|
Post by trubble on Feb 1, 2011 14:25:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Feb 1, 2011 15:13:39 GMT
I think she should get back in the kitchen before she gets a slap...but you knew I'd say that. ;D
Seriously though, absolutely stupid idea, only has merit if you are one of those bulldyke feminazi types.
AH
|
|
|
Post by everso on Feb 1, 2011 17:25:37 GMT
I think that kind of thing sets women apart and is wrong. We don't want to be set apart - we want to be included.
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Feb 1, 2011 17:43:49 GMT
I think that kind of thing sets women apart and is wrong. We don't want to be set apart - we want to be included. We know what you mean, Ev. You mean you want a cuddle. Don't you worry your pretty little head. Alph! She's out of the kitchen again.
|
|
|
Post by everso on Feb 1, 2011 18:12:15 GMT
Yeah, yeah. Tsk!
Now you must excuse me while I go and get Mr. E's tea for him.
|
|
|
Post by bonbonlarue on Feb 1, 2011 19:43:34 GMT
I think it's a jolly idea..especially as us girls find it hard to understand what you big strong men talk about...
|
|
|
Post by everso on Feb 1, 2011 20:09:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Feb 1, 2011 22:54:40 GMT
It'd be one big filibuster surely!?
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Feb 1, 2011 23:09:57 GMT
It'd be one big filibuster surely!? Such punning is a Mortal Sin, Pat. I'm shocked . . . SHOCKED!
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Feb 2, 2011 0:47:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Feb 2, 2011 6:36:33 GMT
Yep, derision appears to be the main reaction across the board (and boards).
Oh well. I quite liked the idea - loved it even - when I first heard about it (although I knew it was a tad doolally).
It seems that Everso is right and that setting oneself apart, even if only in an attempt to play a bigger team role, only brings more exclusion.
|
|
|
Post by bonbonlarue on Feb 2, 2011 8:00:47 GMT
I had an e mail yesterday [2nd week in new job] asking if I'd like to be included in the birthday list.... ."..just for 'us ladies'...in case any one wants to buy you a Birthday card... " I declined...can you imagine anything more soul destroying...or false even??? ..[and don't men have birthdays?]
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 2, 2011 11:17:07 GMT
Yep, derision appears to be the main reaction across the board (and boards). Oh well. I quite liked the idea - loved it even - when I first heard about it... I feel a bit guilty for not replying. As the board's resident bulldyke feminazi, I was not sure whether to reply with total seriousness or to attempt something more fluffy. Back in the 1970s I would have said that that this sort of thing was necessary since there were so few women in public life, and men always took over any discussion they were part of. Now things have improved, a bit anyway, and women though still underrepresented are more vocal, so I'm not so sure. Let us know how it goes, will you?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 2, 2011 11:18:40 GMT
I had an e mail yesterday [2nd week in new job] asking if I'd like to be included in the birthday list.... ."..just for 'us ladies'...in case any one wants to buy you a Birthday card... " I declined...can you imagine anything more soul destroying...or false even??? ..[and don't men have birthdays?] Completely bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Feb 2, 2011 11:51:51 GMT
Jean,
Years ago, Tony Blair visited the Dail and made what I thought was a cheeky admonishment. He told us that we had a scandalous ratio of women in parliament. I didn't think we had a particular problem there. I thought the ratio, although not equal, was not due to institutionalised sexism. I might be wrong. And the fact that he made the remark may indicate that Britain is ahead of Ireland in this department.
To expand on that for a moment: I was filled with urge to smack the smug smile off his patronising face for daring to preach to us about sexism when he was the proud owner of a flock of Blair's Babes ffs. But as a lady, I didn't feel it was proper to punch; punch ups can make one look so unpretty and can smear make-up.
But let's say that I am right and that the imbalance is not due to sexism but to other factors. I am not sure what they are. I suspect that it may be to do with women's desires to other things with their lives than be a career politician -- and to get to the top of the political ladder, you have to put in a lot of networking hours; you need to be completely dedicated to it and you need a supportive partner who will pick up the slack at home.
As a voter/viewer, rightly or wrongly I relate to female politicians more easily. Is that wrong of me?
Mary White's point is that the same process might be happening when it comes to women thinking of making this their career. Maybe we need to see more of our women politicians before we can aspire to be one ourselves.
Here's a quote from her:
“I am disappointed by reports that just 15 per cent of candidates running in the general election will be women,” she said.
“There are 23 women in the outgoing Dáil Éireann, accounting for barely one in seven seats. To get more women into the Dáil we need to change how politics works. But we also need our media to provide a good platform for females running for election,” Ms White added.
Ms White, a former minister of state for equality, said: “Given the lack of consensus amongst the parties on linking candidate quotas with party funding or some other form of electoral or political sanction, I believe that legislation is needed to introduce more balance in our political system.”
Now, I am not sure that we need legislation, for all the same reasons you quote, Jean. It is not the 70s any more. Every women knows that that job is open to them. But perhaps we do presume that we will have to work harder to prove ourselves, and that we should expect to face poor expectations and to fight that. Perhaps that deters us. I really don't know.
I think a bit of explicitly female media time would certainly do no harm though, and given that the main focus will be on the 3-5 men fighting for the post of prime minister, it would certainly be relief from all that sameness.
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Feb 2, 2011 12:34:32 GMT
To expand on that for a moment: I was filled with urge to smack the smug smile off his patronising face for daring to preach to us about sexism when he was the proud owner of a flock of Blair's Babes ffs. But as a lady, I didn't feel it was proper to punch; punch ups can make one look so unpretty and can smear make-up. On the contrary, it was the bounden duty of a lady to beat the shit out of the smarmy bag of shyte. I would gladly have mopped the floor and cleaned the chandeliers afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 2, 2011 13:15:39 GMT
Jean, Years ago, Tony Blair visited the Dail and made what I thought was a cheeky admonishment. He told us that we had a scandalous ratio of women in parliament. Don't take any notice of him. Even if he's right. But neither should you accept without question someone else's sexist label! The best of them were serious politicians - even the less distinguished were no worse than their male counterparts. And nobody attached such a derogatory label to the menI noticed that what discussion there was on MCL petered out with a reference to Harriet Harman. I've never understood why HH deserves such special opprobrium (I expect Weyland will tell me). But it's like Godwin's Law in reverse: once she's been invoked, anything you say in reply is robbed of any validity. This is the interesting bit, really. There will be those women who want to beat men at their own game, Thatcher being the supreme example (though she was bankrolled by a sympathetic partner) and there will be those (most of them?)who won't bother to try to participate at all. And all attempts to make the life of a MP more women-friendly - or indeed person-friendly - will come to nothing. I'm influenced here by the unfortunate fact that in the last council elections in my ward, where we had already two Green councillors and an excellent (male) candidate for the third seat, the LibDems put up the council leader's girlfriend, who had no political experience and no ideas and did not campaign at all and yet was elected.There's still no proper explanation for how it happened. (Sorry, the thought of that has made me so angry I have to stop writing the time being.)
|
|
|
Post by everso on Feb 2, 2011 17:36:35 GMT
Not only that, but if you haven't laquered your hair properly it can end up like a birch broom in a fit. No, I much prefer a female doctor because I think they actually listen to what you say.
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Feb 2, 2011 17:50:33 GMT
I noticed that what discussion there was on MCL petered out with a reference to Harriet Harman. I've never understood why HH deserves such special opprobrium (I expect Weyland will tell me). You misjudge me yet again, ma'am, and you expect wrong. I never did understand the anti-HH ranting. Probably just the usual chauvinistic throwbacks of whom there are plenty in all parties. The most serious criticism I might make is that she didn't quietly do away with Blair. There must've been opportunities. But you could say the same of Claire Short.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Feb 3, 2011 12:54:47 GMT
There were some reasons for the HH thing, but not for the sort of stuff she usually got. And she was no worse than many male MPs and ministers.
My mother said that she found out about Mrs Grocock's enemas at the LP women's section meetings in the 70s, which she wouldn't have done otherwise.
(Mrs Grocock's brother once won a prize for getting a joke something published in The Magnet in the 30s; I saw it in a reprint. Still got it somewhere.)
|
|