danny Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Harriet Harman MP Would just like to hear your views on this woman. For those who dont know she says one of the two top labour jobs should always be a woman. Which would mean in a labour govenment either the PM or deputy would have to be a woman. She has hinted that if women had played a bigger role in the financial industry the world woudnt be in the mess it is now. She said "men cannot be left to run things on their own" she has made some other sexist quotes also. Which i dont know word for word so am not going to quote them. I would have no problem with anyone saying things about men, but it pisses me off as if a man made simaler remarks about women she would be at the front of the que to shoot them down in flames for being "shovanist pigs". Just to make my feelings clear i would have no problem with a woman beign either PM or deputy or having two women doing both, just as long as they were the best people for the job. I dont think we should go for the 3rd best person to do a job just because then 2nd person is the wrong sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) chauvinist (me correcting spelling, not calling names) Anywho was discussing this with Dan earlier. I consider myself a feminist and I see where's she's coming from but im afraid she's pulled a Heigl and put her foot in her mouth. I think she's simply worded it all wrong and I'd agree, having a joint male/female leadership roles may make things better (but hypotheticals are never fun to deal with, its like lying to your brain) but she just needs to be careful how she phrases herself. While im sure she meant if the Lehman Brothers bank had been founded by females then the recession may not have happened but saying "if the Lehman Brothers bank was called the Lehman Sisters bank" it would be better just makes her sound daft, as if its all down to semantics. And I'm changing the topic title because it is rather misogynistic and yeah the new one is boring but politics is only interesting when there's sex. Edited August 10, 2009 by Ashley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iun Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Harriet Harman MP Would just like to hear your views on this woman. For those who dont know she says one of the two top labour jobs should always be a woman. Which would mean in a labour govenment either the PM or deputy would have to be a woman. She has hinted that if women had played a bigger role in the financial industry the world woudnt be in the mess it is now. She said "men cannot be left to run things on their own" she has made some other sexist quotes also. Which i dont know word for word so am not going to quote them. I would have no problem with anyone saying things about men, but it pisses me off as if a man made simaler remarks about women she would be at the front of the que to shoot them down in flames for being "shovanist pigs". Just to make my feelings clear i would have no problem with a woman beign either PM or deputy or having two women doing both, just as long as they were the best people for the job. I dont think we should go for the 3rd best person to do a job just because then 2nd person is the wrong sex. You've kind of hit the nail on the head there. I'm for equality - providing the people are equal. Truth is, some people are simple, brainless thugs or thugettes who are not equal to other people. So why in the name of being fair should we routinely allow the brainless and the unqualified into top positions? I think what she was implying is that there should be more opportunities for women who are capable, and psychological barriers - such as those that exist, should be torn down. I'm all for having more black people, female people, asian people, handicapped people etc. in the workplace - but let's make sure they are they because they can do their job, not simply because they have no penis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaggle64 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I think it is true that there aren't nearly enough women in the higher echelons of politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 The thing that get's me is the idea of the feminist movement is to prevent discrimination. But in order to achieve that, she wants to discriminate. It's the ultimate in hypocrisy, in that she dislikes it when it happens to her, but happily suggests doing it to others. It's just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Despite some clumsy wording (ripe for misinterpretation, ho!) I think she has a decent point. In a society that claims equality of the sexes, she's spent alot of time quite rightly trying to make that actually mean something. I don't think she's suggesting we demote men in favor of women- merely questioning the status quo that exists now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkatronics Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 There will never be 100% equality, and people need to see this. To be truly equal, in the work place, they shouldnt ask for gender or race at all. I can understand age, but thats down to inurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share Posted August 10, 2009 Despite some clumsy wording (ripe for misinterpretation, ho!) I think she has a decent point. In a society that claims equality of the sexes, she's spent alot of time quite rightly trying to make that actually mean something. I don't think she's suggesting we demote men in favor of women- merely questioning the status quo that exists now. She tried to change the rules so that a woman would have to be in one of the top 2 jobs. That could demote people from either sex. Depending on the calber of MPs. Im not sexist. But i am realistic i dont think there are many jobs women should be allowed to do (there are a few which there are good reasons for but thats another matter.) but i dont think its a bad thing that both sexs are not equally represented in jobs. take firemen for instance men make better fireman in general. Now some women will be equally as good as a man at the job. But a lot wont. So why is it a bad thing that its not a 50/50 split. or on the other hand Nurses, women tend to be better at caring for people and being gentle. The same goes some men can do this just as well but not as a rule. So why should there be a 50/50 split. I ahet PC shit. It should be the best person for the job in my opinion it dosent matter if there a man, woman, black, white, yellow or green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkatronics Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 She tried to change the rules so that a woman would have to be in one of the top 2 jobs. That could demote people from either sex. Depending on the calber of MPs. Im not sexist. But i am realistic i dont think there are many jobs women should be allowed to do (there are a few which there are good reasons for but thats another matter.) but i dont think its a bad thing that both sexs are not equally represented in jobs. take firemen for instance men make better fireman in general. Now some women will be equally as good as a man at the job. But a lot wont. So why is it a bad thing that its not a 50/50 split. or on the other hand Nurses, women tend to be better at caring for people and being gentle. The same goes some men can do this just as well but not as a rule. So why should there be a 50/50 split. I ahet PC shit. It should be the best person for the job in my opinion it dosent matter if there a man, woman, black, white, yellow or green. Instead of saying that there should be atleaast 1 man and 1 woman, why not ignore gender all together? I hate it when i hear of companies, especially government ones, having quotas for races gender etc.. What if they got 10 men and 1 woman applying? If all the men were more qualified, the woman would have a hance in some cases. I dont think its fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Pushing aside the loaded stereotypes in that statement I don't think she's trying to say that for every male there should be a female in every job, but rather trying to smash the glass ceiling that still exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share Posted August 10, 2009 Pushing aside the loaded stereotypes in that statement I don't think she's trying to say that for every male there should be a female in every job, but rather trying to smash the glass ceiling that still exists. No i know she isnt. Except for the top 2 jobs in labour party. They maybe sterotypes but that dosent mena there false. Im not saying that either sex is less capable. Just in general are more suited to certain jobs in general. It just pisses me off when you hear figures getting quoted. The fireman one is quite common. And i just dont see what the problem is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Somehow I doubt she's trying to diversify the fire service. She's talking about top corporate and political positions and business. In those cases, she's damn right that there should be equal representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I think she's pretty much right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 How reliable is the first post? I can't agree with her if that's what she advocates. I think women are already emancipated and don't get into these jobs because either they don't care about or there hasn't been a woman that qualified more than a men for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 How reliable is the first post? I can't agree with her if that's what she advocates. I think women are already emancipated and don't get into these jobs because either they don't care about or there hasn't been a woman that qualified more than a men for the job. The problem is it's probably hard to ever find out. And I have to say I agree with Danny here. I've always felt that diverse gender/race/whatever representation simply for the sake of diverse gender/race/whatever representation is ridiculous. We should employ whoever's best for the job with no regard for gender what so ever. That's equality. Also, it annoys me that there are still places where women are treated unequally, but also places where men are treated unequally. Take for example her comment. Whatever she meant by it, you can be absolutely 100 % sure that if the genders were reversed, hell would break lose and people would get humiliated in public - and we'd all say he had it coming. Feminism stands for equality. Unfortunately it's often seen represented by crazy misandric women. I am not saying the woman in question is misandric, but her comment certainly is, and even if it was a slip of the tongue, it seems to me as a Freudian slip. Wow, a lot of comments in no particular order. Hope it makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbob Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 How reliable is the first post? I can't agree with her if that's what she advocates. I think women are already emancipated and don't get into these jobs because either they don't care about or there hasn't been a woman that qualified more than a men for the job. Its quite reliable, i believe i read it on the BBC website and a few papers. Her statement that men cannot be left to do things alone really goes to prove that what she said is sexist. If a male said this (changing the word "men" to "women"), they would be hung-up in court for making such a statement. Its not that women are incapable of doing a high-up job (Margarete Thatcher was in charge of the country back in the 80's), there just don't seem to be any that high-up anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I also have a bit of a problem with the equality argument in the first place. We say we can't decide whether or not to give a job to someone based on gender, right? But fact is, there are differences, and rather than ignore them, shouldn't we embrace them? I'm not saying simply the fact that someone is female or male should affect an employers decision, but the differences between them shouldn't be ignored, as has to be done in order to prevent getting sued. Ancedotal example: my friends English teacher was pregnant last year, and was constantly off work from about October to late April. I'm talking 2 weeks off, 1 week on, 2 weeks off. This meant that his class were hit really hard, getting taught in patches by teachers of various speciality in the subject. However, because it was a pregancy thing, it came down to a gender discrimination thing, and so the head was unable to change his classes teacher or to hire a temp for them. Therefore, my friend was taught English really badly, failed his exam, and now has to resit it this year instead of doing the Advanced Higher Geography class he wanted to do. This will affect his ability to get into the Uni course he wants, and will thereby affect the rest of his life. What I'm saying is; people should not be allowed to hire a girl just because a an employer wants a pretty face in the office (unless her looks are going to affect her ability to do the job), but equally it is unfair to disallow employers from taking action when something like that does have an effect. I feel like I'm not getting my point across very well. Basically: I'm against any form of positive discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I also have a bit of a problem with the equality argument in the first place. We say we can't decide whether or not to give a job to someone based on gender, right? But fact is, there are differences, and rather than ignore them, shouldn't we embrace them? I'm not saying simply the fact that someone is female or male should affect an employers decision, but the differences between them shouldn't be ignored, as has to be done in order to prevent getting sued. Ancedotal example: my friends English teacher was pregnant last year, and was constantly off work from about October to late April. I'm talking 2 weeks off, 1 week on, 2 weeks off. This meant that his class were hit really hard, getting taught in patches by teachers of various speciality in the subject. However, because it was a pregancy thing, it came down to a gender discrimination thing, and so the head was unable to change his classes teacher or to hire a temp for them. Therefore, my friend was taught English really badly, failed his exam, and now has to resit it this year instead of doing the Advanced Higher Geography class he wanted to do. This will affect his ability to get into the Uni course he wants, and will thereby affect the rest of his life. What I'm saying is; people should not be allowed to hire a girl just because a an employer wants a pretty face in the office (unless her looks are going to affect her ability to do the job), but equally it is unfair to disallow employers from taking action when something like that does have an effect. I feel like I'm not getting my point across very well. Basically: I'm against any form of positive discrimination. From what I understand the basic gist of your post is: Focus on the practical facts, even if they're gender related, but not on the gender itself. Am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Pretty much. To me, it's unfair to ignore the fact that there are differences. If the job was about heavy lifting, you'd get 10 guys and 10 girls. I bet the top 10 is a ratio of 8:2 or something. So thats the ratio that should be hired; the 10 that are best at the job. But what Harriet Harman is saying is that it should be 5:5, which is ridiculous. Men are stronger more often. They just are. The means weight lifting world record is bigger than the womens. The mens 100m world record is shorter than the womens. That doesn't mean eveyr man is faster than every woman, but it means that as a general rule, men are faster than women. So if it's relevant, it should be permitted to be taken into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Pretty much. To me, it's unfair to ignore the fact that there are differences. If the job was about heavy lifting, you'd get 10 guys and 10 girls. I bet the top 10 is a ratio of 8:2 or something. So thats the ratio that should be hired; the 10 that are best at the job. But what Harriet Harman is saying is that it should be 5:5, which is ridiculous. Men are stronger more often. They just are. The means weight lifting world record is bigger than the womens. The mens 100m world record is shorter than the womens. That doesn't mean eveyr man is faster than every woman, but it means that as a general rule, men are faster than women. So if it's relevant, it should be permitted to be taken into consideration. Good, then I both understood you right and agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I think her comments are rather sexist, but I'm not sure she means to be. I don't think equality means having an equal number of people from every race and gender in every job, or even high up jobs. Like others have said, Race, Sex, ect. should not be considered for any position. Like others have said, the most qualified applicant should get the job. If The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, or President and Vice President, ect, depending on what country you live in, are both men, both women, or a man and a woman, it shouldn't matter, as long as they are the best person for the job. If a Man is better for a job, and a woman gets hired because she is a woman, and the company is trying to hire more women, I would consider that sexist. With political correctness comes the people who try so hard to be politically correct they fail miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share Posted August 10, 2009 Somehow I doubt she's trying to diversify the fire service. She's talking about top corporate and political positions and business. In those cases, she's damn right that there should be equal representation. Maybe wasnt clear. Im not syaing she is trying to diversify the fire service. but its the same equality for equalitys sake. I have to disagree with your comment about there being equal representation. What if say there were 10 men more qualified to be the deputy prime minister, but they had to have a woman as the PM was male. How can that be right? And then if she had to stand down for whatever reason there could be 20 men more qualified before the next woman but she would stil have to have the job under her argument. Substiture the women for men and the argument is still the same its a stupid idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 For all those who are tumpsing that if a man said this there would be hell are you aware that Harriet Harman is being criticised and attacked for what she's said. This soap box of a thread is merely one example, with the usual common denominator papers weighing in, other MPs criticising her and then of course there is The Sun, one of the biggest misogynistic institutions in the country calling her anti-feminist. Oh the irony. So can we drop the frankly weak "oh if a man had done this..." note Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share Posted August 10, 2009 So can we drop the frankly weak "oh if a man had done this..." note Why if a man had said that she would have been the first in line calling for his resignation. I think its a fair point sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) I have to disagree with your comment about there being equal representation. What if say there were 10 men more qualified to be the deputy prime minister, but they had to have a woman as the PM was male. How can that be right? And then if she had to stand down for whatever reason there could be 20 men more qualified before the next woman but she would stil have to have the job under her argument. Substiture the women for men and the argument is still the same its a stupid idea. Because over half the population are female (and thus should be represented in government) and I find it highly unlikely that there would ever be a situation where there are 10 perfectly capable male deputy prime ministers and all the female candidates would make cheese look intelligent because they get to that potential position for a reason. Besides, its not like we've never elected an incapable politician before (or they've found themselves in a position of power by default). Why if a man had said that she would have been the first in line calling for his resignation. I think its a fair point sorry. Would have been called to resign, but do you honestly think he would have been made to resign? Its a fucking sausage club, he would have gotten away with it. Edited August 10, 2009 by Ashley Automerged Doublepost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts