Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Nodin

silverharp wrote: »

I dont know who she is as i dont read irish papers so much but that sounds like an argument based on impugning the source. From listening to Maryam I doubt she would be so closed minded. On a quick search I can see that they both wrote complimentary articles on Hitchens for example so Im not sure what your point is?

It's not an argument based on impugning the source, as the argument is that the "source" (Hunt) is a fairly vile right wing Israel supporter, who will use any legitimate criticism voiced by others to further their own agenda.

silverharp

Nodin wrote: »

It's not an argument based on impugning the source, as the argument is that the "source" (Hunt) is a fairly vile right wing Israel supporter, who will use any legitimate criticism voiced by others to further their own agenda.

I had a flick through her articles, I dont see it, she even has one critical of the place of religion in schools and she has a couple of articles that mention Isrlael, big swing. Being "right wing" or pro Israel does not make someone vile by default.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/carol-hunt/

JPNelsforearm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Oh yeah. It's ridiculous that (at least in some areas) everyone is expected to get into a degree course. It's not the best option for many people. There are as many potential plumbers born in Foxrock as Finglas. 'Working with your hands' is very much looked down upon in this country for some reason.

Im not knocking or even talking about trades, they are real, essential jobs and require a person to learn/develop actual skills, l. Im solely knocking the proliferation of made up degrees that have no value and never will. No one will ever say "We need a womens studies major in here", its just a complete waste of time and resources for all concerned.

Shrap

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Im not knocking or even talking about trades, they are real, essential jobs and require a person to learn/develop actual skills, l. Im solely knocking the proliferation of made up degrees that have no value and never will. No one will ever say "We need a womens studies major in here", its just a complete waste of time and resources for all concerned.

Well you could likewise say that about a Theology degree or Classical Language degree, or whatever. As far as I know, the only jobs in those fields are as lecturers! Heck, let's go all out and get rid of History also! I mean, if you're only going to be writing books about interesting times gone by, why bother? There might be a consultancy job somewhere like radio the odd time, but historians aren't really employable, eh? :rolleyes:

I mean, I can't say if Womens Studies are useful or how people use the degrees when they get them - haven't looked up any courses to see the content yet, but I don't know how exactly you're quantifying an entire field of study as any more useless than the ones I mentioned? How it's taught on the other hand.....looks like they've some cause for complaint about that in the US at least.

JPNelsforearm

Shrap wrote: »

Well you could likewise say that about a Theology degree or Classical Language degree, or whatever. As far as I know, the only jobs in those fields are as lecturers! Heck, let's go all out and get rid of History also! I mean, if you're only going to be writing books about interesting times gone by, why bother? There might be a consultancy job somewhere like radio the odd time, but historians aren't really employable, eh? :rolleyes:

I mean, I can't say if Womens Studies are useful or how people use the degrees when they get them - haven't looked up any courses to see the content yet, but I don't know how exactly you're quantifying an entire field of study as any more useless than the ones I mentioned? How it's taught on the other hand.....looks like they've some cause for complaint about that in the US at least.

History is essential as its about facts and knowledge of the past which we can use to guide our future and understand problems we are faced with, eg the middle east etc whatever, spread of plague, genetics, military tactics etc etc, I could go on..

pH

silverharp wrote: »

I had a flick through her articles, I dont see it, she even has one critical of the place of religion in schools and she has a couple of articles that mention Isrlael, big swing. Being "right wing" or pro Israel does not make someone vile by default.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/carol-hunt/

Certain posters really dislike that this thread exists at all and will try to twist the argument to be about "vile" right-wingers instead. The thought hasn't even crossed their minds that anyone "right wing" have any rights at all let alone the right to discuss left wing cookies, and if they begrudgingly do accept these rights exists well then they certainly shouldn't be discussing them here.

Nodin

pH wrote: »

Certain posters really dislike that this thread exists at all .................

They do? Who would they be, when they are at home?

Yosef.coen

Nodin wrote: »

It's not an argument based on impugning the source, as the argument is that the "source" (Hunt) is a fairly vile right wing Israel supporter, who will use any legitimate criticism voiced by others to further their own agenda.

Because as we all know being a supporter of Israel is the biggest crime of all. 'Into the deepest circle of Dante's hell for these poor unfortunate folk'

More seriously though, it is this exact thought process which leads to a situation (without no hint of irony or hypocrisy) where a Feminist and LGBT university student society stand wholly in 'solidarity' with a Islamic student society where its members harassed, threatened and intimated a women giving .... (wait for it, as it must be scary and criminal..)... a lecture. Irony fubar to be honest.

Do these student societies not know how Islamist and Muslim majority countries treat women and gay people? Do they know that being gay or atheist can result in you being executed? Or are they too pre-occupied in believing their anti-western white-male buzzword patriarchy propaganda.

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/nus-motion-to-condemn-isis-fails-amidst-claims-of-islamophobia-9796193.html

Nodin

Hmmm, post people about bandwagoning on top of legitmate criticism of Islam to further ones agenda and lo.....
Why is it I could talk about free marijuana, delivered to the door, and that wouldn't turn up?

Yosef.coen wrote: »

.......................................................................
Do these student societies not know how Islamist and Muslim majority countries treat women and gay people? Do they know that being gay or atheist can result in you being executed? Or are they too pre-occupied in believing their anti-western white-male buzzword patriarchy propaganda.

I'd imagine they do. They'd also know how Israel treats the population in the occupied territories. As a result they feel some shock when they see Syria and Iran, Sudan and the others under sanctions and excluded from various activities, but Israeli politicians flying over to Europe without a care in the world.

Yosef.coen

Nodin wrote: »

I'd imagine they do. They'd also know how Israel treats the population in the occupied territories. As a result they feel some shock when they see Syria and Iran, Sudan and the others under sanctions and excluded from various activities, but Israeli politicians flying over to Europe without a care in the world.

It seems you are very confused that by the mere fact that one the has to be right-wing if they are in anyway a supporter of Israel. Can one be left wing but be a supporter of Israel? Of course but Id say not your own small mind.

Was there not a thread recently here about a Guardian article where the author assumed, wrongly that Atheism belonged to the left? You are falling into the same trap as this author.

I never heard of Carol Hunt. Just some random nobody who writes opinion puff pieces for independant.ie A quick google tells me that she is a feminist, pro-choice, pro-secularism, pro-gay marriage. Very left wing if somebody is using the lazy right-left axis as you have done. I don't see anything much regarding pro-Israel in there either.

Yet, you just call her a vile right winger because she may have a different opinion than you about a topic, one of many. Says more about yourself then Carl Hunt in my opinion that you resort to ad-hominem labeling as if that is enough to render her opinion baseless, a favorite tactic of the far-left it must be said and bringing it back full circle something we have seen in full evidence towards Maryam Namazie by student societies. 'Islamaphobic', 'Racist', 'bigoted' and so on.

Most people can see how stupid these immature childish students are acting, yet you seem more then willing to follow in their footsteps knowing all this already. Very brave but foolhardy and it certainly won't get people to take you seriously.
Good luck.

robindch

Mod:

Yosef.coen wrote: »

[...][ your own small mind [...]

Yosef.coen wrote: »

[...] you resort to ad-hominem [...]

Yosef - great to have you drop by. The forum charter is here and I suggest that, before you post here again, you take a few minutes to read it - particularly Rule 1 which I'm reproducing here:

A+A Forum Charter wrote:

1. No personal insults. Attack the post not the poster. If you can't keep your head, take it elsewhere.

lazza14

Turtwig wrote: »

Tbh that article reads like a whiny emotional tirade.

A lot of men don't understand the concept of no meaning no. I guess those would be the "pre rapists" a stupid term maybe but I don't understand why having such awareness drives is a bad thing?

Because why should every man going to college be assumed to be a potential rapist ?

You should go to a course to teach you not to steal ... or not to murder, because maybe you are a THIEF or a MURDERER !!!

The Black Oil

https://twitter.com/alisadaf/status/674052067447742466

No coming back from that.

MrPudding

lazza14 wrote: »

Because why should every man going to college be assumed to be a potential rapist ?

You should go to a course to teach you not to steal ... or not to murder, because maybe you are a THIEF or a MURDERER !!!

Not meaning to start a pedant war or anything, but every man is a potential rapist. Just like every man, or every woman is a potential murderer. As we grow up we learn, at least most do, that stealing and murdering is bad.

We also learn that rape is bad, but there is a bit of a wrinkle here. Theft and murder are fairly simple, and the vast majority of people know what's involved and would generally know when they are about to commit one of those offences. Rape is not quite so easy. Sometimes it is, but these awareness campaigns (I have not checked this one specifically, so I am talking generally) are not aimed at telling guys "if you drag a woman down an alleyway, beat her and have sex with her while she is trying to fight you off and screaming no". We all know that is rape, or at least we should. They are aimed at those occasions where consent, or lack of it, is not so obvious, or when a guy might think he has consent, but due to operation of the law, he doesn't.

I have had conversations with plenty of people on this subject and I never fail to be surprised at the number of people that genuinely have no idea how consent works in rape. Anything that improves people's understanding of this is not necessarily a bad thing.

MrP

silverharp

MrPudding wrote: »

Not meaning to start a pedant war or anything, but every man is a potential rapist. Just like every man, or every woman is a potential murderer. As we grow up we learn, at least most do, that stealing and murdering is bad.

We also learn that rape is bad, but there is a bit of a wrinkle here. Theft and murder are fairly simple, and the vast majority of people know what's involved and would generally know when they are about to commit one of those offences. Rape is not quite so easy. Sometimes it is, but these awareness campaigns (I have not checked this one specifically, so I am talking generally) are not aimed at telling guys "if you drag a woman down an alleyway, beat her and have sex with her while she is trying to fight you off and screaming no". We all know that is rape, or at least we should. They are aimed at those occasions where consent, or lack of it, is not so obvious, or when a guy might think he has consent, but due to operation of the law, he doesn't.

I have had conversations with plenty of people on this subject and I never fail to be surprised at the number of people that genuinely have no idea how consent works in rape. Anything that improves people's understanding of this is not necessarily a bad thing.

MrP

I'd have no issue with well written material being given out in schools in 5th or 6 the year. However it looks like a lot of these fem socs and student unions have become quite toxic in colleges so there is going to be a push back. The universities can put some literature together and put them in student packs and leave it at that. Its reasonable enough to at least explain the legal situation

pH

https://twitter.com/owolade14/status/673975827059638274

Revelations of public tweets made by the president of Goldsmiths Islamic Society, Muhammed Patel, all of it since deleted, he's resigned, and the FemSoc and LGBTQ societies are still supporting them!

Nodin

pH wrote: »

https://twitter.com/owolade14/status/673975827059638274

Revelations of public tweets made by the president of Goldsmiths Islamic Society, Muhammed Patel, all of it since deleted, he's resigned, and the FemSoc and LGBTQ societies are still supporting them!

All a bit mental.

Christy42

Shrap wrote: »

Well you could likewise say that about a Theology degree or Classical Language degree, or whatever. As far as I know, the only jobs in those fields are as lecturers! Heck, let's go all out and get rid of History also! I mean, if you're only going to be writing books about interesting times gone by, why bother? There might be a consultancy job somewhere like radio the odd time, but historians aren't really employable, eh? :rolleyes:

I mean, I can't say if Womens Studies are useful or how people use the degrees when they get them - haven't looked up any courses to see the content yet, but I don't know how exactly you're quantifying an entire field of study as any more useless than the ones I mentioned? How it's taught on the other hand.....looks like they've some cause for complaint about that in the US at least.

Where we have come from is very important and we still have a lot to figure out in that regards. I would question whether we need as many history graduates as we do but that is a different question. Also a historian could be employed as a researcher primarily which is of use to society. The other two may come under that banner but I am unsure. They may well be as useless as you suggest.

I have met women who done great work for their gender including a woman who topped her otherwise fully male maths class in a top ranked university. That is how women will close down sexism against them, a certain amount of campaigning also has to be done but I have seen plenty do that without a women's studies degree. Seeing women do well in traditionally male dominated fields has made it impossible to discount a woman's ability to do science on the basis of her gender alone. We still have an issue that while maths is more balanced (not close to 50-50 but still a decent percentage that I have seen) subjects like engineering and cs can have full classes without a woman. That has to change. Maybe I am wrong as I don't have first hand experience of being a women but this is how I have been shown point blank that certain things frequently held by society are wrong (I should say that I was always raised to not to believe them anyway but seeing the examples are more effective for people I feel).

It is unfortunate that women have to prove themselves as a gender in certain fields but that is unfortunately where we are.

silverharp

Christy42 wrote: »

Where we have come from is very important and we still have a lot to figure out in that regards. I would question whether we need as many history graduates as we do but that is a different question. Also a historian could be employed as a researcher primarily which is of use to society. The other two may come under that banner but I am unsure. They may well be as useless as you suggest.

I have met women who done great work for their gender including a woman who topped her otherwise fully male maths class in a top ranked university. That is how women will close down sexism against them, a certain amount of campaigning also has to be done but I have seen plenty do that without a women's studies degree. Seeing women do well in traditionally male dominated fields has made it impossible to discount a woman's ability to do science on the basis of her gender alone. We still have an issue that while maths is more balanced (not close to 50-50 but still a decent percentage that I have seen) subjects like engineering and cs can have full classes without a woman. That has to change. Maybe I am wrong as I don't have first hand experience of being a women but this is how I have been shown point blank that certain things frequently held by society are wrong (I should say that I was always raised to not to believe them anyway but seeing the examples are more effective for people I feel).

It is unfortunate that women have to prove themselves as a gender in certain fields but that is unfortunately where we are.

it doesnt have to change, it should be free to change if it wants to. You cant force people to do something they dont want to do. Should we force women onto building sites and onto trawlers? or maybe start kicking them out of teaching because they are over represented there?

JPNelsforearm

silverharp wrote: »

it doesnt have to change, it should be free to change if it wants to. You cant force people to do something they dont want to do. Should we force women onto building sites and onto trawlers? or maybe start kicking them out of teaching because they are over represented there?

This is what makes me laugh, "we need fifty fifty representation in all white collar cushy numbers", f....f....f....f..for equality reasons... Meanwhile, miners, binmen et all nary get a mention.. EQUALITY(but only in the high paying non taxing fields)

silverharp

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

This is what makes me laugh, "we need fifty fifty representation in all white collar cushy numbers", f....f....f....f..for equality reasons... Meanwhile, miners, binmen et all nary get a mention.. EQUALITY(but only in the high paying non taxing fields)

Indeed , nobody wants equality when it comes to work related deaths for example....

Christy42

silverharp wrote: »

it doesnt have to change, it should be free to change if it wants to. You cant force people to do something they dont want to do. Should we force women onto building sites and onto trawlers? or maybe start kicking them out of teaching because they are over represented there?

Do you feel there is someshing intrinsic about being a woman that implies you are far far less likely to do cs? When I was in college there were 2 girls over 3 years of cs. That mixture seems unlikely to come up naturally.

Possible but unlikely. I didn't once say I wanted 50-50 numbers. The poster posting that made that up himself. In fact I said maths is doing pretty well and doesn't have 50-50 numbers.

I also didm'T say it had to be forced. Encourage girls at a school age to take up these subjects. No minimum numbers on a course will be required to go to women, the method of the Cao will remain the same and offer students places on courses they want irrespective of gender. Simple solution. It doesn't force anything to change but I will bet a lot of money change would happen. More cs students will create more demand for courses and help the economy.

No one will be forced out of teaching. Change would be slow and gradual and come from a school level.

Now tell me, tell me that if school girls are shown more cs type stuff in school (show it to the boys too, may as well make it equal) that more girls won't put down cs on the Cao form.

pH

Christy42 wrote: »

I have met women who done great work for their gender including a woman who topped her otherwise fully male maths class in a top ranked university. That is how women will close down sexism against them, a certain amount of campaigning also has to be done but I have seen plenty do that without a women's studies degree. Seeing women do well in traditionally male dominated fields has made it impossible to discount a woman's ability to do science on the basis of her gender alone. We still have an issue that while maths is more balanced (not close to 50-50 but still a decent percentage that I have seen) subjects like engineering and cs can have full classes without a woman. That has to change.

So given that 60% of college places in Ireland now go to women, and you'd like to engineer a situation for more women to take places, where exactly do you think equality is achieved? 75% of college students female? why stop there, maybe women won't be "equal" in education until third level is 100% female? Will that be enough?

JPNelsforearm

Christy42 wrote: »

Do you feel there is someshing intrinsic about being a woman that implies you are far far less likely to do cs? When I was in college there were 2 girls over 3 years of cs. That mixture seems unlikely to come up naturally.

Possible but unlikely. I didn't once say I wanted 50-50 numbers. The poster posting that made that up himself. In fact I said maths is doing pretty well and doesn't have 50-50 numbers.

I also didm'T say it had to be forced. Encourage girls at a school age to take up these subjects. No minimum numbers on a course will be required to go to women, the method of the Cao will remain the same and offer students places on courses they want irrespective of gender. Simple solution. It doesn't force anything to change but I will bet a lot of money change would happen. More cs students will create more demand for courses and help the economy.

No one will be forced out of teaching. Change would be slow and gradual and come from a school level.

Now tell me, tell me that if school girls are shown more cs type stuff in school (show it to the boys too, may as well make it equal) that more girls won't put down cs on the Cao form.

Why does it matter? So what if cs is 100% women or 100% men, the gender make up of a course doesnt matter, what matters is that the people within enjoy what they are doing and learn the skills they need, thats it.


This already happens. No one is forced down a stereotypical male/female path.

They are and the results are what you see. Boys arent being shown separate CAO forms...

Its a total non issue, if a girl want to do cs, law, engineering etc, she will, if she doesnt, she wont, end of story.

Christy42

pH wrote: »

So given that 60% of college places in Ireland now go to women, and you'd like to engineer a situation for more women to take places, where exactly do you think equality is achieved? 75% of college students female? why stop there, maybe women won't be "equal" in education until third level is 100% female? Will that be enough?

At any point would you care to argue against something I actually said?

I would presume that increased numbers in female cs students would decrease the numbers in a few others though I admittedly am not sure. I said that the deciding system of the CAO would remain the same so I fail to see how giving more people cs lessons in school would lead to women getting higher points and so securing more places. Could you elaborate on that potentially?

The issue that 60% of college places are going to women is another issue I feel should be looked at. I didn't mention it as I felt it was off topic. I am less sure on a solution to that as I don't know the cause. Is it because guys don't like school more? Does our current teaching style favour women? Is it because women mature faster than guys? Maybe it is because guys are quicker to think of going into a trade than women. I agree it should be looked at least. As you say no one should be forced into something they don't want to do but again it seems unlikely to come up naturally. Definitely something that should be looked at.

Christy42

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Why does it matter? So what if cs is 100% women or 100% men, the gender make up of a course doesnt matter, what matters is that the people within enjoy what they are doing and learn the skills they need, thats it.


This already happens. No one is forced down a stereotypical male/female path.

They are and the results are what you see. Boys arent being shown separate CAO forms...

Its a total non issue, if a girl want to do cs, law, engineering etc, she will, if she doesnt, she wont, end of story.

As I said, it deserves looking at to see if we are accidentally turning women away from CS for whatever reason. If the make up ends up as 100% boys in CS then so be it. I sincerely doubt that would be the end result of showing more people CS type modules in school. Heck it should be done anyway given the way the world is heading so what is the harm?

pH

Christy42 wrote: »

The issue that 60% of college places are going to women is another issue I feel should be looked at. I didn't mention it as I felt it was off topic. I am less sure on a solution to that as I don't know the cause. Is it because guys don't like school more? Does our current teaching style favour women? Is it because women mature faster than guys? Maybe it is because guys are quicker to think of going into a trade than women. I agree it should be looked at least. As you say no one should be forced into something they don't want to do but again it seems unlikely to come up naturally. Definitely something that should be looked at.

Ahh, it's "unlikely to come up naturally" that women aren't that into taking a CS degree, yet you're able to come up with plenty of pop psychology nonsense to explain the 60/40 college split!

Christy42

pH wrote: »

Ahh, it's "unlikely to come up naturally" that women aren't that into taking a CS degree, yet you're able to come up with plenty of pop psychology nonsense to explain the 60/40 college split!

Yay for misquoting me for what, the third time?

I gave a list of potential reasons, I didn't claim any of them are true. The point I made was that I couldn't come with a an attempt of a solution without knowing which of those affected the 60/40 split. All of those bring up issues, why do guys see a trade as a more natural option than women (if it is true), what can we do to amend the teaching style to help guys if that is indeed the cause.

I also said that it's "unlikely to come up naturally" that the 60/40 split exists. However that didn't suit you so you ignored it.

silverharp

Christy42 wrote: »

Do you feel there is someshing intrinsic about being a woman that implies you are far far less likely to do cs? When I was in college there were 2 girls over 3 years of cs. That mixture seems unlikely to come up naturally.

Possible but unlikely. I didn't once say I wanted 50-50 numbers. The poster posting that made that up himself. In fact I said maths is doing pretty well and doesn't have 50-50 numbers.

I also didm'T say it had to be forced. Encourage girls at a school age to take up these subjects. No minimum numbers on a course will be required to go to women, the method of the Cao will remain the same and offer students places on courses they want irrespective of gender. Simple solution. It doesn't force anything to change but I will bet a lot of money change would happen. More cs students will create more demand for courses and help the economy.

No one will be forced out of teaching. Change would be slow and gradual and come from a school level.

Now tell me, tell me that if school girls are shown more cs type stuff in school (show it to the boys too, may as well make it equal) that more girls won't put down cs on the Cao form.

I assume CS means computer science? I do believe that there are "wiring" differences between men and women so that on average more men will tend towards certain types of work and women towards others. At the individual level it depends on the individual, it obviously makes no sense that women should not attempt to enter a particular profession. Some biases are sexist, some biases are fashion and some are rooted in our nature. For instance the lack of male nurses or male teachers might be down to a form of sexism and fashion. ive no idea if patients would prefer more male nurses but there is an argument for boys having access to more male teachers as they might relate better. But if entrance is down to merit and competition so be it.

My memories from school was that the guys that went into Engineering or computer science spent their teenage years being into CB's, ham radios, building computers which are simply things teenage girls do not want to do.Those girls that are high achievers in maths or science in school are obviously going into medicine, dentistry, veterinary or law. While there will always be an element of fashion biology plays a part in the herding.

the more important issue i see in education is reducing the drop out rate and under achievement of boys. After all dont the girls want these boys to be future husbands? its one thing to maximise the opportunity for girls however if its done at the expense or neglect of boys it will be bad for society

Christy42

silverharp wrote: »

I assume CS means computer science? I do believe that there are "wiring" differences between men and women so that on average more men will tend towards certain types of work and women towards others. At the individual level it depends on the individual, it obviously makes no sense that women should not attempt to enter a particular profession. Some biases are sexist, some biases are fashion and some are rooted in our nature. For instance the lack of male nurses or male teachers might be down to a form of sexism and fashion. ive no idea if patients would prefer more male nurses but there is an argument for boys having access to more male teachers as they might relate better. But if entrance is down to merit and competition so be it.

My memories from school was that the guys that went into Engineering or computer science spent their teenage years being into CB's, ham radios, building computers which are simply things teenage girls do not want to do.Those girls that are high achievers in maths or science in school are obviously going into medicine, dentistry, veterinary or law. While there will always be an element of fashion biology plays a part in the herding.

the more important issue i see in education is reducing the drop out rate and under achievement of boys. After all dont the girls want these boys to be future husbands? its one thing to maximise the opportunity for girls however if its done at the expense or neglect of boys it will be bad for society

I would agree a lot about this post, I just feel blaming biology is a dangerous assumption for society. It could be true but we may as well try and see what we get.

i would say it is just encouraging more CS students overall. It will force/allow colleges to run more computer science style courses. I know a few people (male and female) who would have preferred Computer science to the course we did, now as the case was we could do enough computer science modules for them to get a career in it after but I felt like the problem was that they hadn't really seen coding before college. It seems from the numbers that there are more girls not finding the course but there are also some guys not looking at these courses that they might love. I don't think it would be at the expense of guys.

I would agree that the under achievement of guys is a bigger issue but I don't know how to fix it. I remember the lack of mating options for educated women was a guardian article recently. Wasn't a very good article to say the least.