Whinging feminists in the media

purifol0

EddieN75 wrote: »

Are the comments also subscriber only?

Yep and that would validate comments that the Times only publish men bashing opinion pieces by feminsts for clicks, but as I've seen and posted here many times - these are not salaried opinion writers. They are establishment big wigs who are successfully changing the law and/or getting more funding to their Charity/NGO/high ranking job in 3rd level or the CS/PS

purifol0

Tell me how wrote: »

Will read that shortly. But in the meantime, does aiming for 40% gender balance equate to a feminist takeover?

"Feminist takeover" as in they set these rules, and we follow them. Gender discrimination is absolutely abhorrent and has no place in selecting the best candidate and also makes a mockery of democracy.


Of course they have no desire to mandate gender quotas in any job that requires manual labour. But I'm sure many would have guessed that before reading.


This also continues the trend of income tax being provided by mostly men, whereas the tax takers in the PS/CS will be mostly women. The civil service right now is mostly women (>60%)


just the other day i posted a link from the IT that read "Men wrongly believe they are being discriminated against in CS promotions" - this then followed a load of CS dept heads celebrating the fact that they've hired so many more women into certain dept.s that they've hit their gender targets. We are truly through the looking glass here folks.

Bobtheman

Annasopra wrote: »

You are having a laugh. The states reactions on sexuality not anti women. Banning condoms, banning abortion, banning divorce, banning married women from work, colluding with Church in Magdalene laundries and Mother and baby homes, allowing marital rape, branding children born outside marriage illegitamate, faciltitating the forced adoption of many such childre, handing childrens allowance to men. Nah. The Irish State had a deeply mysogynistic view of women for decades.

So men didn't use condoms?! Men didn't want a divorce at any stage? I'm sure a lot of men would have liked to raise their child rather than a forced adoption. I'm sure a lot of guys would have loved if abortion was accepted. The marriage ban didn't apply to all jobs so get a grip there.
A lot of women fully supported the church and state position as shown by various votes so please don't pretend that 100% of women were victimised.
It's that total victim hood that turns people off.
However you have a point that it was women who mainly suffered with these laws. Men too but mainly women.
Just don't assume the sisterhood is totally innocent or that men did not suffer too by having to marry in shot gun weddings instead of a quiet abortion or being forced to have their kids adopted.

99nsr125

Leg End Reject wrote: »

"Any female"?

I'm a woman, I'm not oppressed by the patriarchy, I have the freedom to live my life as I choose and, by any metric, I have a very privileged life.

I respect that the feminism of previous years has made this possible, but I suspect those feminists would be appalled at what feminism has evolved into today. They didn't want special treatment, gender quotas, nor women to identify as victims. They wanted equal rights and we have them, more than equal in the case of family law and reproductive decisions.

Stop talking sense you'll put a load of newspaper hacks out of jobs ! !

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm from the Athlone (which was never a wealthy town while I was there), and virtually all of my leaving cert classmates went to college/university, whereas their parents didn't. The few students who didn't, went straight into farming or the Army, since their parents were already embedded.

That's the shift in social mobility. The availability of education which provides those opportunities to break the cycle of what areas their parents/grandparents did, because there was no other choice.

A middle-class town and your claim is that the middle-class children of middle-class parents received middle-class education and went into middle-class occupations in the same way as their parents did before them. That’s social mobility only along the horizontal, whereas what I was referring to is social mobility along the vertical - mobility not just in relation to education, but in relation to class. Not too many people who grew up in poverty will become members of the middle class, let alone the upper class in society. What cycle is really broken there? None.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yup. Irish people love to conform... I'd accept that.. and the social conditioning is that equality is here. Which Irish people have conformed to.

Your earlier point though was that Irish society has moved on, my counter position is that I’m not so sure it has - the poor are still poor, the wealthy are still wealthy, and the middle class are still pretty much the middle class where couples pair up and women take care of the children while men provide for their families. In spite of decades of trying to wedge women into the labour market to be equal status with men, both men and women still conform to traditional roles as opposed to the idea that we actually have “moved on” from traditional social structures.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry, you're going off on a tangent that I don't see relating to my post.

The point was simply that it wasn’t feminism or gender equality which enabled those women to hold the positions they do, they came from wealth in the first place, and their feminism is simply tokenism, in much the same way as the upper class traditionally would have co-opted religion to signal their virtues. One ideology was simply substituted for another. There were plenty of women among the upper classes in society who fared far better than middle or lower class men. The issue was never one of gender equality, but rather one of inequality between social classes.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Strange, because society and the law have done a rather good job at ensuring that social change is implemented and accepted. Try openly discriminating against women in this country, and what do you think would happen? Oh, sure, some people might take it, but the vast majority wouldn't.. because they know that they have protections in place to help.. not that I think that most people would even attempt it, because there's no value in doing so.

Like I said, you won’t see it on Boards (we’re far too civil for that sort of thing), but people do openly discriminate, not just against women, but against men too, against any given group in society - people openly discriminate, in spite of laws which it is claimed are in place to prevent such discrimination. The value in doing so is that the people discriminating maintain their traditional values and structures, and people conform because the alternative is to become a social outcast from their peer group. It’s one of the reasons why for all the education and training that’s available to them, people don’t avail of it because their social group doesn’t share the values of the providers of said education.

Eric Cartman

purifol0 wrote: »

Just my take, this was just the excuse that was needed to bring about more feminists in places of power. It never stood to reason that the solution to discrimination was more discrimination and judging by the comments online at the time absolutely no one was OK with it. But it went ahead with no establishment pushback and that would mean that the takeover is coming along nicely.


If you told me ten years ago that I'd be straight faced alleging a feminist takeover of Irelands 3rd level insutites and public & civil service...I dunno, and yet lets look what our undemocratic Citizens Assemble recommends in todays Irish Times


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/catherine-day-importance-of-care-key-citizens-assembly-theme-1.4547104
"Gender balance

The assembly is calling for funding of public bodies to be contingent on reaching a 40 per cent gender balance by 2025 and legally requiring private companies over a certain size to have at least 40 per cent gender balance on their boards."

"members also voted by 96 per cent to declare their willingness, if necessary, to support and pay higher taxes to make a reality of their recommendations"





The comments are worth a read.

that is literally the most asinine legal requirement for private companies I have ever heard. Whatever about the civil service where you can just run any moron up the ladder, in the private business world thats insane.

CageWager

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that is literally the most asinine legal requirement for private companies I have ever heard. Whatever about the civil service where you can just run any moron up the ladder, in the private business world thats insane.

It’s an insane overreach. We might as well do away with the word “private” altogether. As soon as something gets to a certain level of size and success (private members clubs, private companies etc.) the political and NGO classes (who never built anything or created a job from scratch in their lives) want to get their grubby little hands on the wheel of power. Parasites.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A middle-class town and your claim is that the middle-class children of middle-class parents received middle-class education and went into middle-class occupations in the same way as their parents did before them. That’s social mobility only along the horizontal, whereas what I was referring to is social mobility along the vertical - mobility not just in relation to education, but in relation to class. Not too many people who grew up in poverty will become members of the middle class, let alone the upper class in society. What cycle is really broken there? None.

Athlone is a middle class town? Maybe now, since the department of education moved there, but it certainly wasn't the case in the past. Athlone wasn't a terribly successful town, as most midlands towns aren't. It's gotten better in recent years (in parts) but there is a sizable population who would have been considered traditionally "working class".

The cycle being broken is people gaining an education that could provide them with a better lifestyle than their parents had before them, by entering professions which previously would have been locked beyond walls of education. One of the best ways to keep the lower classes out of the better positions.

Your earlier point though was that Irish society has moved on, my counter position is that I’m not so sure it has - the poor are still poor, the wealthy are still wealthy, and the middle class are still pretty much the middle class where couples pair up and women take care of the children while men provide for their families. In spite of decades of trying to wedge women into the labour market to be equal status with men, both men and women still conform to traditional roles as opposed to the idea that we actually have “moved on” from traditional social structures.

We've moved on from the common acceptance of discrimination against women. That's where we've moved on. Whether or not, people decide to conform to traditional gender roles, doesn't change the fact that sexism and discrimination is not considered acceptable within Irish society... or are you going to show me where it is considered widely acceptable?

The point was simply that it wasn’t feminism or gender equality which enabled those women to hold the positions they do, they came from wealth in the first place, and their feminism is simply tokenism, in much the same way as the upper class traditionally would have co-opted religion to signal their virtues. One ideology was simply substituted for another. There were plenty of women among the upper classes in society who fared far better than middle or lower class men. The issue was never one of gender equality, but rather one of inequality between social classes.

That's your point. Not mine. Since you were responding to my post.... hence my suggestion that you were heading off on a different direction.

Like I said, you won’t see it on Boards (we’re far too civil for that sort of thing), but people do openly discriminate, not just against women, but against men too, against any given group in society - people openly discriminate, in spite of laws which it is claimed are in place to prevent such discrimination. The value in doing so is that the people discriminating maintain their traditional values and structures, and people conform because the alternative is to become a social outcast from their peer group. It’s one of the reasons why for all the education and training that’s available to them, people don’t avail of it because their social group doesn’t share the values of the providers of said education.

There will always be some forms of discrimination on an individual level, likely arising from personal biases, or conditioned biases. Regardless of the laws that are implemented or the education that is provided, those biases will continue to exist at some level.

However, I made the case that equality for women in Ireland was a reality. Are there individual cases where women are discriminated against. Of course, there are... and that's not going to end any time soon. Just as there will be cases of discrimination against men on the individual level. However, as a society, we have moved away from discriminating based on gender... although then again, we're probably doing a bit of a U-turn by deciding to place women as being more important than men in cases of quotas, work schemes, etc.

In any case, the laws that were brought in, the educational agenda we received in schools, the thrust of media articles/shows were aimed at presenting a view of equality, and the vast majority of people will conform to that social pressure and not express or act out in a way that discriminates against women.

CageWager

CageWager wrote: »

It’s an insane overreach. We might as well do away with the word “private” altogether. As soon as something gets to a certain level of size and success (private members clubs, private companies etc.) the political and NGO classes (who never built anything or created a job from scratch in their lives) want to get their grubby little hands on the wheel of power. Parasites.

We might aswell, tell people that competition for better jobs is no longer a consideration. There's little point in studying like crazy, stressing over exams, and planning your career development in detail, because the job you want could easily be handed to someone else, simply because they're female (and likely represent the values of the group selecting the women for these placements).

What's the point now in competing for promotions when a woman will be shoehorned in, irrespective of the corporate/business culture of the organisation.

It makes me wonder how these women will be chosen and who will do the choosing... is it enough that they're women? Or do single mothers get first preference? Or married women? or... Who will decide that the right people are getting chosen for the positions.. and will that selection process exclude women who weren't approved by the selection group/committee.

It's not just that is discriminatory against men. Which it is.. since private business is very much about competition among employees to find the best person for the job.. but it's also naturally going to be discriminatory towards women, and what does it tell women about competing with others for desired positions? It says, don't bother.. we'll find a way to slip you in.

Morgans

purifol0 wrote: »

Gender discrimination is absolutely abhorrent and has no place in selecting the best candidate and also makes a mockery of democracy.

Relatively new to these parts of boards. Are there many threads on how nepotism makes a mockery of democracy? Do people get as offended about that?

Any experience I've personally seen of utter incompetents clearly over their head in jobs that others deserved to the point of damaging the business, has been down to connections with the boss/board, often familial.

purifol0

Morgans wrote: »

Relatively new to these parts of boards. Are there many threads on how nepotism makes a mockery of democracy? Do people get as offended about that?

Any experience I've personally seen of utter incompetents clearly over their head in jobs that others deserved to the point of damaging the business, has been down to connections with the boss/board, often familial.

Ha! You can check my posts previous but yes I have in fact said that nepotism in the public sector was obvious and rife, especially in the case of the Gardai. So much so that the govt of the day (2004) established the Public Appointments Service.


Nepotism in politics is still going on, Mick Wallace an Claire Daly each hired the others children to work for them when they got the EU gig. Not illegal sadly. Few threads on boards about that too.



As regards family run businesses - they aren't tax payer funded, so they can sink or swim on their own dime.

purifol0

Morgans wrote: »

Relatively new to these parts of boards. Are there many threads on how nepotism makes a mockery of democracy?

Oh and yes I think people mention the UK and the Royal Family a bit here too.

Leg End Reject

Morgans wrote: »

Relatively new to these parts of boards. Are there many threads on how nepotism makes a mockery of democracy? Do people get as offended about that?

Any experience I've personally seen of utter incompetents clearly over their head in jobs that others deserved to the point of damaging the business, has been down to connections with the boss/board, often familial.

Nepotism isn't enforced or recommended, in fact it's discouraged.

Shoehorning one gender into positions to achieve a ratio is different from Maurice or Bridget giving one of their hapless kids a job in the family business.

Would anyone, man or woman, want to be in a position simply because they were deemed the best man/woman for the job, rather than the best overall candidate?

I find it incredibly patronising that us little women need to have roles reserved for us, because heaven forbid we could achieve anything on own merit.

growleaves

If I had a female business partner I would make sure we were hoovering up grant money from every feminist foundation within a 5000km radius.

Men and women co-operate naturally. Public rhetoric makes that harder, by convincing women they are wronged and winding up men who often also end up believing they have been wronged.

Tell me how

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Nepotism isn't enforced or recommended, in fact it's discouraged.

Shoehorning one gender into positions to achieve a ratio is different from Maurice or Bridget giving one of their hapless kids a job in the family business.

Would anyone, man or woman, want to be in a position simply because they were deemed the best man/woman for the job, rather than the best overall candidate?

I find it incredibly patronising that us little women need to have roles reserved for us, because heaven forbid we could achieve anything on own merit.

Did you miss the post about the professor who had to take NUIG to court to get the University to treat her fairly?

Morgans

purifol0 wrote: »

Ha! You can check my posts previous but yes I have in fact said that nepotism in the public sector was obvious and rife, especially in the case of the Gardai. So much so that the govt of the day (2004) established the Public Appointments Service.


Nepotism in politics is still going on, Mick Wallace an Claire Daly each hired the others children to work for them when they got the EU gig. Not illegal sadly. Few threads on boards about that too.



As regards family run businesses - they aren't tax payer funded, so they can sink or swim on their own dime.

I take your past postings on trust.

So, the concern for gender discrimination and the fears of it being a threat to democracy is purely in the public sector.

All discriminations in the private sector are not a concern of yours (whether the business decides to promote the best or worst candidate, male, female or relation) It isn't tax payer funded so on their own head be it.

Its becoming a even narrower hill to die on and my own thoughts are that it represents a negligible threat to democracy.

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

Did you miss the post about the professor who had to take NUIG to court to get the University to treat her fairly?

No, but that's one example. Are you suggesting that all women have to resort to legal action to get promoted?

I have seen examples of both men and women being passed over for promotion simply because they were unpopular with management. That's from where I work, I'm sure others can give more examples.

Sexism isn't the only reason people don't get promoted. It can be a result of nepotism, favouritism or simply by someone refusing to be a yes person.

khalessi

Leg End Reject wrote: »

No, but that's one example. Are you suggesting that all women have to resort to legal action to get promoted?

I have seen examples of both men and women being passed over for promotion simply because they were unpopular with management. That's from where I work, I'm sure others can give more examples.

Sexism isn't the only reason people don't get promoted. It can be a result of nepotism, favouritism or simply by someone refusing to be a yes person.

In NUIG, it seems so

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/four-female-lecturers-promoted-after-nuig-gender-discrimination-dispute-1.3575465#:~:text=On%20foot%20of%20this%2C%20four,also%20discriminated%20on%20gender%20grounds.

4 other lecturers were overlooked also

Leg End Reject

khalessi wrote: »

In NUIG, it seems so

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/four-female-lecturers-promoted-after-nuig-gender-discrimination-dispute-1.3575465#:~:text=On%20foot%20of%20this%2C%20four,also%20discriminated%20on%20gender%20grounds.

4 other lecturers were overlooked also

That's one educational institution.

So again, do you think all women have to resort to legal action to get promoted?

Better still, is enforcing gender quotas to ensure they are promoted a fair process?

Tell me how

Leg End Reject wrote: »

No, but that's one example. Are you suggesting that all women have to resort to legal action to get promoted?

I have seen examples of both men and women being passed over for promotion simply because they were unpopular with management. That's from where I work, I'm sure others can give more examples.

Sexism isn't the only reason people don't get promoted. It can be a result of nepotism, favouritism or simply by someone refusing to be a yes person.

I'm suggesting that it is more frequent that women lose out on promotions unjustifiably than men do.

Not sure why you have a problem with women advocating that this should not be the case.

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm suggesting that it is more frequent that women lose out on promotions unjustifiably than men do.

Not sure why you have a problem with women advocating that this should not be the case.

Why are you suggesting that?

I don't have a problem with women suggesting it, but from my experience it's not an endemic problem.

So you think men are never overlooked? Do you think that enforcing a quota for women will result in some men being overlooked?

Do you think we need special treatment and protection? I sure as hell don't.

py2006

Anecdotally speaking, in the civil service, promotions and job offers at the higher end of the spectrum are going to women right now. So I am told.

Now is an amazing time for women to apply for promotion or to go for positions of management etc as companies are fearful of hiring men over women right now and of course they feel the necessity to make sure at least 50% if not a lot higher of their employees are women.

purifol0

Morgans wrote: »

I take your past postings on trust.

So, the concern for gender discrimination and the fears of it being a threat to democracy is purely in the public sector.

All discriminations in the private sector are not a concern of yours (whether the business decides to promote the best or worst candidate, male, female or relation) It isn't tax payer funded so on their own head be it.

Its becoming a even narrower hill to die on and my own thoughts are that it represents a negligible threat to democracy.

No what are you on about, not at all. Private sector already has a bunch of laws that mean they cannot discriminate against, but nepotism isn't one of them. But as I said if they appoint family members to positions of real power within a company it could as you mentioned damage them financially. Not the tax payer.


As for "a threat to democracy" I mean that the govt should be made up of the candidates that got the most votes. The Citizens Assembly disagrees. I have a problem with that, and so should everyone else who wants free and fair elections.


Also the reason "gender equality" can be easily pushed in the public sector is: they can just magic up more jobs via taking more money out of the public purse. It's easy to be woke when someone else is paying.

Tell me how

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Why are you suggesting that?

I don't have a problem with women suggesting it, but from my experience it's not an endemic problem.

So you think men are never overlooked? Do you think that enforcing a quota for women will result in some men being overlooked?

Do you think we need special treatment and protection? I sure as hell don't.

Never said men aren't overlooked. Of course they are.
I don't think anything that is actually happening equates to special treatment or protection. In the sense that it is widespread or applying to the everyone within the female gender. The case of the woman in Galway being overlooked likely fed in to the decision to create women only professorships for a number of roles and if so, (probably wasn't the only case or factor that influenced this) but, if you asked her was this necessary, what do you think she would say?

Which do you think is the bigger problem, across the country, some people being excluded from applying for roles because of their gender, or people experiencing being overlooked because of their gender?

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

Never said men aren't overlooked. Of course they are.
I don't think anything that is actually happening equates to special treatment or protection. In the sense that it is widespread or applying to the everyone within the female gender. The case of the woman in Galway being overlooked likely fed in to the decision to create women only professorships for a number of roles and if so, (probably wasn't the only case or factor that influenced this) but, if you asked her was this necessary, what do you think she would say?

Which do you think is the bigger problem, across the country, some people being excluded from applying for roles because of their gender, or people experiencing being overlooked because of their gender?

Have you statistics to prove that a sizeable number of women are overlooked because of their gender?

purifol0

Tell me how wrote: »

Which do you think is the bigger problem, across the country, some people being excluded from applying for roles because of their gender, or people experiencing being overlooked because of their gender?

Nope, you don't get to justify and codify mass unethical behavior because someone experienced sexism.


The solution to sexism is not more sexism.

Tell me how

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Have you statistics to prove that a sizeable number of women are overlooked because of their gender?

purifol0 wrote: »

Nope, you don't get to justify and codify mass unethical behavior because someone experienced sexism.


The solution to sexism is not more sexism.

Are either of you going to answer the question?

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

Never said men aren't overlooked. Of course they are.
I don't think anything that is actually happening equates to special treatment or protection. In the sense that it is widespread or applying to the everyone within the female gender. The case of the woman in Galway being overlooked likely fed in to the decision to create women only professorships for a number of roles and if so, (probably wasn't the only case or factor that influenced this) but, if you asked her was this necessary, what do you think she would say?

Which do you think is the bigger problem, across the country, some people being excluded from applying for roles because of their gender, or people experiencing being overlooked because of their gender?

Answering the questions:

1. The woman in Galway would of course answer yes because of her personal experience. Women who have been promoted without having to take a case to court would answer no.

2a. The proposed gender quota for women is currently a recommendation, so as yet is not an issue.

2b. I'm not aware of many people being overlooked because of their gender, that's why I asked of you have statistics because you seemed to be implying it's a known problem. NUIG is just one example.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Never said men aren't overlooked. Of course they are.
I don't think anything that is actually happening equates to special treatment or protection. In the sense that it is widespread or applying to the everyone within the female gender. The case of the woman in Galway being overlooked likely fed in to the decision to create women only professorships for a number of roles and if so, (probably wasn't the only case or factor that influenced this) but, if you asked her was this necessary, what do you think she would say?

The women in Galway could appeal based on the laws in place to show unfair practice. Those laws and protections are there for anyone to claim. There isn't any need for female only professorships because that excludes based on gender... which is a discriminatory practice. Reverse discrimination is not the answer to discrimination.

Now, the laws being used, as part of claims, being investigated and applied.. does contribute to furthering the effectiveness of those laws, while also highlighting any inadequacies that might exist. By establishing female only professorships, they've created a bypass to the protections the law would have provided to both genders.

Now... you've decided that the case of this institution discriminating against these women is indicative that discrimination occurs often throughout the country, and yet, we don't have widespread claims being validated by the law. At least, if we had, we would have far more stories that the one provided, since that is the atmosphere of modern Irish media...

Which do you think is the bigger problem, across the country, some people being excluded from applying for roles because of their gender, or people experiencing being overlooked because of their gender?

Excluded. Definitely. Since management does change. Circumstances in organisations change over time. And that means that those overlooked can be chosen at a later stage, whereas those excluded never get the chance to be chosen, since they've likely moved on to some other venture.

By excluding men, and making certain roles exclusive to women... that is discrimination. It's the same thing when people complained about sexism directed towards women. Where's the difference in that?

Tell me how

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Answering the questions:

1. The woman in Galway would of course answer yes because of her personal experience. Women who have been promoted without having to take a case to court would answer no.

2a. The proposed gender quota for women is currently a recommendation, so as yet is not an issue.

2b. I'm not aware of many people being overlooked because of their gender, that's why I asked of you have statistics because you seemed to be implying it's a known problem. NUIG is just one example.

Women not being promoted to senior roles

In Ireland, although 27pc of board roles in surveyed companies are held by women, their representation drops to only 19pc in leadership positions, such as that of chief executive.

Ireland performing poorly for women in leadership roles

However, we perform poorly, especially when compared to our Western European neighbours, in areas such as female political leadership, total women in government and women in management, where we trail behind the UK, France, Spain, Switzerland, and The Netherlands.

According to the study, Norway offered the highest score across each category followed by Finland and Iceland in second and third place, respectively. Ireland ranks 34th overall.

And specifically in relation to the 3rd level education space.

Research by the Higher Education Authority (HEA) highlights that in 2017 just over half (51%) of lecturers were female, while only 24% of professor posts were filled by women.