Is the new Feminist movement damaging male female relationships?

Outlaw Pete

Appledreams15 wrote: »

So Outlaw Pete, seeing as you are so against feminism. What do you think of all the instances of men being cruel to women in history? You must be very against that too right?

Of course, why wouldn't I?

Lets see, men stopped women from voting 100 years ago, denying them their basic human right. You must think that was terrible!

Well, your loaded question implies that you believe that when the suffragettes were fightin for the right to vote, all men had it... but you'd wrong.

Few facts:

Before the 1867 Reform Act only 15% of men had the right to vote and by 1918 40% of men still didn't have the right to vote. Main reason being that voting rights were only afford to property owners. You see the ruling class were not just a bunch of patriarchal misogynistic oppressors trying to keep women down (as is the popular narrative of today) they were in fact elitists who did not want to enfranchise the working class.

Emmeline Pankhurst, as you know, is heralded for having led the charge for the right for all women to vote but it's BS as in fact Emmeline proposed that the Suffragettes should only fight for the right for middle class women to vote and supported the Conciliation bills much to the annoyance of many of her colleagues within the Labour Party. She was mocked as only wanting 'Votes for ladies' rather than 'Votes for women' and it was aptly said of her that she was "an autocrat masquerading as a democrat". In fact it was the male dominated Labour party that first fought for votes for everyone regardless of gender and class (universal suffrage) which indeed is why she subsequently then left the party and set up her own union.

Think about that for a moment if you will: The great Emmeline Pankhurst, the woman heralded as being responsible for securing the right to vote for all women, was in fact happy to see working class women (and working class men) denied the right to vote. She didn't have much political support and so she (and her daughter, Christabel) turned to terrorism, encouraging many of their members to bomb and burn all around them. How they didn't kill thousands is nothing short of miraculous. There were close to one hundred people in Westminster Abbey when they placed a bomb in it. Trains were targeted and even bombed the home of Lloyd George.

Ramsay MacDonald (the leader of the Labour Party at the time) said:

"I have no objection to revolution, if it is necessary but I have the very strongest objection to childishness masquerading as revolution, and all that one can say of these window-breaking expeditions is that they are simply silly and provocative. I wish the working women of the country who really care for the vote ... would come to London and tell these pettifogging middle-class damsels who are going out with little hammers in their muffs that if they do not go home they will get their heads broken."

Harsh you might think, but the majority of those women were middle class nut cases who had no real interest in the vote (and that's according to a fellow suffragette, Dora Marsden - one of the few suffragettes who wasn't a misandrist) they just wanted infamy.




In 1912 they even followed the Prime Minister of the time to Dublin and threw an axe at him on O'Connell Bridge and then tried to burn down the old Theatre Royal during a lunchtime matinee. They placed gunpowder and petrol in the projection room and just as one of them was lighting matches to throw in on top... they were arrested.

Man hating feminists are far from something that men only have to contend with today. Emmeline Pankhurst's daughter, Christabel, was a vile piece of work in particular. She wrote a book entitled: 'The Great Scourge and How to End It' and in it she argued that the majority of men had were diseased and suggested that women should be wary of any sexual contact with them...... charming.




Then there was the gall of The White Feather movement (which the Pankhursts of course were prominent members of) that would publicly confront men in the street and pin a white feather on them as a mark of cowardice. One young man even taking his life over it.

So, what was your question again? Oh yeah....

....men stopped women from voting 100 years ago, denying them their basic human right. You must think that was terrible!

I do, absolutely think it was terrible.

But I think it was terrible to deny anyone the right to vote, not just women. I am as happy for the 5.6million men that were enfranchised that day in 1918 as I am for the 8.4million women who were. Maybe one day they might even make a film about it. One that tells the whole story I mean.

Outlaw Pete, excellent post. ++

cloudatlas

gw80 wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Men think about feminism more than women ever do. You'd wonder just what they are afraid of

When a conquering army take over a nation, women have nothing to lose, the men, on the other hand lose everything.

You really need to read about the aftermath of the taking of Berlin by the soviet army. Read a book improve your mind.

Malayalam

LirW wrote: »

It's actually the family that comments most on it, like what are you doing in the future, what are your plans and so on. To be honest, at the moment I don't have a solid plan. I have ideas what to do but nothing set in stone and I feel quite comfortable with that..

Don't mind the family with their comments. Tell them to feck off and live their own lives, in whatever way they perceive them to have meaning. We are here for such a brief instant. Nothing lasts, (except maybe love.) You are living perfectly now, the future is an illusion. Most things, (except maybe love!) only matter because we work ourselves up into a delusional frenzy to pretend that they do. If you want to sit on your backside and happily watch the sun coming up and going down every day for the rest of your time here on earth, then that's up to you and it's none of their business.

givyjoe

Appledreams15 wrote: »

So why do you think they brought the gender quota in, to get male parties to have to nominate female candidates,or they will lose their funding?

Why, because they were sexist that's why.

Can you offer anything of substance other than 'because I said so'?

givyjoe

LirW wrote: »

Well, first of all politics doesn't work that way of just showing up and saying "I'm here, I'm a politician now".
Parties have a pretty strict hierarchy and when you enter, unless you have mad connections, you are at the very basic level. On that level you'd usually see a good mix of both genders.
But when it comes to progressing within the parties, there are a lot of factors in play. Generally the more conservative a party is, the higher the percentage of men on the top level.
A female candidate has to present conservative to represent the party values, you'd be surprised about how much weight her family values and her views on children have. All that does only marginally apply to male candidates.
Also, and don't get me wrong, a lot of high positions are simply filled with some old gits that see the young girls as good enough to do the dirty work but would never consider them in a higher position. Sexual harassment within parties is still a thing and women in politics have to put up with it if they wanna get somewhere, this exploitation isn't a Hollywood cliche and still happens.
Something that stands out in female candidates is that a lot of them have some kind of political heavyweight in their family already or a partner, that is fairly well known. Of course that applies to male ones too, not denying that but you'd have a lot more men "coming from the bottom level" than women.

Don't get me wrong, politics is a very cut throat environment in general, you have to be cut throat yourself. But you doing well depends on a lot of other factors than simply having the drive to do it.
Was involved in my early 20 in politics a good bit and it's a grim field and wouldn't want to enter that again, ever ever ever.

Apologies If i missed it, but nothing from the above seems to back up claims of discrimination. Sexual harassment is not discrimination, undesirable and off putting of course

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

suicide_circus wrote: »

This will be the same for pretty much the same for anyone who isn't a a literal psychopath. No one regrets not spending enough time in work or having had children on their death bed. Quite the opposite in fact i'd imagine.

You're wrong though not 100%. Just 1% wrong.

There are people, albeit very few, like 1%, who will forgo everything to work. Relationships, family, leisure etc.. Their singular goal in life is to produce something.

These are the people that if you put them in a forest with an axe, they'll start work at chopping the trees because it's something they must do.

Drumpot

Deleted User wrote: »

Outlaw Pete, excellent post. ++

Outlaw Pete, the righteous gunslinger, dishing out factual justice in towns deficient in objective thinking....

kunst nugget

givyjoe wrote: »

Apologies If i missed it, but nothing from the above seems to back up claims of discrimination. Sexual harassment is not discrimination, undesirable and off putting of course

I'm scratching my head here. How would sexual harassment against women in a professional environment translate into anything other than discrimination?

Zulu

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course, why wouldn't I?



Well, your loaded question implies that you believe that when the suffragettes were fightin for the right to vote, all men had it... but you'd wrong.

Few facts:

Before the 1867 Reform Act only 15% of men had the right to vote and by 1918 40% of men still didn't have the right to vote. Main reason being that voting rights were only afford to property owners. You see the ruling class were not just a bunch of patriarchal misogynistic oppressors trying to keep women down (as is the popular narrative of today) they were in fact elitists who did not want to enfranchise the working class.

Emmeline Pankhurst, as you know, is heralded for having led the charge for the right for all women to vote but it's BS as in fact Emmeline proposed that the Suffragettes should only fight for the right for middle class women to vote and supported the Conciliation bills much to the annoyance of many of her colleagues within the Labour Party. She was mocked as only wanting 'Votes for ladies' rather than 'Votes for women' and it was aptly said of her that she was "an autocrat masquerading as a democrat". In fact it was the male dominated Labour party that first fought for votes for everyone regardless of gender and class (universal suffrage) which indeed is why she subsequently then left the party and set up her own union.

Think about that for a moment if you will: The great Emmeline Pankhurst, the woman heralded as being responsible for securing the right to vote for all women, was in fact happy to see working class women (and working class men) denied the right to vote. She didn't have much political support and so she (and her daughter, Christabel) turned to terrorism, encouraging many of their members to bomb and burn all around them. How they didn't kill thousands is nothing short of miraculous. There were close to one hundred people in Westminster Abbey when they placed a bomb in it. Trains were targeted and even bombed the home of Lloyd George.

Ramsay MacDonald (the leader of the Labour Party at the time) said:



Harsh you might think, but the majority of those women were middle class nut cases who had no real interest in the vote (and that's according to a fellow suffragette, Dora Marsden - one of the few suffragettes who wasn't a misandrist) they just wanted infamy.




In 1912 they even followed the Prime Minister of the time to Dublin and threw an axe at him on O'Connell Bridge and then tried to burn down the old Theatre Royal during a lunchtime matinee. They placed gunpowder and petrol in the projection room and just as one of them was lighting matches to throw in on top... they were arrested.

Man hating feminists are far from something that men only have to contend with today. Emmeline Pankhurst's daughter, Christabel, was a vile piece of work in particular. She wrote a book entitled: 'The Great Scourge and How to End It' and in it she argued that the majority of men had were diseased and suggested that women should be wary of any sexual contact with them...... charming.




Then there was the gall of The White Feather movement (which the Pankhursts of course were prominent members of) that would publicly confront men in the street and pin a white feather on them as a mark of cowardice. One young man even taking his life over it.

So, what was your question again? Oh yeah....



I do, absolutely think it was terrible.

But I think it was terrible to deny anyone the right to vote, not just women. I am as happy for the 5.6million men that were enfranchised that day in 1918 as I am for the 8.4million women who were. Maybe one day they might even make a film about it. One that tells the whole story I mean.

Fantastic rebuttal! Really really fantastic. A mic drop moment if there ever was one.
Sadly it'll be washed over them like white noise - but a valiant effort.
Kudos.

givyjoe

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm scratching my head here. How would sexual harassment against women in a professional environment translate into anything other than discrimination?

What?! They are two completely different things. If I'm sexually harassed tomorrow by my colleague, how on earth does that mean I'm being discriminated against?!

I'm scratching my head thinking how on earth you think one is the same as the other. Look up the definitions of each!

LirW

givyjoe wrote: »

Apologies If i missed it, but nothing from the above seems to back up claims of discrimination. Sexual harassment is not discrimination, undesirable and off putting of course

It seems I didn't make it clear enough that in a lot of cases women are seen as good enough to do the henchmen work but are denied higher positions for their male counterparts. They have it tougher because people in power see them as weaker, not cut-throat enough, they could have kids so why investing in them, a woman in a powerful position could damage our image with voters. The list goes on.

Maxpfizer

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course, why wouldn't I?



Well, your loaded question implies that you believe that when the suffragettes were fightin for the right to vote, all men had it... but you'd wrong.

Few facts:

Before the 1867 Reform Act only 15% of men had the right to vote and by 1918 40% of men still didn't have the right to vote. Main reason being that voting rights were only afford to property owners. You see the ruling class were not just a bunch of patriarchal misogynistic oppressors trying to keep women down (as is the popular narrative of today) they were in fact elitists who did not want to enfranchise the working class.

Emmeline Pankhurst, as you know, is heralded for having led the charge for the right for all women to vote but it's BS as in fact Emmeline proposed that the Suffragettes should only fight for the right for middle class women to vote and supported the Conciliation bills much to the annoyance of many of her colleagues within the Labour Party. She was mocked as only wanting 'Votes for ladies' rather than 'Votes for women' and it was aptly said of her that she was "an autocrat masquerading as a democrat". In fact it was the male dominated Labour party that first fought for votes for everyone regardless of gender and class (universal suffrage) which indeed is why she subsequently then left the party and set up her own union.

Think about that for a moment if you will: The great Emmeline Pankhurst, the woman heralded as being responsible for securing the right to vote for all women, was in fact happy to see working class women (and working class men) denied the right to vote. She didn't have much political support and so she (and her daughter, Christabel) turned to terrorism, encouraging many of their members to bomb and burn all around them. How they didn't kill thousands is nothing short of miraculous. There were close to one hundred people in Westminster Abbey when they placed a bomb in it. Trains were targeted and even bombed the home of Lloyd George.

Ramsay MacDonald (the leader of the Labour Party at the time) said:



Harsh you might think, but the majority of those women were middle class nut cases who had no real interest in the vote (and that's according to a fellow suffragette, Dora Marsden - one of the few suffragettes who wasn't a misandrist) they just wanted infamy.




In 1912 they even followed the Prime Minister of the time to Dublin and threw an axe at him on O'Connell Bridge and then tried to burn down the old Theatre Royal during a lunchtime matinee. They placed gunpowder and petrol in the projection room and just as one of them was lighting matches to throw in on top... they were arrested.

Man hating feminists are far from something that men only have to contend with today. Emmeline Pankhurst's daughter, Christabel, was a vile piece of work in particular. She wrote a book entitled: 'The Great Scourge and How to End It' and in it she argued that the majority of men had were diseased and suggested that women should be wary of any sexual contact with them...... charming.




Then there was the gall of The White Feather movement (which the Pankhursts of course were prominent members of) that would publicly confront men in the street and pin a white feather on them as a mark of cowardice. One young man even taking his life over it.

So, what was your question again? Oh yeah....



I do, absolutely think it was terrible.

But I think it was terrible to deny anyone the right to vote, not just women. I am as happy for the 5.6million men that were enfranchised that day in 1918 as I am for the 8.4million women who were. Maybe one day they might even make a film about it. One that tells the whole story I mean.

Absolutely magnificent response.

I look forward to seeing how Appledreams15 will reply to this.

Imagine believing that "men stopped women from voting 100 years ago, denying them their basic human right" and having that view absolutely demolished so publicly.

Interesting that so many Feminists hold this belief. Considering how supposedly knowledgeable they are about Women's issues.

Looks like it's time for someone to publicly admit they got it wrong and to privately consider what else they might be spectacularly wrong about.

professore

Appledreams15 wrote: »

By all male parties refusing to nominate a female candidate..actually

Nothing to stop women forming their own parties in that case. That's what men had to do! According to you they should storm the elections. Couldn't be much worse than the current lot in fairness.

kunst nugget

givyjoe wrote: »

What?! They are two completely different things. If I'm sexually harassed tomorrow by my colleague, how on earth does that mean I'm being discriminated against?!

I'm scratching my head thinking how on earth you think one is the same as the other. Look up the definitions of each!

sexual harassment
noun
1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

discrimination
noun
1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

So if a woman is being sexually harassed by a male colleague or boss, she is being unjustly treated based on her sex so it's discrimination, pure and simple.

professore

meeeeh wrote: »

I would call myself feminist there are definitely people in femist movement that I consider idiots. However I never felt the need to be ashamed for any views I don't hold myself. Why would you need to feel ashamed for views you don't agree with.

Let's see ... you could be a member of the Nazi party in 1930s Germany - you love the new motorways, full employment and the Volkswagen, but don't agree with the treatment of the Jews ... ah sure that's grand, have to take the rough with the smooth.

backspin.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Absolutely magnificent response.

I look forward to seeing how Appledreams15 will reply to this.

Imagine believing that "men stopped women from voting 100 years ago, denying them their basic human right" and having that view absolutely demolished so publicly.

Interesting that so many Feminists hold this belief. Considering how supposedly knowledgeable they are about Women's issues.

Looks like it's time for someone to publicly admit they got it wrong and to privately consider what else they might be spectacularly wrong about.

It only goes to highlight how awful the MSM is. How they will not stray from a particular narrative whether it's true or not. All that info about the vote and the suffragette is out there. But how many journalists will tell the truth about it though?

professore

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course, why wouldn't I?



Well, your loaded question implies that you believe that when the suffragettes were fightin for the right to vote, all men had it... but you'd wrong.

Few facts:

Before the 1867 Reform Act only 15% of men had the right to vote and by 1918 40% of men still didn't have the right to vote. Main reason being that voting rights were only afford to property owners. You see the ruling class were not just a bunch of patriarchal misogynistic oppressors trying to keep women down (as is the popular narrative of today) they were in fact elitists who did not want to enfranchise the working class.

Emmeline Pankhurst, as you know, is heralded for having led the charge for the right for all women to vote but it's BS as in fact Emmeline proposed that the Suffragettes should only fight for the right for middle class women to vote and supported the Conciliation bills much to the annoyance of many of her colleagues within the Labour Party. She was mocked as only wanting 'Votes for ladies' rather than 'Votes for women' and it was aptly said of her that she was "an autocrat masquerading as a democrat". In fact it was the male dominated Labour party that first fought for votes for everyone regardless of gender and class (universal suffrage) which indeed is why she subsequently then left the party and set up her own union.

Think about that for a moment if you will: The great Emmeline Pankhurst, the woman heralded as being responsible for securing the right to vote for all women, was in fact happy to see working class women (and working class men) denied the right to vote. She didn't have much political support and so she (and her daughter, Christabel) turned to terrorism, encouraging many of their members to bomb and burn all around them. How they didn't kill thousands is nothing short of miraculous. There were close to one hundred people in Westminster Abbey when they placed a bomb in it. Trains were targeted and even bombed the home of Lloyd George.

Ramsay MacDonald (the leader of the Labour Party at the time) said:



Harsh you might think, but the majority of those women were middle class nut cases who had no real interest in the vote (and that's according to a fellow suffragette, Dora Marsden - one of the few suffragettes who wasn't a misandrist) they just wanted infamy.




In 1912 they even followed the Prime Minister of the time to Dublin and threw an axe at him on O'Connell Bridge and then tried to burn down the old Theatre Royal during a lunchtime matinee. They placed gunpowder and petrol in the projection room and just as one of them was lighting matches to throw in on top... they were arrested.

Man hating feminists are far from something that men only have to contend with today. Emmeline Pankhurst's daughter, Christabel, was a vile piece of work in particular. She wrote a book entitled: 'The Great Scourge and How to End It' and in it she argued that the majority of men had were diseased and suggested that women should be wary of any sexual contact with them...... charming.




Then there was the gall of The White Feather movement (which the Pankhursts of course were prominent members of) that would publicly confront men in the street and pin a white feather on them as a mark of cowardice. One young man even taking his life over it.

So, what was your question again? Oh yeah....



I do, absolutely think it was terrible.

But I think it was terrible to deny anyone the right to vote, not just women. I am as happy for the 5.6million men that were enfranchised that day in 1918 as I am for the 8.4million women who were. Maybe one day they might even make a film about it. One that tells the whole story I mean.

Mind blown. Some end of the first Matrix Neo level **** right there.

givyjoe

kunst nugget wrote: »

sexual harassment
noun
1. harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.

discrimination
noun
1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

So if a woman is being sexually harassed by a male colleague or boss, she is being unjustly treated based on her sex so it's discrimination, pure and simple.

It really is not the same thing, I can see why you might think it based on the above.

What if her boss is sexually harassing male colleagues also?

kunst nugget

givyjoe wrote: »

It really is not the same thing, I can see why you might think it based on the above.

That I would think they are the same based on the actual definitions of the words and terms? The definitions that you told me to look up to prove I was wrong in thinking that sexual harassment is discrimination?

givyjoe wrote: »

What if her boss is sexually harassing male colleagues also?

Is this your idea of an astute and incisive argument?

meeeeh

professore wrote: »

Let's see ... you could be a member of the Nazi party in 1930s Germany - you love the new motorways, full employment and the Volkswagen, but don't agree with the treatment of the Jews ... ah sure that's grand, have to take the rough with the smooth.

Congratulations on the most nonsensical Goodwin I read in a long time.

joe40

professore wrote: »

meeeeh wrote: »

I would call myself feminist there are definitely people in femist movement that I consider idiots.  However I never felt the need to be ashamed for any views I don't hold myself.  Why would you need to feel ashamed for views you don't agree with.

Let's see ... you could be a member of the Nazi party in 1930s Germany - you love the new motorways, full employment and the Volkswagen, but don't agree with the treatment of the Jews ... ah sure that's grand, have to take the rough with the smooth.

That's not a fair comparison at all, you just described a selfish person just looking after their own interests.
A better analogy would be someone who describes themselves as an Irish republican, maybe even votes for sinn fein, but does not support all the IRA attacks of the past. Things are never black and white.

kunst nugget

joe40 wrote: »

That's not a fair comparison at all, you just described a selfish person just looking after their own interests.
A better analogy would be someone who describes themselves as an Irish republican, maybe even votes for sinn fein, but does not support all the IRA attacks of the past. Things are never black and white.

Or being a rap fan and liking Biggie but not Tupac…

givyjoe

kunst nugget wrote: »

That I would think they are the same based on the actual definitions of the words and terms? The definitions that you told me to look up to prove I was wrong in thinking that sexual harassment is discrimination?



Is this your idea of an astute and incisive argument?

I'll stop you there. I'm not sure if what's termed as discrimination in the workplace has changed since I studied or that I'm just getting forgetful, but you're correct it is indeed covered under discrimination. My bad, apologies.

meeeeh

joe40 wrote: »

That's not a fair comparison at all, you just described a selfish person just looking after their own interests.
A better analogy would be someone who describes themselves as an Irish republican, maybe even votes for sinn fein, but does not support all the IRA attacks of the past. Things are never black and white.

Even at that you either agree with their actions or you don't. There is no need to be embarrassed because you agree on certain issues with them. You just prioritize what is important pick the causes you agree with and ignore the rest. For example on the 8th I agree with the loony left, although I would never ever vote for them, I am not embarrassed or feel in any way apologetic because I agree with them on abortion.

I think we are well past the period where you align your views 100% to one political party or to one movement. People nowdays pick an choose, prioritize and adapt. So no in any case I would only embarrassed by my actions or views I hold.

LirW

LirW wrote: »

It seems I didn't make it clear enough that in a lot of cases women are seen as good enough to do the henchmen work but are denied higher positions for their male counterparts.

That can be applied to men equally. I've had positions where upward promotion was denied to me because I was seen not to be good enough for the roles, but I was definitely good enough to do the boring stuff they didn't want to do. I even made coffee in meetings and passed around cookies. Terrible.

What did I do? I got better qualifications, improved my skills and moved to companies with a better promotion structure.

They have it tougher because people in power see them as weaker, not cut-throat enough, they could have kids so why investing in them, a woman in a powerful position could damage our image with voters. The list goes on.

Welll.... society tells us that women are more sensitive, but also more calm than men. In fact, if you look at the various articles about women in the workplace, we're also told that women are uncomfortable with competition, handle stress better than men, but don't want jobs where stress is common.

There are so many conflicting ideas about women and what they can/can't do. Or rather will do.

Treat women equally with men. Being passed over for promotion time and time again can simply be because you're not suited to the job or you need to upskill. Discrimination doesn't have to be the knee-jerk reaction. Nobody shouts discrimination when men work in the same role for twenty years without upward promotions. Nobody shouts discrimination when the male is asked/told to make the coffee.

Does discrimination occur? Of course it does, and it always will. Women discriminate against other women all the time simply because they're women. Men do it against other men too. Discrimination happens for all manner of reasons. I've sat on dozens of investigation panels into discrimination claims, and very few of them had any real basis for the claims... and yet we had to tip-toe carefully any time discrimination by male towards a female is mentioned.

Maxpfizer

Maxpfizer wrote: »

I look forward to seeing how Appledreams15 will reply to this.
.

I'm expecting a small paragraph (if anything at all) without dealing with the points but ending in vague accusations of sexism.

LirW

Does discrimination occur? Of course it does, and it always will. Women discriminate against other women all the time simply because they're women. Men do it against other men too. Discrimination happens for all manner of reasons. I've sat on dozens of investigation panels into discrimination claims, and very few of them had any real basis for the claims... and yet we had to tip-toe carefully any time discrimination by male towards a female is mentioned.

I made the experience that political dynamics are quite different to jobs and promotions. People start out with volunteering and have some kind of "I'm gonna make a change" -mentality. I was the same, I thought I might make a difference. But politics doesn't work like that, it doesn't work like your office around the corner. People invest a lot of their free time because they believe they maybe make a change one day. The reality is that there is a certain mindset running in a party and the more conservative the party policies are the more difficult it is for women to establish themselves somehow over the basic level.
Giving you an example, a big party back home, Christian conservative policies, have a tiny quota in women in higher positions. The whole party is run by one very well known family and the head of the clan is, even though not the head of the party, the big man in the background. Nothing goes past him. Women in that party are treated like pieces of meat. There have been scandals but the party is too powerful and too big to fail so it doesn't matter. Women in higher positions stand out with their connections they have to the clan via family or spouse.
Women there are seen as the housewife, the lady that runs the house and raises the kids, said party implied brutal cuts locally in rural areas regarding childcare making it ridiculously hard to get women out of the house.

Of course there are women defending that too, some are simply cruel nutjobs that have no problem with fcuking other women over, because themselves will never be in the situation of living an average woman's life but also to go ahead and raise their chances of getting into a higher position. Some simply believe in the policies, they were raised like that, they want to live their lives like that.
So I think you can imagine how women are treated when they want to establish themselves in a field like that. Some say it's simply the price you pay. Sometimes you don't stand a ground because the head clan's big priority is to get their own people, family members and friends into good positions, so they all earn well, they have secured positions, nice pensions.

It is nothing like a work environment really. The dynamics of promotion have often nothing to do with your performance.
The more conservative parties are, the smaller the percentage of women above a certain level is. Left orientated parties tend to have a higher percentage of women across the board because the policies are very different and they tend to talk more about women-specific issues. Now I'm not a left voter but I see why this attracts more (young) women.

py2006

I always found the 'men stopped women from voting' startement fascinating. I don't know a lot about the suffrage etc but I was always aware that the common man on the street didn't have a vote either.

The great post on this earlier has perked my interest in reading up on it further. Alas from a neutral position if possible. Nothing written by any of today's so called feminists.

Appledreams15

givyjoe wrote: »

Can you offer anything of substance other than 'because I said so'?

Care to offer your opinion on why the gender quota was brought in?

And parties were told they would lose their funding unless they started nominating women?

Your thoughts on that?

py2006

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Care to offer your opinion on why the gender quota was brought in?

And parties were told they would lose their funding unless they started nominating women?

Your thoughts on that?

Anybody can see through that. It in itself is discriminatory.

OldRio

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course, why wouldn't I?



Well, your loaded question implies that you believe that when the suffragettes were fightin for the right to vote, all men had it... but you'd wrong.

Few facts:

Before the 1867 Reform Act only 15% of men had the right to vote and by 1918 40% of men still didn't have the right to vote. Main reason being that voting rights were only afford to property owners. You see the ruling class were not just a bunch of patriarchal misogynistic oppressors trying to keep women down (as is the popular narrative of today) they were in fact elitists who did not want to enfranchise the working class.

Emmeline Pankhurst, as you know, is heralded for having led the charge for the right for all women to vote but it's BS as in fact Emmeline proposed that the Suffragettes should only fight for the right for middle class women to vote and supported the Conciliation bills much to the annoyance of many of her colleagues within the Labour Party. She was mocked as only wanting 'Votes for ladies' rather than 'Votes for women' and it was aptly said of her that she was "an autocrat masquerading as a democrat". In fact it was the male dominated Labour party that first fought for votes for everyone regardless of gender and class (universal suffrage) which indeed is why she subsequently then left the party and set up her own union.

Think about that for a moment if you will: The great Emmeline Pankhurst, the woman heralded as being responsible for securing the right to vote for all women, was in fact happy to see working class women (and working class men) denied the right to vote. She didn't have much political support and so she (and her daughter, Christabel) turned to terrorism, encouraging many of their members to bomb and burn all around them. How they didn't kill thousands is nothing short of miraculous. There were close to one hundred people in Westminster Abbey when they placed a bomb in it. Trains were targeted and even bombed the home of Lloyd George.

Ramsay MacDonald (the leader of the Labour Party at the time) said:



Harsh you might think, but the majority of those women were middle class nut cases who had no real interest in the vote (and that's according to a fellow suffragette, Dora Marsden - one of the few suffragettes who wasn't a misandrist) they just wanted infamy.




In 1912 they even followed the Prime Minister of the time to Dublin and threw an axe at him on O'Connell Bridge and then tried to burn down the old Theatre Royal during a lunchtime matinee. They placed gunpowder and petrol in the projection room and just as one of them was lighting matches to throw in on top... they were arrested.

Man hating feminists are far from something that men only have to contend with today. Emmeline Pankhurst's daughter, Christabel, was a vile piece of work in particular. She wrote a book entitled: 'The Great Scourge and How to End It' and in it she argued that the majority of men had were diseased and suggested that women should be wary of any sexual contact with them...... charming.




Then there was the gall of The White Feather movement (which the Pankhursts of course were prominent members of) that would publicly confront men in the street and pin a white feather on them as a mark of cowardice. One young man even taking his life over it.

So, what was your question again? Oh yeah....



I do, absolutely think it was terrible.

But I think it was terrible to deny anyone the right to vote, not just women. I am as happy for the 5.6million men that were enfranchised that day in 1918 as I am for the 8.4million women who were. Maybe one day they might even make a film about it. One that tells the whole story I mean.

Knowledge is such a powerful tool. Thank you.

Appledreams15

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Care to offer your opinion on why the gender quota was brought in?

And parties were told they would lose their funding unless they started nominating women?

Your thoughts on that?

I remember the female tds voted against it

B0jangles

Are minds actually being blown by the revelation that inequality can be wealth-based AND gender-based?

Appledreams15

py2006 wrote: »

Anybody can see through that. It in itself is discriminatory.

That we have had an 80% male government for 100 years?
Yes of course it is discriminatory.
That is why parties were told to cop on or lose their funding.

Appledreams15

bluewolf wrote: »

I remember the female tds voted against it

All the female td's voted against it? You have pulled that out of your arse.
I know one, and she was very much for it.

Womenforelection.ie is also constantly working to get more women in politics.

py2006

Appledreams15 wrote: »

That we have had an 80% male government for 100 years?
Yes of course it is discriminatory.
That is why parties were told to cop on or lose their funding.

Positive discrimination is what I'm referring to.

Your assuming sexism and discriminating is the reason for the low figures of women in politics. You may be right to a certain degree but women don't often choose to go down that path.

Is it sexism and discrimination that women are MASSIVELY underrepresented in the mining industry, street cleaning, bin collection, building etc?

Likewise for men in teaching, caring, nursing etc

Appledreams15

Appledreams15 wrote: »

All the female td's voted against it? You have pulled that out of your arse.
I know one, and she was very much for it.

Womenforelection.ie is also constantly working to get more women in politics.

oh well if you know one then

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/i-don-t-believe-quotas-are-a-solution-to-imbalance-1.632623

meeeeh

B0jangles wrote: »

Are minds actually being blown by the revelation that inequality can be wealth-based AND gender-based?

Yeah I was wondering what the big deal was about that post. It was interesting for me because I know a lot more about Central Europen history than history here and UK but it's hardly rebuttal of discrimination on so many levels, from lower pay for work, to differences in divorce, inheritance, opportunities to education and so on and a lot of those are consequences of lawmakers being male and of certain class.

cantdecide

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Care to offer your opinion on why the gender quota was brought in?

Virtue signalling. Appeasing the noisy ones. Good PR as far as social engineering can appear to be. Maybe they should start the draft for female politicians?

py2006

Appledreams15 wrote: »

All the female td's voted against it? You have pulled that out of your arse.
I know one, and she was very much for it.

Womenforelection.ie is also constantly working to get more women in politics.

Nobody is against women entering politics of thats what they want to do. There is no wall stopping them.

Positioning people purely on gender is different

Zulu

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Care to offer your opinion on why the gender quota was brought in?

Like anything else in this country - as a half assed, ill conceived, short term measure to placate today's fashionable issue.

Your thoughts on that?

...that sexism &/or gender discrimination is bad, and actually introducing more gender discrimination is terrible.

The Bishop Basher

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Womenforelection.ie is also constantly working to get more women in politics.

Why ?

Is there something stopping them ?

givyjoe

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Care to offer your opinion on why the gender quota was brought in?

And parties were told they would lose their funding unless they started nominating women?

Your thoughts on that?

Thank you confirming that you are unable to provide anything of substance. Others have already succinctly answered the question for me.

meeeeh

Swanner wrote: »

Why ?

Is there something stopping them ?

No nothing to stop them but on local level a man will be more likely elected as a candidate by his male buddies with whom he drinks with than a woman candidate. Parties membership is still predominately male (at least in more conservative parties). Women will be voted in by general population once they can get past the small local boys club.

OldRio

B0jangles wrote: »

Are minds actually being blown by the revelation that inequality can be wealth-based AND gender-based?

No. Just facts that some feminists would rather go away.

silverharp

meeeeh wrote: »

No nothing to stop them but on local level a man will be more likely elected as a candidate by his male buddies with whom he drinks with than a woman candidate. Parties membership is still predominately male (at least in more conservative parties). Women will be voted in by general population once they can get past the small local boys club.

so the pool of women who are interested enough in politics compared to men is smaller.

meeeeh

silverharp wrote: »

so the pool of women who are interested enough in politics compared to men is smaller.

I wouldn't say so, I can't find breakdown for the numbers in Ireland but in US more women than men vote. That means they are interested in politics but traditional parties might be less attractive for them. Interest in politics can't be judged just by party membership.

B0jangles

OldRio wrote: »

No. Just facts that some feminists would rather go away.

Look up intersectionality - feminists have been talking about this kind of thing for a very long time.

Maxpfizer

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course, why wouldn't I?

Well, your loaded question implies that you believe that when the suffragettes were fightin for the right to vote, all men had it... but you'd wrong.

Few facts:

Before the 1867 Reform Act only 15% of men had the right to vote and by 1918 40% of men still didn't have the right to vote. Main reason being that voting rights were only afford to property owners. You see the ruling class were not just a bunch of patriarchal misogynistic oppressors trying to keep women down (as is the popular narrative of today) they were in fact elitists who did not want to enfranchise the working class.

Emmeline Pankhurst, as you know, is heralded for having led the charge for the right for all women to vote but it's BS as in fact Emmeline proposed that the Suffragettes should only fight for the right for middle class women to vote and supported the Conciliation bills much to the annoyance of many of her colleagues within the Labour Party. She was mocked as only wanting 'Votes for ladies' rather than 'Votes for women' and it was aptly said of her that she was "an autocrat masquerading as a democrat". In fact it was the male dominated Labour party that first fought for votes for everyone regardless of gender and class (universal suffrage) which indeed is why she subsequently then left the party and set up her own union.

Think about that for a moment if you will: The great Emmeline Pankhurst, the woman heralded as being responsible for securing the right to vote for all women, was in fact happy to see working class women (and working class men) denied the right to vote. She didn't have much political support and so she (and her daughter, Christabel) turned to terrorism, encouraging many of their members to bomb and burn all around them. How they didn't kill thousands is nothing short of miraculous. There were close to one hundred people in Westminster Abbey when they placed a bomb in it. Trains were targeted and even bombed the home of Lloyd George.

Ramsay MacDonald (the leader of the Labour Party at the time) said:



Harsh you might think, but the majority of those women were middle class nut cases who had no real interest in the vote (and that's according to a fellow suffragette, Dora Marsden - one of the few suffragettes who wasn't a misandrist) they just wanted infamy.




In 1912 they even followed the Prime Minister of the time to Dublin and threw an axe at him on O'Connell Bridge and then tried to burn down the old Theatre Royal during a lunchtime matinee. They placed gunpowder and petrol in the projection room and just as one of them was lighting matches to throw in on top... they were arrested.

Man hating feminists are far from something that men only have to contend with today. Emmeline Pankhurst's daughter, Christabel, was a vile piece of work in particular. She wrote a book entitled: 'The Great Scourge and How to End It' and in it she argued that the majority of men had were diseased and suggested that women should be wary of any sexual contact with them...... charming.




Then there was the gall of The White Feather movement (which the Pankhursts of course were prominent members of) that would publicly confront men in the street and pin a white feather on them as a mark of cowardice. One young man even taking his life over it.

So, what was your question again? Oh yeah....



I do, absolutely think it was terrible.

But I think it was terrible to deny anyone the right to vote, not just women. I am as happy for the 5.6million men that were enfranchised that day in 1918 as I am for the 8.4million women who were. Maybe one day they might even make a film about it. One that tells the whole story I mean.

Still waiting for Appledreams15 to respond to this excellent post that was in response to "men stopped women from voting 100 years ago, denying them their basic human right".

It's disappointing to see a poster put in some effort, like Outlaw Pete has done here, only to see the person who has been absolutely schooled completely refuse to acknowledge it.

So often I hear from Feminists that they are just "starting an important conversation" only to see them run for the hills when the conversation gets difficult.

Easier to just change the tactic and start talking about that 80% male government we've had for 100s of years.