilly undemocratic.

Okay, that really is my last. I would respectfully suggest you read up on both debate methodology and source provision - and would also make the observation that sometimes when it's everyone else, it's worth looking a bit closer to home. All the best. :cool:

Reward

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Source? It's exactly these unsubstantiated claims of truth-hood that make your posts look like nothing more than hyperbolic flimflammery. You say X, Y or Z as if it were fact, provide no source of evidence as to where you got the information to make such a claim and then blame everyone else for refusing to get involved in debating such subjective allegories with you.

It's also why your posts sound so irrational - claiming that feminist education is provided in a womb? What does that even mean? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds and how such dismissive, fallacious and emotive language regarding any topic immediately renders it's claimant as biased and prejudicial, especially when espousing such nuggets without providing any verifiable evidence to back up the specific claims being made. If you claim feminism is taught in a womb then you need to show how you reached that conclusion and provide evidence to convince everyone else you are making the claim with good authority and balanced consideration and not lashing out with emotionally driven illogicality.



I thought you might - when all else fails in defining something the way you want it to, change the definition.



Source? Again, without sources it is just politicised personal ramblings. By well publicised are you referring to the Daily Mail again?



You don't view an andocentric movement that relies on female subordination and males as the primary authority figure and subjugators as being a hate movement - a movement that is inherently unequal and unjust between the sexes proposal male dominance and female subservience and yet you think radical feminism which would seek to have female dominance and male subjugation is wicked and terrible - and you can't see why you may look irrational or blindly vitriolic? Seriously now?



I was never so optimistic as to presume anything anyone is saying could possibly get through.



If you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd know you were repeating what I and others have already stated - although we somehow managed to do so in a less hysterical, dispassionate manner.



Still awaiting the sources for that - first it was a glut of radical feminists in the labour government magically independently passing legislation, now it's female only labour politicians committing frauds, deceptions and legal injustice against men - do you have any sources other than a conservative american politician and a trashy tabloid to back up your assertions because repeating them while still refusing to provide respectable sources is making your arguments look foot-stompingly infantile.



There are women's groups campaigning against men and anti-female legislation or legislative proposals just as there are men's groups campaigning against women and anti-male legislation/legislative proposals. I'm not sure why you think presenting one half of that fact equates to a well presented and balanced argument. I would much rather be in the rational middle ground looking for equal rights and legal protection for everyone rather than looking cock-eyed at a complicated situation; putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with an enraged 5.



Look back over your posts, your language, your tone and the way you present your points compared with everyone else - can you see a difference? You have steadfastly avoided answering the questions put to you on this thread while demanding everyone else follow your postings on other threads. You have cherry-picked replies that you found easier to respond to and repeatedly padded out your replies with over-emotional non sequiturs and deductive fallacy after deductive fallacy to the point that any logical point you may have been trying to reach is rendered impotent.

As KOtJ states, you take a group of politicians who refer to themselves as feminists and fallaciously try to pin legislative moves that are debated and passed by a majority male house of commons as the actions of radical feminists - which is nothing short of paranoid fantasy. You demand democratic election of politicians while demanding that feminists should be kept out of government - a complete contradiction, made more absurd by citing a female politician democratically elected continuously for nearly 20 years as the epitome of all that is evilly undemocratic.

Okay, that really is my last. I would respectfully suggest you read up on both debate methodology and source provision - and would also make the observation that sometimes when it's everyone else, it's worth looking a bit closer to home. All the best. :cool:

Im not going to go through all that.

I will answer this

"claiming that feminist education is provided in a womb? What does that even mean?"

It means, as I said there is no peer review outside of the ideology, like having Christian creationism sciences reviewed by creationists only.

Ive backed up all my original assertions about labour quotas, the deceptions and frauds and legal inequalities. I think that you should accept that and move on. There is more to this thread and conversation than you repeatedly going after me caliming that I didnt back up what I said when I did.

Now your friends are moving to ban me if is don't stop countering your claims and pointing out your fallacious arguments.

If I re-publish my original statements about labour gov, quotas and the frauds along with the sources, can you just move on and accept them because this has being going on for pages and its nothing but harassment because I provided sources for information that you didn't like.

or

we delete our four pages of my defending myself from your false assertions and fallacious arguments.

Ickle Magoo

A conservative politician with a glut of personal motivations of their own, a trashy tabloid and generalised statistics papers that make no conclusions about feminists do not equate to backing up your point - I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty seeing that.

Perhaps if I get my mate to write an article about this topic, or quote nothing but a rabid feminist paper and propose that gives a balanced and credible backing to my arguments you'll understand where I'm coming from?

Lastly, the old everyone's picking on me/it's your mates fallacy - again, you'll probably notice you are banging a lone drum - I note not just on this thread either; you have a choice, you can either finger point and try to pass it off as everyone else being the nasty big bullies or you can accept that perhaps other people have a point worth listening to.

Reward

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

A conservative politician with a glut of personal motivations of their own, a trashy tabloid and generalised statistics papers that make no conclusions about feminists do not equate to backing up your point - I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty seeing that.

Perhaps if I get my mate to write an article about this topic, or quote nothing but a rabid feminist paper and propose that gives a balanced and credible backing to my arguments you'll understand where I'm coming from?

Lastly, the old everyone's picking on me/it's your mates fallacy - again, you'll probably notice you are banging a lone drum - I note not just on this thread either; you have a choice, you can either finger point and try to pass it off as everyone else being the nasty big bullies or you can accept that perhaps other people have a point worth listening to.

That just attacking sources, derailing, shifting the focus and making more false assertions and further spoiling the thread because you don't want to acknowledge that I backed up what I said initially and are prepared to harass me page after page in order to create the illusion of your being right when you first attacked me personally for talking about the true story of quotas for radical feminists, frauds, deceptions and bigoted legislation produced by radical feminists in the UK Labour government, which I subsequently backed up.

And yeah bullying, an attempt to bully someone that has published facts that you do not like, thats what this is.

Wibbs

Maybe if your "facts" were... well more factual, it may help. As for published? Paper won't refuse ink and keyboards won't refuse fingers. Published doesn't mean as much as it did or should.

Reward

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe if your "facts" were... well more factual, it may help. As for published? Paper won't refuse ink and keyboards won't refuse fingers. Published doesn't mean as much as it did or should.

Ok. Ill publish the whole thing again this time I'll use multiple sources on the Labour radical feminist quotas, deceptions, frauds and bigoted legislation and this time include the full Stern report that (written by feminist Baroness Stern) that specifically requests the labour minister for equality to stop misleading the public on rape convictions and the official inquiry that lead to the same minister being told to stop misleading the public on wage gap.

Reward

Here is roughly what provoked the inital personal and other attacks.

I said that I didn't approve of quotas leading to a glut of feminists in gov. and used the example of the UK Labour gov and the frauds, deceptions and bigoted leglislation that came out of it.

Labour announce 33% female quota for the party.

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvon/2010/09/labour-mps-vote-to-enforce-31-quota-of-women-for-shadow-cabinet/

73% of those women turn out to be feminists.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/PONL0263-3957~21~3~149/149.pdf

Quota billed as being for women that in reality resulted in what I called a "glut" of feminist women being given seats. (15% of women self identify as feminists).

I will come back later on and start posting multiple sources on the frauds, deceptions and bigoted anti male legislation, including the full stern report associated with labour gov feminism.

Nevyn

Which labour government? of which country?

Ickle Magoo

Reward wrote: »

15% of women self identify as feminists

Source?

All you have shown so far is there are women politicians who identify as feminists - something any dictionary will tell you is not code-word for man-hating evil and labour MP's (of which the majority are male) voted in favour of having a quota of females within their party. Can you tie any of that into your other points or even show how that exemplifies any of the radical feminist points you have alluded to.

I presume the Stern report you refer to is the Stern Review - a review of how the relevant authorities in England and Wales deal with reported rapes of MEN, women and children?

Stheno

Reward wrote: »

Here is roughly what provoked the inital personal and other attacks.

I said that I didn't approve of quotas leading to a glut of feminists in gov. and used the example of the UK Labour gov and the frauds, deceptions and bigoted leglislation that came out of it.

Labour announce 33% female quota for the party.

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvon/2010/09/labour-mps-vote-to-enforce-31-quota-of-women-for-shadow-cabinet/

Your statement is incorrect, what Labour MPs voted for was to have 31% of the shadow cabinet to be made up of women, reflecting that 31% of MPs in the Labour Party are women.

Nowhere does the article state that Labour have announced a party wide female quota.

Labour MPs voted last night to enforce a quota system that would ensure just under a third of its new shadow cabinet are women.

73% of those women turn out to be feminists.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/PONL0263-3957~21~3~149/149.pdf

Quota billed as being for women that in reality resulted in what I called a "glut" of feminist women being given seats. (15% of women self identify as feminists).

Again following on from my point above, the quota in relation to female representation at Shadow Cabinet Level was voted on on September 8 2010, and so had no influence at all on how many Labour women MPs were elected to Parliament in May 2010.

One small point, none of those elected women MPs were "given" seats, they all ran and were voted in by their constituents as per the democratic process that any politician goes through to get elected

Reward

As requested
Labour feminists sex trafficking fraud.

This was based around wild exaggerations about the number of sex slaves in the UK. Jacqui Smith claimed on one radio interview that 80% of prostitutes were under the control of another (sex slaves) and so implied that many men are happy to pay to have sex with miserable women that are kept in captivity (false accusation of wide spread rape), a very misandrist meme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7024646.stm
http://www.expatica.com/es/news/spanish-news/Britain-clamps-down-on-sex-trafficking-_47465.html

The whole thing, like gendered domestic abuse and rape, turned out to be based on lies and was likely a front to criminalise men that use the consensual sex trade.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

"Harman's sex trafficking law is based on feeble, fraudulent evidence.

Here's the line. Women are being trafficked into Britain and forced to become sex slaves. We know this because the massive Operation Pentameter, involving 55 police forces, six government departments and various NGOs, led to the arrest of 528 sex traffickers. On the basis of this, Harriet Harman is rightly pushing through a bill to make it illegal to pay for sex with a prostitute controlled by someone else.

Except it's all lies. As Nick Davies reports, the six-month investigation actually failed to find a single sex trafficker. Ten of the 55 police forces arrested nobody at all. Some 122 of the 528 arrests claimed never happened (they were wrongly recorded, or phantom arrests designed to chase targets). Half (230) were women – suggesting that the Operation was a convenient excuse to harass prostitutes and clock up more arrest figures.

Of the 406 real arrests, 153 had been released weeks before the police announced their 'success', 106 without any charge at all, and 47 being cautioned for minor offences. Of the rest, 73 were charged with immigration breaches, 76 convicted on drugs raps, and others died or disappeared.

Only 22 people were finally prosecuted for trafficking, including two women. Seven were acquitted. The net haul from this vast operation was 15 successful prosecutions. Of those, just five men were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes (two of whom were already in custody).

So that's the 'huge success' that allowed Jacqui Smith and now Harriet Harman, to claim that 'thousands' of women were being trafficked, and to push a Bill through Parliament. So much for evidence-based policy: I would feel happier if they just said that they found prostitution disgusting and wanted to outlaw it for our own moral good. At least that would be honest. This is simple deception, a fraud on the public.

Sex workers are opposing the new legislation. They know that every time governments 'get tough' on prostitution, they are the ones who suffer. The police just have another excuse to go on fishing trips, round up a few girls, and boost their arrest figures so that they get Brownie points and the Chief Constable gets a better bonus. And to prove that they are not 'controlled', girls will start working alone, rather than in flats with a maid to look after them, which will make them more vulnerable to abuse and attack".

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/justice-and-civil-liberties/70/

If anyone wants to declare the above invalid on the basis of it being published on a libertarian blog, click on the Guardian link above it for the same information published in the Guardian.


on the ideology behind sex trafficking fraud.

Weitzer, R [2007] The social construction of sex trafficking: Ideology and institutionalization of a moral crusade. Politics & Society 35(3);

Sophie Day [2009] Renewing the war on prostitution: The spectres of 'trafficking' and 'slavery' Anthropology Today v25n3;

Doezema. J [1999] Loose women or lost women? The re-emergence of the myth of 'white slavery' in contemporary discourses of 'trafficking in women'. Gender Issues 18(1).






Answer this one? - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056124012

Reward

As requested

Labour feminists wage gap fraud

Very basic explanation of how it works. Wage gap fraud is international. The family wage is counted as the main workers wage alone and when the other adult in the family choses not to work, their share of the family wage is recorded as zero. In the case of the secondary adult chosing part time work, their part time wage is counted as their only income and the main workers is counted as theirs alone. Men and women make different choices and men are mich more likely to be the main taxpayers and women the non taxpayer and part time worker. (it would be interesting to see how much the gap works in favour of women if we counted the family wage as what it really is).

The other gaps are explained by different work/lifestype choices (women have more flexibility) and the glass ceiling meme is debunked by the fact that women women do make choices that are similar to men, they often out earn them for the same work.

The difference is then presented to the public as proof of a conspiracy against women, politicians can swing votes, certain political organisations can recruit, fund raise, fear monger and legislate against men on the strength of this deception by promising to fix this conspiracy to oppress by an unseen hand.

More here..

"Radio 4’s flagship, the Today programme, has fallen for a common misrepresentation of the gap in pay between men and women.
Or is it a misrepresentation? It depends on who you are talking to, as various bodies interpret this key statistic in various ways.

Introducing an item on Today on July 29, Sarah Montague accepted at face value the assertion by the Women and Work Commission that women are paid, on average, 23 per cent less than men. But the Office of National Statistics quotes a figure of 12.8 per cent, just over half as much.

And if that isn’t confusing enough, the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes the gap is 17.1 per cent.

These differences matter, so it would be nice to achieve a common basis for estimating them. Until we do, journalists should beware of accepting whatever figure is thrown at them. Government bodies with different objectives can easily come up with different figures – and may honestly believe they are right.

Earnings comparisons are best made on the basis of median, rather than mean, earnings. This is because the salaries at the top of the scale are often high enough to distort the mean. On measures of “average” salaries, most people earn less than average.

Both the ONS and the Women and Work Commission, which is part of the Government Equalities Office, do use the median. (The EHRC, just to be awkward, uses the mean – of which more later.)

So why the difference between the ONS and the GEO? The ONS only counts full-time work, whereas the GEO includes part-time work, three quarters of which is done by women. This increases the apparent gap in pay between the sexes.

Which is right? The Statistics Authority cogitated over this in a report published in June. Neither measure is satisfactory, it admits, but it does come down in favour of not combining the two, as the GEO does. Its recommendation is to present the two estimates, for full-time and part-time employees, separately.

It publishes rather a striking table (Table 2 in the UKSA’s note) that actually shows that women working part-time earn 3.4 per cent more than men in median hourly earnings. This isn’t a figure you’ll find the GEO or the Women and Work Commission quoting very often.



Where does all that leave us? Of those in full-time work, women earn 12.8 per cent less than men. Women in part-time work earn fractionally more than men, but less than full-time men or full-time women. When full- and part-time work are combined, the preponderance of women in part-time work produces the 22.6 per cent gap headlined by the GEO and accepted without question by Today.

So what about the rogue figure of 17.1 per cent quoted by the EHRC? It uses mean earnings rather than median, justifying it by saying that women are over-represented at one extreme of the distribution and men at the other, which results (it says) in gaps calculated from the median understating the size of the problem.

It then goes on to claim, remarkably, that for women working part time, the gap is 35.6 per cent. This dizzying figure is achieved by comparing part-time women with full-time men – a comparison hard to justify on any rational basis. As the Statistics Authority remarks, this estimate “needs particularly careful explanation and justification if it is not to mislead”. (Translation: it’s misleading.)

The gender pay gap is a jungle, where journalists should not venture without careful preparation and a trusty guide. Discussions are going on between ONS and GEO to determine how the results should be presented in future, and we may see some results when the 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings is published in November.

But somehow I think it’s going to take a lot of persuasion to get the equality-wallahs to abandon the high estimates to which they are so attached. 35.6 per cent? Whew!"
http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/gender-inequality-its-jungle-out-there

Labour feminist Harriet Harman has been engaging in wage gap fraud, and has been asked by the Office of National Statistics not to use their research to mislead the public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8096761.stm

Reward

As requested
Labour feminist rape conviction rate fraud

The public in the UK were told that their country has the worst conviction rate in Europe, 6%. (no point in reporting then hey?) This is a fraud perpetuated by Labour feminists.

Rape conviction rate figures 'misleading' - Telegraph
15 Mar 2010 ... Rape victims may have been put off reporting attacks because of the use of "misleading" conviction rate figures by Harriet Harman and others ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html

Rape conviction rate fraud works by measuring the attrition rate while all other crimes are measured by their conviction rate. Rape hysteria can be used to spread fear and misandry to empower, fund raise and recruit by certain political organisations, swing votes and reduce civil rights eg. the push to end the right to the presumption of innocence for those accused of rape, it also keeps rape high in the agenda which results in discrimination against the victims of other crimes, rape is also presented as a gendered crime, which it is not and that creates further discrimination against other victims.



Here is an explanation and the true UK conviction rate figures, rape, despite having a high rate of false reporting, has a conviction rate thats comparable to all other crimes.

"How the panic over rape was orchestrated
TAGS: VIOLENCE, HOME OFFICE, CRIME
For years the Home Office and the former Lord Chancellor’s Department have misled the media about rape statistics – and allowed the media to misinform the public.
Anxiety has grown as a result of the apparent increase in rape offences and the inability to successfully prosecute offenders. Women have been needlessly alarmed for their safety, when the actual threat is much smaller than has been pretended.

Congratulations, therefore, to the Radio 4 programme More or Less and its reporter Ruth Alexander, who have put into the public domain what some advisers engaged by Whitehall committees have known for some time.

This official misinformation, one suspects, was a deliberate policy choice (beginning somewhere around 1988) to ensure that no matter what the cost, rape and sex crimes would climb remorselessly up the political agenda.

Since 1999 the Home Office has known that its methods for calculating rape convictions are wrong. The real conviction rate is not the publicly broadcast 10 per cent but closer to 50 per cent (it varies slightly from year to year). In a Minority Report (1) which I wrote for a Home Office committee in 2000 but which advisers refused to forward to ministers who were then actively considering new rape legislation, the HO were told that they were confusing ‘attrition’ rates with ‘conviction’ rates.

The attrition rate refers to the number of convictions secured compared with the number of that particular crime reported to the police (it must be noted that a crime that is ‘reported’ does not automatically imply that the crime actually took place). The conviction rate refers to the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence.

Rape is the only crime judged by the attrition rate. All others – murder, assault, robbery, and so on – are assessed by their conviction rates. Why? The question is best addressed to Betty Moxon who, in 2000, was head of the Sex Offenders Review Team (SORT) for whom I wrote the minority report.

In the most recent edition of More or Less, broadcast last Friday and still available as a podcast, Ruth Alexander questioned why rape has been made an exception. Referring to a new report soon to be published by London Metropolitan University she said it claimed that Britain had the worst record in Europe for rape convictions. Over recent years, she said, the report showed that the conviction rate had fallen from 10 per cent to 6.5 per cent.

But this is based on the misleading attrition rate. When real conviction rates are calculated on a common basis with other crimes, her report endorses our findings of 2000 (and subsequent years), namely that it is more commonly in the 48-52 per cent bracket. Her latest figure, for 2007, was 47 per cent.

But how are we to judge if that is good or bad ? Comparable figures show that the conviction rate, for instance, for Violence Against the Person was 71 per cent.

In the past the Home Office used to publish annual “Criminal Statistics for England and Wales” which were very accessible. Its present embodiment, published by the Ministry of Justice does not helpfully list murder rates or conviction rates. Nonetheless, Ruth Alexander quoted comparable ‘attrition rates’for other crimes, listed below:

Rest and graphs here
http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/how-panic-over-rape-was-orchestrated

If you want to declare the information in the first link invalid because its published in the Telegraph, cross reference with the information and graphs on the second source on this post and the two sources in the following, failing that here is the same story in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/15/stern-review-rape-less-focus-convictions

More to follow.

Reward

more on labour feminist rape conviction fraud

"Nigel Hawkes
is Director of Straight Statistics. As a journalist he has written about science, health, and international affairs, mostly for The Observer and The Times.

Scaremongering over the rape conviction rate
TAGS: VIOLENCE, HOME OFFICE, GENDER
AUTHOR: NIGEL HAWKES

Sharp words in today’s report on rape by Baroness Stern (pictured) over the constant bandying of the claim that only 6 per cent of reported rapes lead to convictions.
This was the subject of a long analysis on Straight Statistics by Robert Whiston last September, and the Stern Review, commissioned by the Home Office and the Government Equalities Office, makes many of the same points.

While for all other crimes the conviction rate describes the percentage of all the cases brought to court that result in a conviction, the report says, rape is different. For rape, the term has come to mean the percentage of all cases recorded by the police as rape that result in a conviction of rape. This makes it impossible to compare rape with other crimes.

The actual conviction rate for rape, measured conventionally, is 58 per cent. More cases should come to court and the review backs the Government’s efforts to achieve that.

But it is very critical of the way the 6 per cent figure has come to dominate public discussion “without explanation, analysis or context”. This has been to the detriment of public understanding and is not in the interest of victims of rape, who may be discouraged from reporting the incident in the belief that there is no chance of a successful conviction, it says. “We feel that the presentation of the statistics should be looked at again and we so recommend” the review concludes".

http://www.straightstatistics.org/blog/2010/03/15/scaremongering-over-rape-conviction-rate

Full Stern Review here http://www.equalities.gov.uk/staimm6geo/pdf/Stern_Review_of_Rape_Reporting_1FINAL.pdf

Reward

As requested
Labour party feminist legal bigotry

Commentary by Erin Prizzy, Erin started the shelters movement, only to be intimidated out of it by radical feminists because she knew that domestic abuse is not gendered and wanted to provide an egalitarian service, she was put under police protection and these same feminists, killed her family dog and threatened her and her family (How feminists tried to destroy the family | Mail Online
22 Jan 2007 ... Erin Pizzey, founder of the battered wives' refuge, on how militant ... equality and rights - began to make headlines in the daily newspapers. .... Mrs. Pizzey is exactly right and has done much to inspire and support ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/.../How-feminists-tried-destroy-family.html) on Labour gov feminists legal bigorty.

I have a lot of respect for Pizzy, she for an egalitarian and holistic policy on domestic violence and against feminist discrimination and misinformation relating to domestic violence and is working on that in american as well as the first shelters in Iran (there is also gender symmetry in domestic violence in Iran http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf)

Erin Pizzey, champion of women's rights, says radical feminist plans to let victims of domestic abuse get away with murder are an affront to morality
By ERIN PIZZEY

Harriet Harman recently made a leaden attempt at self-deprecating humour. In response to a House of Commons question about her leadership ambitions, she said that she could not possibly become Prime Minister because, if she did, then the nation’s airports would be filled with men trying to flee the country.
The joke caused bewildered looks rather than laughs, partly because of her lack of comic timing, but more importantly because there is nothing funny about her aggressively feminist agenda, which treats men as either second-class citizens or a menace to society.
Harman may try to raise a titter by playing on her reputation as a hardline women’s rights campaigner. But, in reality, men would be right to shudder if she were to seize the reins of power.
Throughout her political career, Ms Harman has promoted the extreme feminist cause.
She recently introduced an outrageously misnamed ‘Equality Bill’, which actually proposed to give legal sanction to overt discrimination against men in job recruitment.
The scheme was dressed up as an attempt to combat prejudice against women in the workplace, but in reality made anti-male bias acceptable.
Now comes an even more sinister move. Yesterday, Ms Harman — who, worryingly, is acting Prime Minister during Gordon Brown’s summer holiday — set out new proposals that may lead to a change in the law in cases of murder involving domestic violence.

As she revealed, she has embarked on a consultation process to decide whether victims of domestic violence who kill their partners should be allowed to plead provocation where they claim to be living in fear of future attacks.
At present, the defence of provocation can be used only when an individual kills during a sudden loss of self-control — during a fight, for example.


Under Ms Harman’s scheme, however, cold-blooded murder could be tolerated under British law for the first time, as long as the killer can convince a court she felt in long-term danger from her partner.
Now, I have been a supporter of women’s rights all my life. In 1971, I founded the first women’s refuge in the country, which led to the creation of a nationwide network offering shelter for victims of domestic violence.
And through that experience, as well as my own upbringing at the hands of abusive parents, I know what a terrifying problem domestic violence can be.
But it is precisely because of my desire to protect the vulnerable that I am so opposed to Ms Harman’s absurd new plan, which is not only an affront to the basic morality of our society, but also a ridiculously one-sided, misogynistic, simplistic and dangerous response to the issue.
Indeed, as with so many of her other forays into policy-making, it is driven more by feminist ideology than compassion.
Effectively, what Harman and the ultra-feminist lobby want is a licence for women to kill.
For thousands of years, one of the pillars of Judaeo-Christian civilisation has been the ethical injunction, ‘Thou shalt not kill’.
But now, radical female modernisers think that this moral edifice can be pulled down and replaced with a perverse new moral code which holds that women can murder as long as their sense of victimhood is sufficiently powerful.
If this plan is enacted, we will no longer have absolute justice in this country. Instead, our courts will have to use a carefully calibrated measure of female grievance against which to judge the darkest of all crimes.
Only in the warped mindset of feminist radicals should we protect the vulnerable by downgrading our moral abhorrence of murder.
Rather than reducing violence, Harriet Harman’s proposals could become a charter for domestic chaos, as vengeful women believe they can butcher partners they come to loathe, inventing incidents of abuse or exaggerating fears of assault.

Rest here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039445/Erin-Pizzey-champion-womens-rights-says-radical-feminist-plans-let-victims-domestic-abuse-away-murder-affront-morality.html


Note; those are Erins own words republished in the daily mail

Reward

I could go on with Labour feminist involvement is domestic violence fraud and discrimination..

So anyway, I believe that gov. quotas for feminists dressed up as quotas for feminists under the pretense that there is a glass celing are a bad idea, given the track record in the UK and there are enough problems with corruption in gov as it is and there is no glass ceiling, women can get to the top of politics on their own merit, we have female politicians, have had two female presidents in succession and we have a popular and openly gay politician.

I also find it funny that some of the same people here that are saying "not all feminists are like that" have worked pretty hard to suppress information about the wrong doings of and protect their radical sisters in the UK from criticism and not one feminist has come forward in my defense here, perhaps that is why so many tar you all with the same brush, perhaps they are right.

Ickle Magoo, we had a deal - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056124012

Silverfish

Reward wrote: »

So, I feel that gov. quotas for feminists are a bad idea, there are enough problems with corruption in gov as it is.

No, it's 'Government quotas for female politicians'.

Seeking equality (note not supremacy) for women is not a bad thing. I'm not sure why you're painting it that way. It's been explained to you multiple times in this thread that feminism does not equal radical feminism, feminism does not equal misandry.

Reward wrote: »

I also find it funny that some of the same people here that are saying "not all feminists are like that" have worked pretty hard to suppress information about the wrong doings of their radical sisters in the UK. P

Can you, clearly and concisely, explain who has 'suppressed' this information here, and where these women were identified as 'sisters'.

Reward wrote: »

Perhaps that is why so many tar you all with the same brush.

The only person doing that so far is you.

Please note, this is not your first time pushing an agenda on this forum, based on nothing that was actually posted.

Reward

Silverfish wrote: »

No, it's 'Government quotas for female politicians'.

Seeking equality (note not supremacy) for women is not a bad thing. I'm not sure why you're painting it that way. It's been explained to you multiple times in this thread that feminism does not equal radical feminism, feminism does not equal misandry.



Can you, clearly and concisely, explain who has 'suppressed' this information here, and where these women were identified as 'sisters'.



The only person doing that so far is you.

Please note, this is not your first time pushing an agenda on this forum, based on nothing that was actually posted.

Yeah right. Im of the opinion that gov quotas for women are simply quotas for radical feminists dressed up as quotas for women under the pretense that there is some sort of glass celling. You are free to take it at face value and support undemocratic "quotas for women" for your own reasons.

Silverfish

Reward wrote: »

Yeah right. Im of the opinion that gov quotas for women are simply quotas for radical feminists dressed up as quotas for women under the pretense that there is a glass celling . You are free to take it at face value and support undemocratic "quotas for women" for your own reasons.

This is where I think you are deliberately misconstruing the answers in this thread. I believe the majority of the posters are not in favour of quotas.

Can you please address the rest of my points? You've made some insinuations that I would prefer to be cleared up.

Reward

Silverfish wrote: »

This is where I think you are deliberately misconstruing the answers in this thread. I believe the majority of the posters are not in favour of quotas.

Can you please address the rest of my points? You've made some insinuations that I would prefer to be cleared up.

No, it looks like you are projecting and deliberately misconstruing, I never said that the majority here are were pro quotas, I said that some people were working very hard to keep information about the wrong doings and disgusting policies of UK gov feminists off the board.

I just published my opinion and backed it up, as requested, that is all.

You are free to take quotas at face value, I am free the interpret them them as quotas for mainly radical feminists dressed up as quotas for women, democracy subverted and circumvented under the pretense that there is some mysterious hand keeping women out of politics, when clearly, there isn't.

I should free to have that opinion and publish it with out being mobbed.

Silverfish

Reward wrote: »

No, it looks like you are projecting and deliberately misconstruing, I never said that the majority here are were pro quotas, I said that some people were working very hard to keep information about the wrong doings of UK gov feminists off the board.

Second time to ask, who did this and where?

I should free to have that opinion and publish it with out being mobbed.

This is the ladies lounge, if you come in and accuse any feminist and/or poster of being radical feminists and misandrists, then you can expect posters to respond and refute.

Reward

Silverfish wrote: »

Second time to ask, who did this and where?



This is the ladies lounge, if you come in and accuse any feminist and/or poster of being radical feminists and misandrists, then you can expect posters to respond and refute.

Oh go away, I was talking about UK radical feminists in gov, nobody here on this board. If you interpret that incorrectly as my referring to you personally or another, I'm sorry. Go back and check, read again.

I was talking about the disgusting and corrupt behavior of radical feminists in the Labour gov.

Silverfish

Reward wrote: »

Oh go away, I was talking about UK radical feminists in gov, nobody here on this board. If you interpret that incorrectly as my referring to you personally personal attack, I'm sorry. Go back and check, read again.

I was talking about the disgusting behavior of radical feminists in the Labour gov.

I don't think Labour are in power in the UK.

And secondly, this is a thread discussing Ireland.

So I think, once again, the Humanities or the Politics forum would be best for your take on the discussion.

Reward

Silverfish wrote: »

I don't think Labour are in power in the UK.

And secondly, this is a thread discussing Ireland.

So I think, once again, the Humanities or the Politics forum would be best for your take on the discussion.

Yes, I was talking about the labour party and the labour gov when they were power. Its useful to look at what happened with similar policies in other countries when discussing implementing them in others.

Can you stop badgering me. I just wanted to post my opinion and I backed it up as requested by other users, I was mobbed and badgered for pages because of my opinion, which spoiled the thread. I'm sorry if you think that I was directing comments about UK labour feminists at you or other users personally, I wasn't as you can see by following the thread.

Stheno

Reward wrote: »

I also find it funny that some of the same people here that are saying "not all feminists are like that" have worked pretty hard to suppress information about the wrong doings of and protect their radical sisters in the UK from criticism and not one feminist has come forward in my defense here, perhaps that is why so many tar you all with the same brush, perhaps they are right.

Reward wrote: »

Oh go away, I was talking about UK radical feminists in gov, nobody here on this board. If you interpret that incorrectly as my referring to you personally or another, I'm sorry. Go back and check, read again.

Reward wrote: »

I'm sorry if you think that I was directing comments about UK labour feminists at you or other users personally, I wasn't as you can see by following the thread.

The first post of yours that I've quoted here would rather blatantly contradict the latter two posts I've quoted

And given that I've pointed out that your argument in relation to Labour implementing a quota was incorrect I'd be interested to read your response to that

Reward

Stheno wrote: »

The first post of yours that I've quoted here would rather blatantly contradict the latter two posts I've quoted

And given that I've pointed out that your argument in relation to Labour implementing a quota was incorrect I'd be interested to read your response to that

No thats a clearly lie, the first quote was in retrospect and about the will of a minority here to keep information about these radical women off the board and the silence about their disgusting policies and behaviour.

You see, you in continuing to badger and push the sources back in to the thread, it looks like you and other are colluding to protect these disgusting people and their policies, hence the first comment I made wondering if thats why many don't believe that "not all feminists are like that".

Its likely that feminists here that are working to suppress the information I published are at least a little "like that".

Reward

Stheno wrote: »

The first post of yours that I've quoted here would rather blatantly contradict the latter two posts I've quoted

And given that I've pointed out that your argument in relation to Labour implementing a quota was incorrect I'd be interested to read your response to that

No thats a clearly lie, the first quote was in retrospect and about the will of a minority here to keep information about these radical women off the board and the silence about their disgusting policies and behaviour.

You see, you in continuing to badger and push the sources back in to the thread, it looks like you and others are colluding to protect these disgusting people and their policies, hence the first comment I made wondering if thats why many don't believe that "not all feminists are like that".

Its not unreasonable to suppose that some feminists here that are working to suppress the information I published are at least a little "like that" because of their protection of these radical extremists, also if people here see criticism directed at radical feminists as directed at them personally instead of agreeing that I'm pointing out wrongdoing, that would indicate that they are at least a little "like that" too.


There are a number of strains of feminists that support and share my opinion, not suppress it.

Stheno

Reward wrote: »

No thats a clearly lie, the first quote was in retrospect and about the will of a minority here to keep information about these radical women off the board and the silence about their disgusting policies and behaviour.

I interpreted that differently, and stand by my original point above.

You see, you in continuing to badger and push the sources back in to the thread, it looks like you and others are colluding to protect these disgusting people and their policies, hence the first comment I made wondering if thats why many don't believe that "not all feminists are like that".

Its not unreasonable to suppose that some feminists here that are working to suppress the information I published are at least a little "like that" because of their protection of these radical extremists, also if people here see criticism directed at radical feminists as directed at them personally instead of agreeing that I'm pointing out wrongdoing, that would indicate that they are at least a little "like that" too.

I don't see how my pointing out the flaws in sources or arguments you have made can be seen as my colluding to protect anyone? Could you possibly explain that to me?

There are a number of strains of feminists that support and share my opinion, not suppress it.

Can you please post details of these?

Reward

Stheno wrote: »

I interpreted that differently, and stand by my original point above.


I don't see how my pointing out the flaws in sources or arguments you have made can be seen as my colluding to protect anyone? Could you possibly explain that to me?




Can you please post details of these?

You interpreted differently from how I intended it and upon realising that are sticking to your original misinterpretation regardless? Ok, thats not logical you know.

Badger badger badger, really this is just harassment in order the protect radical extremists from critsism.

If you want to see feminists that see eye to eye on feminst extremists check out wendy mcelroy, daphney patai, cristine hoff somers, murray straus, richard gelles... to name a few, actually that list of feminists has influenced me a lot.

I take it that while you are protecting these rad fem bigots in the labour gov and you want me to accept that you "arent like that".


Anyway here, some feminists that I read (they have all been targeted by mainstream feminists for their opinions too).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai

Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies (written with Noretta Koertge; Basic Books, 1994)

Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies (with N. Koertge; new and expanded edition; Lexington Books, 2003)

Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998)



Wendy McElroy www.ifeminist.com
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/06/08/feminists-deny-truth-on-domestic-violence-noh/


Christina Hoff Sommers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women.




Being a feminist doesn't mean you have to think lock step with and blindly defend extremists, disgusting policies, fraud, bigotry and misandry. Unless of course you are an extremist.

“Feminism is dying not from a backlash but from an orthodoxy that cannot tolerate real discussion…and never could.” Wendy MvElroy.

That quote by Wendy explains a lot about the way I was treated here.

ArtSmart

ote: havent read thread.
I think the bigger issue is defining 'female qualities' which are different from men and whether they
a/ exist

b/ if they do exist, will they exist in political arena?

c/ what can they bring that male traits can't?

if one believes typical female traits are a more 'holistic', more consensus, caring, etc etc then hard to see any in place, if they can if fact be so defined.

examples of females who displayed traits usually assoc with males are numerous. (assuming males traits can be defined, of course, - and i'm assuming they can.

Stheno

Reward wrote: »

You interpreted differently from how I intended it and upon realising that are sticking to your original misinterpretation regardless? Ok, thats not logical you know.

You clearly stated

I also find it funny that some of the same people here that are saying "not all feminists are like that" have worked pretty hard to suppress information about the wrong doings of and protect their radical sisters in the UK from criticism and not one feminist has come forward in my defense here, perhaps that is why so many tar you all with the same brush, perhaps they are right.

Therefore from that post I interpreted that as you posting your opinion as to the thoughts/motives arguments of posters on her, and the further opinion you then extrapolated that they are defending their "sisters"

No-one has come forward to "defend" you as your arguments are not 100% supportable, as I've already pointed out regarding quotas, something that you are consistently ignoring under the guise of:

Badger badger badger, really this is just harassment in order the protect radical extremists from critsism.

You refuse to engage in debate, but rather feel that you can simply post up reams of links supporting your point of view, yet when challenged consistently fall back upon the argument above that you are being harrassed.

When that fails you sink further with your debating skills by posting that I or anyone who disagrees with you is :

I take it that while you are protecting these rad fem bigots in the labour gov and you want me to accept that you "arent like that".

No one but you has actually posted:

Being a feminist doesn't mean you have to think lock step with and blindly defend extremists, disgusting policies, fraud, bigotry and misandry. Unless of course you are an extremist.

apart from you.

“Feminism is dying not from a backlash but from an orthodoxy that cannot tolerate real discussion…and never could.” Wendy MvElroy.

That quote by Wendy explains a lot about the way I was treated here.

It does as despite your endless posting you certainly appear to be unable to tolerate real discussion or debate, to take on and argue viewpoints of others, and to intelligently respond when questioned as to the sources of your information or indeed the logic behind posting sources that are then shown to be incorrect.

Reward

Stheno wrote: »

You clearly stated



Therefore from that post I interpreted that as you posting your opinion as to the thoughts/motives arguments of posters on her, and the further opinion you then extrapolated that they are defending their "sisters"

No-one has come forward to "defend" you as your arguments are not 100% supportable, as I've already pointed out regarding quotas, something that you are consistently ignoring under the guise of:


You refuse to engage in debate, but rather feel that you can simply post up reams of links supporting your point of view, yet when challenged consistently fall back upon the argument above that you are being harrassed.

When that fails you sink further with your debating skills by posting that I or anyone who disagrees with you is :


No one but you has actually posted:


apart from you.


It does as despite your endless posting you certainly appear to be unable to tolerate real discussion or debate, to take on and argue viewpoints of others, and to intelligently respond when questioned as to the sources of your information or indeed the logic behind posting sources that are then shown to be incorrect.

Ok I will repost the sources about radical feminist in the UK gov and you can show how they are incorrect.


Can you logically demonstrate how these sources are incorrect or do you judge correct and incorrect according to something other than fact and logic?

Reward

As requested
Labour feminists sex trafficking fraud.

This was based around wild exaggerations about the number of sex slaves in the UK. Jacqui Smith claimed on one radio interview that 80% of prostitutes were under the control of another (sex slaves) and so implied that many men are happy to pay to have sex with miserable women that are kept in captivity (false accusation of wide spread rape), a very misandrist meme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7024646.stm
http://www.expatica.com/es/news/span...ng-_47465.html

The whole thing, like gendered domestic abuse and rape, turned out to be based on lies and was likely a front to criminalise men that use the consensual sex trade.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oc...-enquiry-fails

"Harman's sex trafficking law is based on feeble, fraudulent evidence.

Here's the line. Women are being trafficked into Britain and forced to become sex slaves. We know this because the massive Operation Pentameter, involving 55 police forces, six government departments and various NGOs, led to the arrest of 528 sex traffickers. On the basis of this, Harriet Harman is rightly pushing through a bill to make it illegal to pay for sex with a prostitute controlled by someone else.

Except it's all lies. As Nick Davies reports, the six-month investigation actually failed to find a single sex trafficker. Ten of the 55 police forces arrested nobody at all. Some 122 of the 528 arrests claimed never happened (they were wrongly recorded, or phantom arrests designed to chase targets). Half (230) were women – suggesting that the Operation was a convenient excuse to harass prostitutes and clock up more arrest figures.

Of the 406 real arrests, 153 had been released weeks before the police announced their 'success', 106 without any charge at all, and 47 being cautioned for minor offences. Of the rest, 73 were charged with immigration breaches, 76 convicted on drugs raps, and others died or disappeared.

Only 22 people were finally prosecuted for trafficking, including two women. Seven were acquitted. The net haul from this vast operation was 15 successful prosecutions. Of those, just five men were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes (two of whom were already in custody).

So that's the 'huge success' that allowed Jacqui Smith and now Harriet Harman, to claim that 'thousands' of women were being trafficked, and to push a Bill through Parliament. So much for evidence-based policy: I would feel happier if they just said that they found prostitution disgusting and wanted to outlaw it for our own moral good. At least that would be honest. This is simple deception, a fraud on the public.

Sex workers are opposing the new legislation. They know that every time governments 'get tough' on prostitution, they are the ones who suffer. The police just have another excuse to go on fishing trips, round up a few girls, and boost their arrest figures so that they get Brownie points and the Chief Constable gets a better bonus. And to prove that they are not 'controlled', girls will start working alone, rather than in flats with a maid to look after them, which will make them more vulnerable to abuse and attack".

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/justic...-liberties/70/

If anyone wants to declare the above invalid on the basis of it being published on a libertarian blog, click on the Guardian link above it for the same information published in the Guardian.


on the ideology behind sex trafficking fraud.

Weitzer, R [2007] The social construction of sex trafficking: Ideology and institutionalization of a moral crusade. Politics & Society 35(3);

Sophie Day [2009] Renewing the war on prostitution: The spectres of 'trafficking' and 'slavery' Anthropology Today v25n3;

Doezema. J [1999] Loose women or lost women? The re-emergence of the myth of 'white slavery' in contemporary discourses of 'trafficking in women'. Gender Issues 18(1).

Stheno

Reward wrote: »

Ok I will repost the sources about radical feminist in the UK gov and you can show how they are incorrect.

Don't bother having refuted your first argument about quotas in the Labour Party and not had you engage in any kind of real or meaningful debate as to how you miscontrued that and also failed to backup that argument factually, I have no interested in dissassembling even more of your flawed logic. Nor am I interested in having you apply your labels of "sister", "radical feminist" "labour supporter" or "colluder" applied to me again.

Have you anything to say regarding your error about the quotas?