Page 1 of 1 [ 8 posts ] 

fluffysaurus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,335
Location: England

12 Aug 2019, 4:43 am

I know this is about politics but that's not the part that's ridiculous.

All women emergency cabinet


How is this anything but A) sexist and B) not going to work.

I can only assume she's never worked in an all female environment. They're bloody. We women cooperate when we have no choice, a common goal, or a common enemy, just like those other people. We don't like cooperating any more than men, we're just better at hiding how pissed off we are when we have to give in, but we're still going to rip each others throats out at the first chance we get.

It amazes me the number of times people will talk about equality without even listening to themselves or thinking about what that means. If you have higher expectations of one sex than the other or assume them better at something based entirely upon their gender then you're sexist. You're also dumping expectations on those you're expecting more from, adding to the women are here to agree and smooth the paths of human interaction bollocks.

There's a bit at the end about BAME women (non-white) because if you're not white you're automatically going to be a nicer and more cooperative person. It's not adding racism to sexism noooooooooo. Do these people listen to themselves?



DeepHour
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,718
Location: United Kingdom

13 Aug 2019, 11:01 am

One of the things that has depressed me the most about the 'equality' debate over the last couple of decades or so, is the way it has been hijacked by the 'Identity Politics' people and has come to be seen in terms of race, gender and sexuality. In my view, this is a distraction from the much more basic idea of greater economic equality - that's why the Establishment and even the business world has come to embrace and promote this dubious concept.

You might see a fatuous, symbolic debate in the media about why a male CEO should earn £4 million per year, while his female counterpart 'only' earns £3 million, but what you're a lot less likely to see these days is many people asking the far more fundamental question as to why neither of these two individuals can apparently 'get by' on, say, £250,000 per year (which after all is ten times what ordinary mortals earn).


_________________
On a mountain range
I'm Doctor Strange


martianprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2019
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,346

13 Aug 2019, 12:37 pm

I disagree that having all-women anything is "sexist." When you say that, you imply that women have never experienced systemic oppression, which is not true (although I wish it was). Below is a quote from this article that describes why:
"Women can be conscious or unconscious collaborators in their own oppression if they accept the basic premises of sexism: that men have more power than women because they deserve more power than women. Sexism by women against men would only be possible in a system in which the balance of social, political, cultural, and economic power was measurably in the hands of women, a situation which does not exist today."

We don't seem to question anything that's mostly made up of men, or even all men as much as we seem more taken aback by anything women-dominated. The fact that women make up most or all of anything seems to be controversial, like having a female president would. It shouldn't be. But let's not kid ourselves and think that we've all had an even playing field this entire time, we haven't.


_________________
The phone ping from a pillow fort in a corn maze
I don't have a horse in your war games
I don't even really like horses
I like wild orchids and neighbors with wide orbits


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,813
Location: Stendec

13 Aug 2019, 12:52 pm

DeepHour wrote:
One of the things that has depressed me the most about the 'equality' debate over the last couple of decades or so, is the way it has been hijacked by the 'Identity Politics' people ...
To paraphrase George Orwell, Identity Politics seems to be based on the idea that while all 'identities' are equal, some 'identities' are more equal than others.


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


fluffysaurus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Oct 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,335
Location: England

13 Aug 2019, 4:23 pm

martianprincess wrote:
I disagree that having all-women anything is "sexist." When you say that, you imply that women have never experienced systemic oppression, which is not true (although I wish it was).
It does not imply such a think at all. I also haven't said that having an all-women anything is always sexist, there may be occasions or situations when all-male or all-female is the fairer option. I'm fine with all female rugby team for example.
Quote:
Below is a quote from this article that describes why:
"Women can be conscious or unconscious collaborators in their own oppression if they accept the basic premises of sexism: that men have more power than women because they deserve more power than women. Sexism by women against men would only be possible in a system in which the balance of social, political, cultural, and economic power was measurably in the hands of women, a situation which does not exist today."
It does exist today; whoever wrote this is an idiot who doesn't seem to be aware that we all live and work in little pockets of power. No body lives in society as a whole. The balance of power is sometimes in the hands of women and sometimes they behave well and sometimes they behave badly. You are confusing who has the most power in society in general (men) with who has the most power in a particular work place, environment, or relationship, or who has the money, or who has the greater experience. It can be either sex
Quote:

We don't seem to question anything that's mostly made up of men, or even all men as much as we seem more taken aback by anything women-dominated. The fact that women make up most or all of anything seems to be controversial, like having a female president would. It shouldn't be. But let's not kid ourselves and think that we've all had an even playing field this entire time, we haven't.
All male things in areas of power are questioned regularly. Women in charge is not controversial here. Women are not underrepresented in UK politics because of sexism it's because women are more likely to be carers than men and the hours are very antisocial. We've had two female prime ministers, neither of them were primary carers. No body under the age of seventy here can remember ever having a male head of state.

No it hasn't been a level playing field and some of the problems are still with us but to make assumptions about someones abilities based on their sex is no way to solve them. Nor does taking something away from one sex and giving it exclusively to the other even things out.

I still think in general women face more disadvantages from their sex than men but no body gets an exact portion of what society is so an individual person, male or female,might experience almost entirely advantages or face huge prejudiced and disadvantage due to their sex and the situation they are in. People are more than the summery of their demographics.



Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,454
Location: New England

15 Aug 2019, 6:03 pm

Careful there, ms. fluffy. If you keep thinking for yourself you may get in trouble.

Image


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


martianprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jun 2019
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,346

15 Aug 2019, 9:54 pm

fluffysaurus wrote:
martianprincess wrote:
I disagree that having all-women anything is "sexist." When you say that, you imply that women have never experienced systemic oppression, which is not true (although I wish it was).
It does not imply such a think at all. I also haven't said that having an all-women anything is always sexist, there may be occasions or situations when all-male or all-female is the fairer option. I'm fine with all female rugby team for example.
Quote:
Below is a quote from this article that describes why:
"Women can be conscious or unconscious collaborators in their own oppression if they accept the basic premises of sexism: that men have more power than women because they deserve more power than women. Sexism by women against men would only be possible in a system in which the balance of social, political, cultural, and economic power was measurably in the hands of women, a situation which does not exist today."
It does exist today; whoever wrote this is an idiot who doesn't seem to be aware that we all live and work in little pockets of power. No body lives in society as a whole. The balance of power is sometimes in the hands of women and sometimes they behave well and sometimes they behave badly. You are confusing who has the most power in society in general (men) with who has the most power in a particular work place, environment, or relationship, or who has the money, or who has the greater experience. It can be either sex
Quote:

We don't seem to question anything that's mostly made up of men, or even all men as much as we seem more taken aback by anything women-dominated. The fact that women make up most or all of anything seems to be controversial, like having a female president would. It shouldn't be. But let's not kid ourselves and think that we've all had an even playing field this entire time, we haven't.
All male things in areas of power are questioned regularly. Women in charge is not controversial here. Women are not underrepresented in UK politics because of sexism it's because women are more likely to be carers than men and the hours are very antisocial. We've had two female prime ministers, neither of them were primary carers. No body under the age of seventy here can remember ever having a male head of state.

No it hasn't been a level playing field and some of the problems are still with us but to make assumptions about someones abilities based on their sex is no way to solve them. Nor does taking something away from one sex and giving it exclusively to the other even things out.

I still think in general women face more disadvantages from their sex than men but no body gets an exact portion of what society is so an individual person, male or female,might experience almost entirely advantages or face huge prejudiced and disadvantage due to their sex and the situation they are in. People are more than the summery of their demographics.



I certainty agree with you that people are more than the summary of their demographics, but it's also important to keep intersectional factors in mind when evaluating things.

Perhaps politics in the UK differs in its treatment of women than the U.S. which is a pretty hostile place generally, between many groups and not just specifically women.


_________________
The phone ping from a pillow fort in a corn maze
I don't have a horse in your war games
I don't even really like horses
I like wild orchids and neighbors with wide orbits


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,952
Location: US

15 Aug 2019, 11:22 pm

Always ask yourself would it be ok if a man decides to have a only all male cabinet?
If your answer is no then your sexist and hypocrite. Sexism isn’t only about women. It’s about unfair treatment based on sex regardless of gender. So if it’s not ok to have all male cabinet it’s not ok to have all female one. If it’s not ok to refuse to hire women then it’s not ok to refuse to hire men and so on and so on.

Recently companies and sports team got fuss saying they were paying women less then studies would done and it turned out the women got paid more then men. Time for equality pay cut I say :evil: