Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

Charmeleon

meeeeh wrote: »

So are contestants in reality shows. They have very little influence.

It’s difficult to see how Ireland is so patriarchal though when women are enthusiastically elected the head of state. Women who were also very outspoken and opinionated, not compliant mother-figures.

meeeeh

Charmeleon wrote: »

It’s difficult to see how Ireland is so patriarchal though when women are enthusiastically elected the head of state. Women who were also very outspoken and opinionated, not compliant mother-figures.

They might be opinionated and outspoken but the lack of interest of political parties to contest the election actually shows how little power (or value to them) the position holds. There are so many restrictions that much of personality of president is curtailed anyway. It doesn't mean some great work wasn't done by recent presidents. Ireland compares very poorly to other European countries in female political representation and there is nothing to celebrate about that.

meeeeh

7th Chord wrote: »

It's up to women to get out and run for office.

Yes Irish women are so much more useless than women in 16 other EU countries.

I'm not saying it's all sexism but seriously? Not to mention that laws reflect that. Not just stuff around abortion but incredibly low preschool supports in comparison to most of Europe.

meeeeh

7th Chord wrote: »

But what? You live in a democracy with all the same rights as men. Women deserve no special treatment. What, should a percentage of women be automatically elected each election?

Oh don't worry there is no special treatment in Ireland.

pjohnson

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh don't worry there is no special treatment in Ireland.

Do you believe in quotas?

drillyeye

It is very, very difficult to do, but when a problematic persona presents itself to the world, you need to ignore it.

If more people ignored this waste of space, they would shrivel up and retreat into a "social media space" with only likeminded wastes of space for company, and then eventually die.

Talking about these people is the exact equivalent of giving oxygen to a fire. They cant exist without your attention.

If someone brings up her name, just laugh at it and refuse to carry any sort of conversation. Just let them die already.

meeeeh

7th Chord wrote: »

No doubt that's a dig at Ireland. So please tell me what's so bad here?

No it's a comparison, Ireland's record in treatment of women is not great, surely you can't deny that? I listed some issues earlier. I wasn't born here, I live here and I like Ireland. But I don't have access to free contraception including free abortion, one year paid maternity leave (100% or 80% of earnings up to above average wages), a lot cheaper childcare in comparison to income, income disparity is a lot lower(non-existent) and percentage of employed women a lot higher. I know some would consider the last one disadvantage but I don't know a single mother where I come from who doesn't work and that makes their children a lot less vulnerable. I'm not saying things are perfect, far from it but in this area Ireland has a bit of catching up to do.

the_pen_turner

meeeeh wrote: »

No it's a comparison, Ireland's record in treatment of women is not great, surely you can't deny that? I listed some issues earlier. I wasn't born here, I live here and I like Ireland. But I don't have access to free contraception including free abortion, one year paid maternity leave (100% or 80% of earnings up to above average wages), a lot cheaper childcare in comparison to income, income disparity is a lot lower(non-existent) and percentage of employed women a lot higher. I know some would consider the last one disadvantage but I don't know a single mother where I come from who doesn't work and that makes their children a lot less vulnerable. I'm not saying things are perfect, far from it but in this area Ireland has a bit of catching up to do.

who is going to pay for your 1 year 100% income maternaty leave.
meanwhile fathers are stuggling to be given a few weeks

drillyeye

meeeeh wrote: »

No it's a comparison, Ireland's record in treatment of women is not great, surely you can't deny that? I listed some issues earlier. I wasn't born here, I live here and I like Ireland. But I don't have access to free contraception including free abortion, one year paid maternity leave (100% or 80% of earnings up to above average wages), a lot cheaper childcare in comparison to income, income disparity is a lot lower(non-existent) and percentage of employed women a lot higher. I know some would consider the last one disadvantage but I don't know a single mother where I come from who doesn't work and that makes their children a lot less vulnerable. I'm not saying things are perfect, far from it but in this area Ireland has a bit of catching up to do.

But despite all the many inferiorities in our country, it is obviously superior in total, or else you wouldn't be here? Or you make less than optimal choices in life.

Geuze

meeeeh wrote: »

one year paid maternity leave (100% or 80% of earnings up to above average wages), .

Our 26 wks paid mat leave is longer than in many countries.

http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.pdf

AUS = 6 weeks
USA = 0 weeks
OECD average = 17.7 weeks

deaddonkey15

meeeeh wrote: »

No it's a comparison, Ireland's record in treatment of women is not great, surely you can't deny that? I listed some issues earlier. I wasn't born here, I live here and I like Ireland. But I don't have access to free contraception including free abortion, one year paid maternity leave (100% or 80% of earnings up to above average wages), a lot cheaper childcare in comparison to income, income disparity is a lot lower(non-existent) and percentage of employed women a lot higher. I know some would consider the last one disadvantage but I don't know a single mother where I come from who doesn't work and that makes their children a lot less vulnerable. I'm not saying things are perfect, far from it but in this area Ireland has a bit of catching up to do.

Men don't have access to free contraception either.

Why should your abortion be free?

meeeeh

drillyeye wrote: »

But despite all the many inferiorities in our country, it is obviously superior in total, or else you wouldn't be here? Or you make less than optimal choices in life.

I moved because of my partner. Among other reasons I spoke the language of country I was moving to he wouldn't if he had to move. In terms of lifestyle Ireland wasn't that much of an improvement for me (but that's personal circumstances and has nothing to do with general situation).

Just a correction that year maternity I mentioned, large chunk of it is transferable to whichever partner wants to stay at home.

meeeeh

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Men don't have access to free contraception either.

Why should your abortion be free?

Indeed, why would basic healthcare be free?

deaddonkey15

meeeeh wrote: »

Indeed, why would basic healthcare be free?

That doesn't answer my question.

The Rape of Lucretia

meeeeh wrote: »

No it's a comparison, Ireland's record in treatment of women is not great, surely you can't deny that?But I don't have access to free contraception including free abortion, one year paid maternity leave (100% or 80% of earnings up to above average wages), a lot cheaper childcare in comparison to income. I'm not saying things are perfect, far from it but in this area Ireland has a bit of catching up to do.

Its a bit of an assumption though to present the list above as something absolutely as good things and to aim for. For women, they are. But they are a transfer of wealth from men to women. And a subsidising of mothers by the rest of society. Which is surely inequitable. Is such a society really something to aspire to ?

drillyeye

meeeeh wrote: »

I moved because of my partner. Among other reasons I spoke the language of country I was moving to he wouldn't if he had to move. In terms of lifestyle Ireland wasn't that much of an improvement for me (but that's personal circumstances and has nothing to do with general situation).

Just a correction that year maternity I mentioned, large chunk of it is transferable to whichever partner wants to stay at home.

So after weighing up the pros and cons of everything, the decision between your country being best or Ireland being best......Ireland came out ahead of your own country, free contraception and all!

meeeeh

drillyeye wrote: »

So after weighing up the pros and cons of everything, the decision between your country being best or Ireland being best......Ireland came out ahead of your own country, free contraception and all!

No the personal circumstances topped it. My partner was taking over family business, I probably would not or would do it together with my brother although we never actually made any official decision. Anyway this is not about me, so stop discrediting completely general points I made with personal circumstances. Language was the other reason.

RabbleRouser2k

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

What if she is right though, and its you who cant see it and are trying to shut her down ?

So everyone woman is a victim? Really? So a baby girl born into privilege and a baby boy born into poverty, it's the girl who's the victim? That's ridiculous.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I wasn't aware of her school talks until a few weeks ago. It might be on her books/articles/eating disorder/etc.
She said something along the lines of if she was speaking to a mixed class that the girls wouldn't ask questions in front of the boys but would come up to her at the end off class.

She doesn't get a great reception at schools-from girls and boys, and teachers. When she took her 'documentary' to secondary schools, they saw right through her. Many disagreed with what she was saying. Both girls and boys.

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i definetly wouldnt ne happy for any school to let someone like her inside the gate let alone talk to the kids. having her give a talk is laughable.
surely there must be someone out there that isnt biased and full of such hate.

Many schools give her a frosty reception-she doesn't get asked to many, because the reception she gets from teens is usually 'is she having a laugh?'

VonZan wrote: »

Any idea on what she gives talks about? I wouldn’t be happy for my kids to listen to her axe to grind at such a young age. I hope any audience she has with children isn’t anything similar to her Twitter feed.

The usual tripe, one of the reasons she doesn't get on tv much. The tragedy is, she's no better than a cult leader. Preys on the vulnerable.

meeeeh

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Its a bit of an assumption though to present the list above as something absolutely as good things and to aim for. For women, they are. But they are a transfer of wealth from men to women. And a subsidising of mothers by the rest of society. Which is surely inequitable. Is such a society really something to aspire to ?

It's not subsidising mothers, it's making sure more people are able to work. You know what is subsidising mothers? Paying single mothers to stay at home because it would cost too much to work and make sure those kids will have no working parent to look up to.

drillyeye

meeeeh wrote: »

It's not subsidising mothers, it's making sure more people are able to work. You know what is subsidising mothers? Paying single mothers to stay at home because it would cost too much to work and make sure those kids will have no working parent to look up to.

Well that's the thing with economics, it doesn't give a flying shyte about whether you are a woman or man.

Housing is a great example of how it all makes no positive difference to an individual. A house was affordable based on a single wage in years gone past.

Then more and more women started working. Hey presto, now a house is only affordable by BOTH the man and woman working.

Theres no secret stash of wealth being hidden away from women, under a mountain or something! Women didn't have to work before, demanded more equality, and now they HAVE to work. I really don't see that as a victory.

Nobody wins economically, and anything that starts out with the premise of there being "hidden money" by getting more women to work....pointless. The only people to benefit are the banks who now gain an equitable DOUBLE for mortgages than before, along with plenty of other examples.

meeeeh

Obvious difference is that you earn your own money and one partner is dependent. It doesn't matter in happy relationships but it makes huge difference in abusive ones. I would find it very hard not to have my own income in any case.

drillyeye

meeeeh wrote: »

Obvious difference is that you earn your own money and one partner is dependent. It doesn't matter in happy relationships but it makes huge difference in abusive ones. I would find it very hard not to have my own income in any case.

Well that's a catch-all problem of the modern world I suppose, better not become dependent on anyone else, even the person you marry, just in case!

And predictably, that leads to more people being very wary of their own circumstances with respect to marriage/partnerships etc.......

Which predictably leads to less marriages/partnerships (certainly less trusting ones, by definition)....

Which predictably leads to a more impoverished society where there are ever more individuals with 50% reduced purchasing power, while their independence has ironically meant that prices have risen 100%!

Its funny, even with the tragedy!

This isn't a dig at women, I'm being objective when I say that "equality", when measured against the world, means that we, in Europe, must become much, much poorer. Not that the world becomes much, much richer, as dreamers seem to think!

meeeeh

drillyeye wrote: »

Well that's a catch-all problem of the modern world I suppose, better not become dependent on anyone else, even the person you marry, just in case!

And predictably, that leads to more people being very wary of their own circumstances with respect to marriage/partnerships etc.......

Which predictably leads to less marriages/partnerships (certainly less trusting ones, by definition)....

Which predictably leads to a more impoverished society where there are ever more individuals with 50% reduced purchasing power, while their independence has ironically meant that prices have risen 100%!

Its funny, even with the tragedy!

This isn't a dig at women, I'm being objective when I say that "equality", when measured against the world, means that we, in Europe, must become much, much poorer. Not that the world becomes much, much richer, as dreamers seem to think!

I think you are oversimplifying a bit. There is a huge transfer of wealth going on from traditional industries to informational technology. Demographics is another issue and globalization and so on. Way too many factors to pin everything on women working. Anyway this completely derailed the thread so I will stop now.

drillyeye

meeeeh wrote: »

I think you are oversimplifying a bit. There is a huge transfer of wealth going on from traditional industries to informational technology. Demographics is another issue and globalization and so on. Way too many factors to pin everything on women working. Anyway this completely derailed the thread so I will stop now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pinning this alone on women working, but it cant be ignored as being a major factor either.

At the end of the day, greater impoverishment doesn't do ANYONE a favour, whether youre the boyfriend or girlfriend, mother or father, husband or wife!

neonsofa

meeeeh wrote: »

It's not subsidising mothers, it's making sure more people are able to work. You know what is subsidising mothers? Paying single mothers to stay at home because it would cost too much to work and make sure those kids will have no working parent to look up to.

Parents can work while in receipt of one parent family payment, nobody is being "paid to stay at home". They can also train or return to education in an effort to help them find work at a later stage.

Its Purge Time

In the 'bad old days' women didn't need to work. But hey, progress.

meeeeh

neonsofa wrote: »

Parents can work while in receipt of one parent family payment, nobody is being "paid to stay at home". They can also train or return to education in an effort to help them find work at a later stage.

Yes and, what does that have to do with anything?

neonsofa

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes and, what does that have to do with anything?

You tell me. You brought up paying single mothers to stay at home. Or if I've picked up your comment wrong then perhaps explain that to me rather than getting snarky with someone who is just adding to the conversation.

meeeeh

neonsofa wrote: »

You tell me. You brought up paying single mothers to stay at home. Or if I've picked up your comment wrong then perhaps explain that to me rather than getting snarky with someone who is just adding to the conversation.

My point was it is less expensive and damaging for the society to subsidise childcare or decent maternity leave and enable people to work. I singled out single mothers because they rely on social welfare and because they and their kids are amongst most vulnerable in society. I have no objection to paying out social welfare or whatever other supports but it's always better if people can earn their own money. But nobody will work just to pay childcare.

neonsofa

meeeeh wrote: »

My point was it is less expensive and damaging for the society to subsidise childcare or decent maternity leave and enable people to work. I singled out single mothers because they rely on social welfare and because they and their kids are amongst most vulnerable in society. I have no objection to paying out social welfare or whatever other supports but it's always better if people can earn their own money.

And my point was that the payment you're referring to for one parent families allows them to work. It doesn't just "pay them to stay at home". It allows them to work and in many cases eventually earn enough that they can come off the payment. It can also provide for the children while the parent gains an education or training which assists them in their long term goal of earning a decent wage for themselves. Hence my reply to your comment stating that its paying them to stay at home and leaving kids without a working role model. So I'm not sure how you missed the relevance.