I. Examiner column "Panda or no panda, the war over gender equality is far from over"

iptba

I have just been reading this column in the Irish Examiner:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/colette-browne/panda-or-no-panda-the-war-over-gender-equality-is-far-from-over-180495.html

I think it needs some balance e.g. one or more letters pointing out issues men have and/or some of the flaws in the statistics/analysis.

Sample quote:

As well as facing discrimination at work, women are disproportionately the victims of violence. The 2002 Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland (SAVI) report, the most comprehensive carried out to date, revealed 30% of women experienced sexual abuse as children and 6% were raped as adults. The figures for men were 24% and 0.9% respectively.

According to the ESRI, one-in-seven women, compared to one in 17 men, experience severe domestic violence in this country. From 1996 to September 2011, 174 women were murdered in Ireland and 107 of these were murdered in their own homes. Safe Ireland, in a one-day census of domestic violence services in 2010, found that 555 women and 324 children received support during that 24-hour period and, in its end of year report, revealed women and children could not be accommodated on 3,236 occasions because refuges were full, highlighting the fact that Ireland has a risible one-third of the refuge capacity recommended by the Council of Europe.

In response, the Government announced it was cutting funding to Safe Ireland, which formerly represented 20 refuges and 21 domestic violence support services, by 100% — meaning no more embarrassing reports.

It is not nice that people of either gender suffer violence.

However, I think there are other types of violence that are not being mentioned meaning this claim:

women are disproportionately the victims of violence

is questionable.
Anyone know where statistics can be found on it?

Another way of looking at it is as a way of highlighting an issue that might be close to your heart e.g. < women may have it bad in some areas, but fathers ...>

It is this sort of one-sided, selective analysis of society that got me interested in gender issues.

Pawwed Rig

It seems like a very well written article. While I cannot vouch for the statistics I think she makes alot of valid points. I am not sure a reference to fathers would have fitten within the article though.
The main thrust was the objectivisation of women by the media which I think we can all agree is a fact. The BBC's list missed alot of women of note at the expense of women who got lots of media attention for no good reason (thinking Pippa Middleton)

btw I think the Panda had more claim to the list than a few of the others mentioned

Maguined

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It seems like a very well written article. While I cannot vouch for the statistics I think she makes alot of valid points. I am not sure a reference to fathers would have fitten within the article though.
The main thrust was the objectivisation of women by the media which I think we can all agree is a fact. The BBC's list missed alot of women of note at the expense of women who got lots of media attention for no good reason (thinking Pippa Middleton)

btw I think the Panda had more claim to the list than a few of the others mentioned

Was the BBC list meant to be a list of women of note or women of media attention?

seamus

Maguined wrote: »

Was the BBC list meant to be a list of women of note or women of media attention?

That's kind of the point really. BBC's list was "faces of 2011". Not "women of 2011".

In that regard then it seems more appropriate that the list would be of women who had the most column inches written about them rather than who had the biggest social achievements.

Of course, that in itself is probably the question being asked - why do big social achievements receive less attention than the likes of Pippa Middleton who's famous for being famous? That's the "casual sexism" that the author is referring to, but the problem is that the driver of this "casual sexism" is predominantly women. Not men. Women watched Kate and whatshisface get married. Women watch Jordan make a prat of herself in a TV show. Women buy magazines talking about who's going out with who.

You could argue that women are "driven" to like this kind of entertainment by the people who create the magazines, but I think it's fairer to say that the magazines are driven to create this entertainment because that's what women like. In the same way that men's magazines are preoccupied with sports, gadgets and pictures of women.

I would agree strongly with the author if the topic on the BBC was "notable women in 2011". But it wasn't. It was "faces of 2011", and in that regard there is no issue listing women who spent considerable time in the spotlight.

On the wider issue of sexism, I don't disagree that in some areas there is still a small amount of sexism in some places. But some arguments are a tad ridiculous. More women are subject to severe domestic violence? Of course they are; men are bigger and stronger than women.
A more apt statistic would be men -v- women subject to abusive relationships overall, violent and/or emotional.

I do have two problems with feminism:

1. By definition it's goal is to secure more right for women, not equal rights for both genders
2. It assumes that anything which reinforces a female gender stereotype is wrong and undesired by women in general. This is simply not the case.

While I like some parts of the article and I get what she's trying to convey, there's too much raging 70's feminism coming through, which is as offensive, outdated and sexist as any "casual sexism" in existence today.

Maguined

seamus wrote: »

That's kind of the point really. BBC's list was "faces of 2011". Not "women of 2011".

Exactly so I do not consider it sexist, the second point that the list was not made to be a list of female achievers rather than media attention is just silly as the same also applies to men, How many people can name the last three Nobel prize winners compared to the amount of people that can name the cast of Jersey Shore?

The "situation" and Pauly D got way more media attention than any male nobel prize winner so it is not a sexism issue but a gender neutral issue as society seems to prefer the media attention of controversial buffoons over academic achievers.

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It seems like a very well written article. While I cannot vouch for the statistics I think she makes alot of valid points. I am not sure a reference to fathers would have fitten within the article though.

A reference to fathers might have fitted in to show the world isn't as unbalanced as the writer makes out.

However, my point was that a letter writer could do this. If one wants to make points on an issue, it can help to take opportunities that present themselves. This would be a good opportunity I think to raise issue about fathers.

The statistics are a very big part of this article and I have big question marks about them.

For example:

Nearly 40 years since Ireland was forced, after joining the EU, to introduce equal pay legislation, a Department of Justice report has revealed that recent female graduates still earn 11% less per week their male counterparts and that pay differentials are even more pronounced within only three years.

This is a comparison of apples and oranges - different careers have different salaries. Different courses open up different opportunities. There is no gender bias in how the CAO allocates places.

Also, salary isn't the only way to assess a job.
For example, more women than men become teachers. This might mean you earn a bit less than some other jobs. However, the holidays are very good.

Some jobs have better job security that others - we have seen in recent years, that the recession hit men more than women in terms of unemployment.

Some jobs are more dangerous than others. And men are much more likely to be killed or severely injured at work.

CiaranMT

iptba wrote: »

However, I think there are other types of violence that are not being mentioned meaning this claim:

is questionable.
Anyone know where statistics can be found on it?

Look at the ESRI's own statistics mentioned in the piece. Check their veracity.

Look at sites like this or this, go through publications.

seamus wrote: »

1. By definition it's goal is to secure more right for women, not equal rights for both genders

Merriam-Webster:

1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Oxford:

the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Collins:

1. a doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women

strobe

iptba wrote: »

Sample quote:

women are disproportionately the victims of violence

It is not nice that people of either gender suffer violence.

However, I think there are other types of violence that are not being mentioned meaning this claim:

women are disproportionately the victims of violence

is questionable.
Anyone know where statistics can be found on it?


It is this sort of one-sided, selective analysis of society that got me interested in gender issues.

I can't really dig up statistics (damn you wikipedia :pac:) but as I posted somewhere else onsite. 'In 2008 10,582 men were murdered in the US versus 3,158 women.' That's just one year in one country and one (although the worst) type of violence I know, but it's a common pattern everywhere. Men are always more often the victims of murder, assault as well, all violent crime except sexual crime usually (and perhaps 'serious domestic violence' although I'm not sure what exactly that entails.)

So yeah, it was a silly way to phrase that. Should have been '[...]disproportionately the victims of (certain kinds of) violence'.

Over all I didn't care much for the article really. The entire premise is a little flawed but Seamus and Mag covered that so I won't go back over it. Seems to just be hunting for sexism that isn't there. There's actual sexism out there to be worrying about without needing to write this silly guff.

iptba

Here are the lists:
Faces of the year 2011 - the men:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16200433

Faces of the year 2011 - the women:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16200429

No Nobel winners in the list for men either.

iptba

CiaranMT wrote: »

Look at the ESRI's own statistics mentioned in the piece. Check their veracity.

Thanks.
However, my point wasn't to doubt that specific statistic relating to severe domestic violence but her claim

women are disproportionately the victims of violence.

CiaranMT wrote: »

Look at sites like this

Thanks for the link. Wasn't aware of the site. Did a search for violence which didn't turn up anything that would do the job.

This came up in the search which doesn't seem a particularly balanced initiative:

http://menssupportgroupsofireland.com/calls-to-sign-convention-against-violence/

Calls to sign convention against violence

By Ann Cahill, Europe Correspondent

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

IRELAND has been urged to sign a groundbreaking European convention on preventing violence against women and domestic violence.

Launched in May after years of negotiations with countries which wanted to limit its remit, the convention is waiting for 10 nations to ratify it so it can enter into force.

Despite figures that suggest at least 25% of all women in Europe are subject to violence, countries have been slow to ratify the convention.

[..]

It is totally unacceptable for a culture in a male-dominated society that men can do whatever they like — but we must make sure that men who know they have a tendency to violence know who to turn to and this is a dimension that we should not neglect. We have to instil a culture that violence is totally unacceptable.”

CiaranMT wrote: »

or this

Think I'll give the National Women's Council of Ireland site a miss.

strobe wrote: »

I can't really dig up statistics (damn you wikipedia :pac:) but as I posted somewhere else onsite. 'In 2008 10,582 men were murdered in the US versus 3,158 women.' That's just one year in one country and one (although the worst) type of violence I know, but it's a common pattern everywhere. Men are always more often the victims of murder, assault as well, all violent crime except sexual crime usually (and perhaps 'serious domestic violence' although I'm not sure what exactly that entails.)

Thanks.
However, while it would do the job for an internet discussion, I reckon for a letter Irish stats would be best.

PseudoFamous

http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/statistics_cri_crime_murder.html

In 2005, 45 males were murdered in Ireland, versus 9 females.

As far as I can see, there hasn't been a year with more females murdered than males in the last 20+ years.

Otis Driftwood

I wonder what percentage of those 45 were murdered by women as opposed to the percentage of the 9 women murdered by men.

Maguined

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of those 45 were murdered by women as opposed to the percentage of the 9 women murdered by men.

Does it really matter though? Is violence against someone motivated by the victims gender? If a man beats his wife is that a gender influenced based crime? If a lesbian beat her lesbian partner is that any more or less a gender influenced based crime? Violence is violence, the genders are irrelevant.

seamus

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of those 45 were murdered by women as opposed to the percentage of the 9 women murdered by men.

Considering that 90% of physical violence is carried out by men, I would expect about 50 of those total murders to have been carried out by men, and practically all of the female homicides to have been committed by a man. That's not sexism or any indication of violence specific to women. It doesn't say that men are more violent towards women than they are towards men. It just says that men are more physically violent on the whole.

No-one would deny that.

A U.S. study in fact found that men only murdered a friend, spouse or family member about 20% of the time. Women did it about 60% of the time. Which suggests that when it comes to domestic violence, a man is more at risk from being murdered by his wife, then she is from being murdered by him, all other things being equal.

However, I will accept that U.S. figures are likely skewed due to the availability of guns. That levels the field somewhat so that a disgruntled wife may consider murder to be a more realistic option. In this country where firearms aren't quite so readily available, murder is a less realistic option.

Pawwed Rig

PseudoFamous wrote: »

In 2005, 45 males were murdered in Ireland, versus 9 females.

This figure presumably includes gang murders which are predominantly carried out by men on men

EasyGame

Pretentious, biased article written by someone with an opinion of their own intelligence that far surpasses reality.

The "women's rights" crowd have surpassed the desire for equality at this point and are now seeking active exception over men simply for being women. Discussion of the state of gender equality with such people is completely merit-less at this point.

iptba

Don't know if anybody wrote in but the only letter published is one today (Saturday) supporting the article:

It’s up to the women

Saturday, January 21, 2012

GOOD for Colette Browne who highlighted the fact that "women are woefully underrepresented in our political system" (Opinion, Jan 18).

She also highlighted the fact that only 86 of the 566 candidates who contested February’s general election were women and less than 14% of our TDs are women. But she did not mention the fact that women are a majority in the electorate and have the numbers to change the situation. If and when the numbers of women candidates increase it will be up to women to vote for them. What is the betting that this will happen?

Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/its-up-to-the-women-180925.html#ixzz1k3Sk6aVr

EasyGame

Another load of bollocks.

"It will be up to women to vote for them" - not on experience, or what they can bring to the position, but because they're women. The dail doesn't need an equal amount of representation, it needs politicians that can do the job and do it well regardless of their sex - something that these women who are pushing for female candidates purely because they have a vagina will never grasp.

Fair play to the women in the Dail though, sure weren't they running events recently that men weren't welcome to attend, simply because they're men. Great bunch of representatives of equality they've presented themselves as.

amacachi

15% of candidates were female, 14% of those elected were female. Seems the electorate is really sexist. Or there just aren't "enough" women getting involved in politics.

irishh_bob

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It seems like a very well written article. While I cannot vouch for the statistics I think she makes alot of valid points. I am not sure a reference to fathers would have fitten within the article though.
The main thrust was the objectivisation of women by the media which I think we can all agree is a fact. The BBC's list missed alot of women of note at the expense of women who got lots of media attention for no good reason (thinking Pippa Middleton)

btw I think the Panda had more claim to the list than a few of the others mentioned

pippa middleton courts media attention and revels in the attention

Pawwed Rig

irishh_bob wrote: »

pippa middleton courts media attention and revels in the attention

Who cares about Pippa Middleton?