International women's day (1 Viewer)

[MDR]

when you say 'run by swedish people' you imply an even mix of swedish men and women
do you not? in fact in reality that is the case sweden is run by an even mix of swedish men and women

so you say even mix of swedish men and women => doing well

If your average swedish person is like your average person,

(maybe that's not the case and that's a fair point, and is maybe your core argument ? My counter argument would then be , maybe what makes them different is that swedes involve women more in society !)

then even mix of men and women => doing well

that's a stronger conclusion than i made but it's certainly what I
want to suggest.

You're missing my point, which is that you can't simply look at a country with an entirely different culture, including political culture, and attribute its success to the gender equality in its political system, as if to suggest that's all we need to make ireland a better place. That's like saying that Germany is mostly run by protestants, so maybe we should put protestants in power here if we wanted to be more like Germany. It's too simplistic.

I'd bet that, per party, the proportion of female TDs is roughly equivalent to the proprotion of female activists in each party. That suggests to me that the discrimination is not within the system, but at the level of deciding to become involved. For some reason, women seem less inclined to join political parties and until that changes, i don't think we will see gender equality in the Dail or at Government.

 

[1000smurfs]

You're missing my point, which is that you can't simply look at a country with an entirely different culture, including political culture, and attribute its success to the gender equality in its political system, as if to suggest that's all we need to make ireland a better place. That's like saying that Germany is mostly run by protestants, so maybe we should put protestants in power here if we wanted to be more like Germany. It's too simplistic.

yeah i am being simplistic, I'm not trying to describe everything it takes to make a good government, more that it will be a better government with more women involved.
it's simplistic to say ireland would be in better shape if there was less gangsters involved in irish politics. but is it untrue ? I doubt it. some would say we'd be in better shape with no politicians! i'd have some
sympathy for that view too.

I'd bet that, per party, the proportion of female TDs is roughly equivalent to the proprotion of female activists in each party. That suggests to me that the discrimination is not within the system, but at the level of deciding to become involved. For some reason, women seem less inclined to join political parties and until that changes, i don't think we will see gender equality in the Dail or at Government.

let's assume there is no discrimination. Would you like to see more women involved? would you care? If you would why would you?

 

[MDR]

I'd like to see the best people get through the political system, or any other system for that matter, without meaningless barriers getting in their way. I don't care what gender they are. I don't want to see talented women being obstructed; nor do I want to see talented men held back because their advance would knock the gender balance picture out of whack.

On the violence thing, you may see violent men in society but that doesn't prove your point that it is the result of an evolutionary predisposition.

 

[broken arm]

fair enough!

I want to hear an argument though why men aren't more predisposed to violence than women. I see tons of evidence to the contrary.

is the basis of violence always a bad thing?

 

[1000smurfs]

I'd like to see the best people get through the political system, or any other system for that matter, without meaningless barriers getting in their way. I don't care what gender they are. I don't want to see talented women being obstructed; nor do I want to see talented men held back because their advance would knock the gender balance picture out of whack.

Yeah i'd agree with that. It's my default position. However on the pure fact that roughly half of us are women, i'd like to see at least half of TD's , judges whatever being women. In fact I'd go further and like to see slightly more women to counterbalance some of the negative tendencies I percieve
in men. But i seem to be in the minority opinion on that one!

On the violence thing, you may see violent men in society but that doesn't prove your point that it is the result of an evolutionary predisposition.

No it doesn't, but statistics suggest that most violent crime is conducted by men. Would you doubt it? Also Men have way more testoterone swishing around inside. Our increased testosterone levels are no doubt a result of evolution.

 

[1000smurfs]

is the basis of violence always a bad thing?

i'm not quite sure I understand your point,
so correct me if I don't answer your question:

I think it's already been mentioned that our tendencies are not inherently bad,
choosing to act on them is a bad thing.

Is violence always a bad thing?
Agression is good for playing rugby
Crouching tiger was a great film

 

[snakybus]

There's a difference between violence and aggression. Aggression, say as expressed on a football field, is not violence. The ref stops the game when it becomes a violent act. What you need is a good game of football.

 

[broken arm]

Men are more predisposed to violence than women?
violence is bad

Is violence always a bad thing?
Agression is good for playing rugby
Crouching tiger was a great film

now i'm not picking on this but I feel uncomfortable being holed into someone else assumptions just by having testosterone and a willy, if that is what makes me. but the issues are rarely reasonable.

the issue of pay is interesting to me for the reasons of types of work that are not recognised financially by most people - not just men. i.e. child rearing, caring etc. I think the context of value is at odds with fairness.

some people also say simply because men are more aggressive they ask for pay rises more. but that just simplistic YO.

 

[1000smurfs]

There's a difference between violence and aggression. Aggression, say as expressed on a football field, is not violence. The ref stops the game when it becomes a violent act. What you need is a good game of football.

A good game o hurling is almost controlled violence!

 

[1000smurfs]

now i'm not picking on this but I feel uncomfortable being holed into someone else assumptions just by having testosterone and a willy, if that is what makes me. but the issues are rarely reasonable.

Your tendencies/predispostions don't define you. it's what you do with that fine willy of yours that counts.

the issue of pay is interesting to me for the reasons of types of work that are not recognised financially by most people - not just men. i.e. child rearing, caring etc. I think the context of value is at odds with fairness.

some people also say simply because men are more aggressive they ask for pay rises more. but that just simplistic YO.

what do you think the reasons are men are paid more? ( i don't believe it's just because they are more aggressive)

 

[broken arm]

Your tendencies don't define you. it's what you do with that fine willy of yours that counts.

perform or die.

what do you think the resons are men are paid more? ( i don't believe it's just becuase they are more agressive)

i really don't know. That is why i originally wanted to know exactly howe the imbalance was measured. Is it like for like jobs? or is it that women tended towards the jobs that were not historically valued financially? i think it is largly the latter and that needs to change and can change. But there are so many other factors and in politics and business aggressive personalities and other factors (usually being an asshole) often leads to success.

 

[MDR]

No it doesn't, but statistics suggest that most violent crime is conducted by men. Would you doubt it? Also Men have way more testoterone swishing around inside. Our increased testosterone levels are no doubt a result of evolution.

That is a specious development of your argument. It seems that you are trying to build up a line of thought as follows:

1 men are more disposed towards violence, because of evolution
2 Men have more testosterone
3 Combine these two points to explain that men are more violent than women
4 Therefore society is in a bad way because men are more violent and at the same time occupy the dominant position in society
5 If woment were more dominant in society it would be in better shape.

I have no doubt that having a political system that better represents the make-up of society would be a good thing, but your rationale is a gross-oversimplification of the situation.

Listen, I'm not looking to row with you. I think we both agree that discrimination against women is wrong and that neither of us want to see talented women being thwarted in trying to reach the top of their chosen field. We should just leave it at that.

 

[snakybus]

lads, I think it's time to get yer dicks out on the table and see who really wins this argument, if you know what I mean

 

[1000smurfs]

That is a specious development of your argument. It seems that you are trying to build up a line of thought as follows:

1 men are more disposed towards violence, because of evolution
2 Men have more testosterone
3 Combine these two points to explain that men are more violent than women
4 Therefore society is in a bad way because men are more violent and at the same time occupy the dominant position in society
5 If woment were more dominant in society it would be in better shape.

I have no doubt that having a political system that better represents the make-up of society would be a good thing, but your rationale is a gross-oversimplification of the situation.

Listen, I'm not looking to row with you. I think we both agree that discrimination against women is wrong and that neither of us want to see talented women being thwarted in trying to reach the top of their chosen field. We should just leave it at that.

That's cool, it never felt like a row, I welcome your critcism and i agree with a lot of your points. To say the argument is specious you might be implying its false, i don't think it is but i am guilty of oversimplification. Still, I can't help looking at your 5 point summary and going yeah, that's pretty much how i feel. cheers for the discussion.

 

[1000smurfs]

lads, I think it's time to get yer dicks out on the table and see who really wins this argument, if you know what I mean

:-

 

[nofunchee]

I have to say i agree with your friend, the recent example of the korean cloning doctor would suppourt the view , that eventually, dodgy research is outed, whatever it's original
motivation. You can never trust isolated research, you need many independent transparent bodies providing indpendent verification
of results as you suggest.

yeah, but that's an example of something that doesn't have as much ideology-afirming resonance as research suggesting that, for biological reasons, men and women can be expected to act in particular ways in society. if research confirms a generally held position on what typifies gender roles (i.e. hormones make men violent and predisposed to violence, and make women into a bag of emotions and predisposed to caring roles) then 'outing' that research as bollocks is far more difficult than announcing that human cloning isn't possible yet. one confirms ideas held as truth only in science fiction and the other confirms ideas held as truth in society, upon which everything we know and understand is built.

While i agree with you that our behaviour is determined by a whole host of factors besides our immediate biological concerns, i can't
help speculating that many of these other factors are themselves linked to evolutionary hangovers.
For example "social and cultural constructions of masculinity". don't a lot of these arise out of hangovers from our previous natural state
'men hunt, women raise babies' .

but who made these assersions and in who's interests was it to maintain them? who connected them to the roles men and women should be expected to occupy based on their gender? who legitimates inequality based on these assersions of our natural past? how does that legitimation occur? are we aware of it? do we challenge it? do we subscribe to it? i don't know the answers to these questions but i have my own views on them. it helps to keep asking them.

you could fairly accuse me of oversimplifying again but I think we need to make some simplification, approximations and generalisations
to make progress, which we can then go on to refine. otherwise we just have to throw our hands up and say it's all too
complicated. On the off chance that there may be an understandable and true explanation for something, it's worth trying to make
attempts to get at it.

i understand the need for reference points, preconceptions, and simplification in the process of inquiry but those means of inquiry should be as heavly scruitinised as research findings because they affect them.

the two legal cases you mentioned are shocking to me, maybe not surprising though. how recent are they?
They reinforce my conviction that more women should be in these kinds of roles setting precedents.

hmm i'm assuming both judges were men !! ? What is the gender ratio in the irish legal industry?

the first one was an appeal against the severity of a sentence and it was heard in 2002. the judge was male. the second was a case that a fellow student was involved in and she was telling us about in class. she was acting as one of those people who gives help and support to the victim - goes to court with them, talks to lawyers with them, wherever the person needs support in the process. i can't remember what year that was. i'm pretty sure the judge was a man though.

as regards the gender ratio in the industry - according to the law society gazette sept. 2001 (www.lawsociety.ie/Gazette/sept_2001.pdf) the annual report for 2000 showed a gender balance in the profession of 63% men and 37% women. interestingly though figures from 2001 showed that 59% of apprentences (professional practice course) were women, down from 63% in 2000 but generally in line with a recent trend of a marked increase of women entering the apprenticeship.

 

[mazzyianne]

I'd like to see the best people get through the political system, or any other system for that matter, without meaningless barriers getting in their way. I don't care what gender they are. I don't want to see talented women being obstructed; nor do I want to see talented men held back because their advance would knock the gender balance picture out of whack.

I think that the problem is a little more complex when it comes to the political system, well, maybe the judicial system and lots of other jobs too.
One of the female labour TDs was saying at the Int. Women's day thing that only 13% of the dail are women, thats 87% men.
There are a lot of complex questions about why so few women are involved in politics. Also a trade unoin women said that 100% of TU secretary generals are men. It's mental.
But when it comes to politics I think that aside from the usual issues that prevent women's participation in well paid jobs, like the employer assuming she will get preggers and have other priorities or that women are socialised (i believe) into being less aggressive and/or competitive and that traits which are encouraged in girls as children are not the traits which get you places in the top jobs...
Aside from all this, in politics, there is the issue of what is political. What is valued in the political system. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again, women are less involved in politics because politics is less involved in women.

 

[1000smurfs]

yeah, but that's an example of something that doesn't have as much ideology-afirming resonance as research suggesting that, for biological reasons, men and women can be expected to act in particular ways in society. if research confirms a generally held position on what typifies gender roles (i.e. hormones make men violent and predisposed to violence, and make women into a bag of emotions and predisposed to caring roles) then 'outing' that research as bollocks is far more difficult than announcing that human cloning isn't possible yet. one confirms ideas held as truth only in science fiction and the other confirms ideas held as truth in society, upon which everything we know and understand is built.

i mostly agree, social research is a 'soft' science
and can be harder to falsify than say a physics theory. However research based on evolutionary arguments i tend to take seriously because of the huge amount of evidence that the behaviour of animals is determined by their genes. We humans are lucky in that our consciousness gives us an escape mechanism, we can disregard the selfish devil gene sitting on our shoulder.

Here's a proposition for debate:

1. Some humans are more 'conscious'\self aware than others.

2. To be more 'conscious' and thus be better able to avoid
biologically determined behaviour depends (strongly?) on how educated we are (among other factors).

3. Education makes us more aware of the world apart from us as well as teaching us about ourselves and our motivations and the repercussions of actions.

4. Only a small percentage of the population gains
a good broad education, i would regard philosophy
and science as featuring very large in any definition
a good education.

5. Therefore, the majority of the population is
still behaving in ways that are still strongly governed by their genes.

6. Men thus tend to dominate roles of power and decision
making, despite the fact that they may be less qualified to do so in terms of creating a stable progressive
society


An implication of these points: education => more equality

i can be accused of all sorts of things here like intellectual snobbery a lot of it would hinge on
what i mean by 'conscious'. i mean to suggest there may be
a sliding scale of consciousness in some sense. If we could define consciousness exactly we'd be rich.
But hopefully you see what i'm gettin at. i'm sure i'm
just rehashing arguments i've got from other peoples ideas.


jesus, what a digression sorry...

but who made these assersions and in who's interests was it to maintain them? who connected them to the roles men and women should be expected to occupy based on their gender? who legitimates inequality based on these assersions of our natural past? how does that legitimation occur? are we aware of it? do we challenge it? do we subscribe to it? i don't know the answers to these questions but i have my own views on them. it helps to keep asking them.

i'd be interested to hear your views, here's mine:

The assertion that "mostly men hunted and did violent things while women nurtured the children", i'm assuming is true and made by archaeologists,
evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and the like.
At least that's what i think i remember reading, I could be horribly mistaken? i'm not up to date on the current theories.
My point was that definitions of masculinity arise out of 'facts' about our previous natural state and the role our genes have mapped out for us. we short-circuit these natural roles with our consciousness. i suppose it's in the interests of men who are in power and also assholes in general to perpetuate the myth that our evolutionary roles are 'natural' in the sense of being moral and justified.
But it may be less intentional in that 'unnatural behaviour' may be just scorned because we are programmed to fear the unfamiliar.
thus gender inequality (in terms of power) is legitimized as being the 'natural state'..'family values'..in bush land.
Many of us are aware of it and challenge it, the lucky educated ones. Most of us subscribe to it because we haven't had our eyes opened to the facts and the wider reality of what can achieved by being human, as opposed to behaving like animals.
I'm in total agreement that we must constantly question all roles that are assigned to us by society, genes, governments, people
[FONT=&quot]or any agency whatsoever, including ourselves![/FONT]

i understand the need for reference points, preconceptions, and simplification in the process of inquiry but those means of inquiry should be as heavly scruitinised as research findings because they affect them.

ayiii

Cheers for the legal info, it was informative, and also encouraging that more apprentices are women, how long before that filters through to the proportion of judges!? (Which i assume is biased in the male direction)

I'm happy that whatever my final contribtion to this thread is it won't be an ascii penis.

 

[1000smurfs]

anyone see

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

? She was on Jonnonotonon Ross just now, interesting new direction , hope it gets a lot of play

i'm in danger of turning into a riot bboy..off to listen to mastadon so

 

[nofunchee]

1. Some humans are more 'conscious'\self aware than others.

2. To be more 'conscious' and thus be better able to avoid
biologically determined behaviour depends (strongly?) on how educated we are (among other factors).

3. Education makes us more aware of the world apart from us as well as teaching us about ourselves and our motivations and the repercussions of actions.

4. Only a small percentage of the population gains
a good broad education, i would regard philosophy
and science as featuring very large in any definition
a good education.

right, i think education is important but is not a panacea for society's ills and problems of self-awareness/conciousness, whatever. i assume you are talking about formal education? which is extremely biased along class, gender, race, disability, etc. lines. the first premise of education is to gear people up for being productive citizens. it promotes certain ideals of normality to allow the students to fit in to wider society and teaches people literacy and numeracy skills so that they can function as productive beings capable of operating in a working environment. what you do in/weither you go to college is heavily influenced by class (financially, oppertunity, expectation, standard of education to date), gender (streaming of women and men into suitable courses and careers based on often socially created ideas about gender predispostion to certain things), disability/learning difficulty (those with dyslexia, for example, are at a disadvantage not because of incapicity to understand, comprehend, or think but because of the reliance of formal education on the written word), and so on...

i can't agree with the assertion that formal education, including philosophic and scientific education within that system, are by and large emancipatory tools or promote self-awareness. you don't even get to start expressing an opinion until you're a post-grad.

5. Therefore, the majority of the population is
still behaving in ways that are still strongly governed by their genes.

expierence counts for a hell of a lot and education does not just exist in the formal sense. i learned more in the three years after my degree than i did in the three years i spent doing it. theoretical knowledge is all very well and good but formal education tends to be very low on providing links to reality, which is a much better method of learning in my opinion.

6. Men thus tend to dominate roles of power and decision
making, despite the fact that they may be less qualified to do so in terms of creating a stable progressive
society

most of the men who you are talking about who are dominating roles of power and decision making in society are educated. also, i reckon academically learned knowledge is awarded more authority in this society than self-learned or purely experiental knowledge.

The assertion that "mostly men hunted and did violent things while women nurtured the children", i'm assuming is true and made by archaeologists,
evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and the like.
At least that's what i think i remember reading, I could be horribly mistaken?

yeah, what i meant was that many assumptions can be made as to what these indications of our 'natural' state mean. i mean that you have to consider the standpoint of the archaeologists/anthropologists/etc. who make these findings and assumptions which could be insightful or totally misguided. for example, i was in the museum in hobart in tasmania during the summer and they had one of those exhibits that shows aborigines living as they did when the settlers found them. it was a pretty old exibit and was due to be updated shortly. in it an aboriginal family was dipicted as a western family of mum, dad, and the kids when in actual fact the aboriginal family structure was very different to this.

i'm not up to date on the current theories.
My point was that definitions of masculinity arise out of 'facts' about our previous natural state and the role our genes have mapped out for us. we short-circuit these natural roles with our consciousness. i suppose it's in the interests of men who are in power and also assholes in general to perpetuate the myth that our evolutionary roles are 'natural' in the sense of being moral and justified.
But it may be less intentional in that 'unnatural behaviour' may be just scorned because we are programmed to fear the unfamiliar.
thus gender inequality (in terms of power) is legitimized as being the 'natural state'..'family values'..in bush land.
Many of us are aware of it and challenge it, the lucky educated ones. Most of us subscribe to it because we haven't had our eyes opened to the facts and the wider reality of what can achieved by being human, as opposed to behaving like animals.
I'm in total agreement that we must constantly question all roles that are assigned to us by society, genes, governments, people
[FONT=&quot]or any agency whatsoever, including ourselves![/FONT]

i think you're gonna have to explain what you mean by conciousness and i fear this thread is due for some serious philosophic tangent action. i fuckin' hate philosophy.

how long before that filters through to the proportion of judges!? (Which i assume is biased in the male direction)

no idea.