Whinging feminists in the media

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

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...



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?

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that more people have been impacted through not being able to apply for a particular role because of quotas, than have been impacted through being overlooked for a role because of their gender. Have you statistics to support this?

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

Women not being promoted to senior roles



Ireland performing poorly for women in leadership roles



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

How many women put themselves forward for each of these examples?

Were they overlooked because of their gender or because other candidates were more suiltable?

ETA: The first link highlights areas where women are both under and over represented and states that Ireland is only behind 3 other countries.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Women not being promoted to senior roles

Ireland performing poorly for women in leadership roles

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

None of which is evidence of women being discriminated against, or being passed over. It's simply a lack of women in senior roles in various areas (as opposed to when they represent a majority such as in HR).

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that more people have been impacted through not being able to apply for a particular role because of quotas, than have been impacted through being overlooked for a role because of their gender. Have you statistics to support this?

I didn't make any such claim. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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?

Why not sure, seeing as you used the example of teaching earlier when you suggested that one of the reasons why you wouldn’t teach primary school children -

Deleted User wrote: »

However, even though I could teach primary, and I do like teaching kids, I won't because of the perception of society towards male teachers, along with all the risks that go along with it. Not an unreasonable fear.

That’s not only sexism and discrimination which you find acceptable, but you imagine society finds it acceptable too to imagine those sorts of ideas about men being around children. Having been on teacher interview panels, I can at least reassure you that the other women on the panel were only desperate to hire a man due to their own biases that male teachers would be able to get the children interested in sports and PE and all the rest of it. There were other reasons why in the end a male teacher was given preference over the many female applicants who were IMO more suited to the role (I’m not without my own biases either ), but your ideas that perception of society you point out suggests you really don’t think we’ve moved on.

When I hired a team of developers to work on a project, I was told I had to hire a man. I said I would consider them if I could find one that was as suitable for the roles as any of the other candidates who just happened to be women. It wouldn’t even have been questioned if I’d hired a team of men. Essentially, your idea of candidates being chosen on merit just isn’t based upon reality, it never was. The criteria for how the most suitable candidates were chosen was simply based upon different criteria is all from what is being campaigned for now by a tiny minority of feminists in the name of gender equality. Discrimination is widely acceptable, not just in employment contexts, but in many aspects of Irish society. Sometimes it works in favour of men, sometimes it works in favour of women, and it’s perfectly acceptable to the vast majority of people who simply don’t care for nonsense like “gender equality”.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Who’s deciding to place women as being more important than men in cases of quotas or anything else? The whole point of introducing quotas and offering women work schemes and all the rest of it is to try and increase women’s social mobility, and these initiatives still wouldn’t mean they enjoy the same status in society as men, because there’s far more contributes to the roles of men and women and their contributions to society than just their employment status. That’s even before I remind anyone of the fact that 98% of people working in the home are women, and I don’t imagine they’re going to want to give that up any time soon, and I don’t imagine men are going to develop any sudden interest in taking the place of women in the home.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

No they won’t, because the ideology simply doesn’t map to reality. The view of gender equality presented that you’re talking about is about as much use as the sex ed classes we were all forced to endure in school. Thankfully in my own case we were all saved the embarrassment of having to take it seriously because my religion teacher was a male lay teacher who was more interested in discussing GAA and rugby than discussing any of that nonsense.

Tell me how

Leg End Reject wrote: »

How many women put themselves forward for each of these examples?

Were they overlooked because of their gender or because other candidates were more suiltable?

You tell me. Do you think it is likely that this would account for them holding 51% of lecturing positions but only 24% of professorships?

I'm sure the people who awarded the men the professorships ahead of the female in NUIG felt that those candidates were more suitable. And given they didn't even meet the necessary requirements in terms of minimum teaching hours you'd have to wonder what was it that made them more suitable.

Leg End Reject

Leg End Reject wrote: »

How many women put themselves forward for each of these examples?

Were they overlooked because of their gender or because other candidates were more suiltable?

At the same time, how many men were applying for the same positions over the period examined? Were there 6 women and 2 men going for the positions, or perhaps, more men applied, but most of those men weren't chosen.

Competition. It affects men vs other men, just as much as it does women. The issue is that people want to focus on the genders as opposed to considering the circumstances of individuals.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

None of which is evidence of women being discriminated against, or being passed over. It's simply a lack of women in senior roles in various areas (as opposed to when they represent a majority such as in HR).

Sigh, see my previous response to Leg End Reject.

You both seem to think that it is reasonable that women apply themselves to go so far but then stop at a particular level because they just aren't interested in going further or because at that point men start to excel.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't make any such claim. :rolleyes:

When you said that people being exclude from applying for particular roles was a bigger problem than people being overlooked for them, surely that is the claim you are making.

Or are you saying a philosophical issue is a bigger problem than a real world one?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why not sure, seeing as you used the example of teaching earlier when you suggested that one of the reasons why you wouldn’t teach primary school children -

Are you mishmashing different posts (of mine) together (that happened at different points in the thread) so that you can reply along a certain theme?

Seriously?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Sigh, see my previous response to Leg End Reject.

You both seem to think that it is reasonable that women apply themselves to go so far but then stop at a particular level because they just aren't interested in going further or because at that point men start to excel.

Care to quote me where I said anything like that?

Here's a novel idea. Deal with what I have written as opposed to "in other words" or what I seem to think.

Tell me how wrote: »

When you said that people being exclude from applying for particular roles was a bigger problem than people being overlooked for them, surely that is the claim you are making.

Twist. Twist. Twist.

Enough.

purifol0

Tell me how wrote: »

Women not being promoted to senior roles



Ireland performing poorly for women in leadership roles



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

None of this would suggest sexism, what it does do is tell us what we already know. When women have children their career progression slows, or stops.



That is their choice. Men do not get that choice (not in this country, and not yet for most of the world), when they have children their partner expects them to go to work full time.


The 3rd link is just proving that theJournal.ie thinks discrimination is A-OK once it favours women.


In Ireland young women out earn young men. This is no doubt caused by "positive" discrimination in education.
"Irish women without kids earn 17 percent more than the typical male worker" - OECD
https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/close-the-gender-gap-now_9789264179370-en#


Oh and on page 219 you can see how that in a recession the main type of jobs to be lost were those done by men, this is because as I have said earlier, mostly men work in the real taxable economy whereas mostly women work in the protected public sector.

Leg End Reject

"Ireland ranks highly in a number of areas examined, including on salary level and the gender wage gap, female access to education, women in entrepreneurship, and women working in Stem.

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."

From the second link. Women perform well in many areas, but poorly in political leadership, government and management. Are they discriminated against, or how many women apply and are turned down?

Mary Lou McDonald is the leader of SF here, Michelle O'Neil is the deputy first minister in the North. Lucinda Creighton was the leader of Renua. Plenty of women run in local and general elections, but there's nothing to stop any woman putting themselves forward.

So management is left. Are women applying en masse and being ignored because of their gender? Lower numbers in management do not support that theory. It could be as easily explained as many women not wanting those roles. Just because you can, doesn't mean you want to.

On the flip side, how many women have been overlooked when applying for male dominated roles - construction, mechanic etc?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Care to quote me where I said anything like that?

Here's a novel idea. Deal with what I have written as opposed to "in other words" or what I seem to think.



Twist. Twist. Twist.

Enough.

You are one of the people who look at the disparate percentages of women in senior roles and don't see that as an indication of something which is deserving of action to correct.

By all means, lay out specifically why it is you think that these disparities are all down to the better candidates being male or whatever, and I can respond to that, but, if you definitely say that something which isn't even in operation is a bigger problem than real world facts, I don't know what to say to you.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you mishmashing different posts (of mine) together (that happened at different points in the thread) so that you can reply along a certain theme?

Seriously?

Yes? What’s wrong with that? I gave you an example of widely acceptable sexism and discrimination which you’d have to contradict yourself to refute seeing as you’re also of the opinion it’s a perception held by society and not just you as an individual.

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

Sigh, see my previous response to Leg End Reject.

You both seem to think that it is reasonable that women apply themselves to go so far but then stop at a particular level because they just aren't interested in going further or because at that point men start to excel.

I've never said that. I don't think either gender is superior, but I do think there are differences between them.

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

You tell me. Do you think it is likely that this would account for them holding 51% of lecturing positions but only 24% of professorships?

I'm sure the people who awarded the men the professorships ahead of the female in NUIG felt that those candidates were more suitable. And given they didn't even meet the necessary requirements in terms of minimum teaching hours you'd have to wonder what was it that made them more suitable.

I'm didn't ask about academia, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning the NUIG example.

The NUIG case is proven discrimination, but it is the only verifiable example you've given.

Posting stats about women in different positions does not prove they are discriminated against. If I post stats about men in education, health care or childcare I wouldn't prove that men are discrimated against.
Construction is primarily male orientated, do you think I could have applied for an apprenticeship position if I was interested?

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

Are either of you going to answer the question?

I did answer. Your turn now:


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: »

I'm didn't ask about academia, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning the NUIG example.

The NUIG case is proven discrimination, but it is the only verifiable example you've given.

Posting stats about women in different positions does not prove they are discriminated against. If I post stats about men in education, health care or childcare I wouldn't prove that men are discrimated against.
Construction is primarily male orientated, do you think I could have applied for an apprenticeship position if I was interested?

By all means show me stats where men make up an equal number of junior positions in a sector of industry but less than 1 in 4 positions of a senior level in that same industry and then we will be comparing like with like.

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

By all means show me stats where men make up an equal number of junior positions in a sector of industry but less than 1 in 4 positions of a senior level in that same industry and then we will be comparing like with like.

How about you answer questions instead of deflecting?

Tell me how

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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

All women? Absolutely not. But I think it is more likely that a number of women have lost out in promotions without necessarily having the irrefutable evidence that it was because of their gender than it is likely that it hasn't happened.

Leg End Reject wrote: »

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

I haven't said that it is. I have argued primarily that gender quotas will create representation within a field so that it will become more normalised to see someone of a particular gender in that role and these people can become visible role models for younger children/students.

Tell me how

Leg End Reject wrote: »

How about you answer questions instead of deflecting?

Jesus. You're a patient one aren't you.

purifol0

Tell me how wrote: »

By all means show me stats where men make up an equal number of junior positions in a sector of industry but less than 1 in 4 positions of a senior level in that same industry and then we will be comparing like with like.

Modelling


Pornography


Video Game Streaming

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

Jesus. You're a patient one aren't you.

I'm mirroring you. You asked the me and another poster earlier. Scroll back and you'll see a few more you missed.

Leg End Reject

Tell me how wrote: »

All women? Absolutely not. But I think it is more likely that a number of women have lost out in promotions without necessarily having the irrefutable evidence that it was because of their gender than it is likely that it hasn't happened.



I haven't said that it is. I have argued primarily that gender quotas will create representation within a field so that it will become more normalised to see someone of a particular gender in that role and these people can become visible role models for younger children/students.

"More than likely" and "I'd argue".

There we are, close the thread!

99nsr125

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I've never said that. I don't think either gender is superior, but I do think there are differences between them.

Well that's because we are different with different abilities and interests.

This thing of wanted to homogenize everything runs roughshod over one vitally important thing

Consent.

FORCING everybody to be the same is a fundamental removal of freedom and thus discriminatory

Leg End Reject

99nsr125 wrote: »

Well that's because we are different with different abilities and interests.

This thing of wanted to homogenize everything runs roughshod over one vitally important thing

Consent.

FORCING everybody to be the same is a fundamental removal of freedom and thus discriminatory

And on that theme of homogenisation - without it the cream invariably rises to the top.*

*Cream being gender neutral and excluding some blatant cases of discrimination (not always linked to gender).

Tell me how

purifol0 wrote: »

Modelling


Pornography


Video Game Streaming

lol.

Ok then. Stats please.

Tell me how

Leg End Reject wrote: »

"More than likely" and "I'd argue".

There we are, close the thread!

If only. There'll be a new one in a day or 2 with the same outrage.

Tell me how

99nsr125 wrote: »

Well that's because we are different with different abilities and interests.

This thing of wanted to homogenize everything runs roughshod over one vitally important thing

Consent.

FORCING everybody to be the same is a fundamental removal of freedom and thus discriminatory

Can you point to where anyone is arguing that everyone be forced to be the same.

You clearly don't understand the argument here, given that you are around the thread a lot, I think trying to conflate it here is a deliberate attempt.