this auld wan that's up the duff (2 Viewers)

[krystal]

well, it was an example, to illustrate a point. And while this has nothing to do with baby killing (talk about inflamatory language) you also don't have to dig too deep in some areas of Irish society to find extreme sexism. I come across it in work all the time and I just cannot believe I'm not judged on my merits but by my gender. I know a woman who was patted on the head by a man in a meeting recently. That however hasn't got anything to do with the issue at hand, but it does have bearing on Jane's arguement that there is sexism and anti-woman sentiment buried in society.

But you don't have to dig very deep to find the anti-english sentiment in ireland, do you? It's not like people who are cheering for anyone but that lot in the world cup will be puzzled by their own actions.

Discounting the rather more obvious baby killing angle in preference to a waaay cooler, waaay more complicated, deeply buried, unspoken sociological reason just seems.... somewhat unnecessary.

And I can think this without denying the level of sexism in society... go figure.

 

[glen]

Pete,

A word of advice. Just ban all the women who are disagreeing with you. Are you a man or what?

Kindest regards,

The Lads

 

[egg_]

Am I right to assume you were also joking about the biological cause of inequality?

No. I mean, I don't think anything's proven, and if you want me to explain myself I'm not going to tell you to look it up in a book but I do think (and my own experience of the world bears this out) that the very deepest root cause of inequality is biological - we have a behavioural drive to try and optimise things for ourselves and our "in" group at the expense of our "out" groups. We often rationalise the results of our behaviour by saying that our "out" groups deserve what they get (e.g. "women are whores and liars"), and, it's true, the rationalisations sometimes take on a life of their own and re-inforce our perception of certain groups of people being "in" or "out" ... but the rationalisations are not the cause of inequalities, they're only things we use in order to feel that our privileged position is justified.

 

[1000smurfs]

Pretty well said.

But could you explain this bit? I would not argue that biological realities are divorced from cultural ones, but, like, er. Explain? "this inequality in religion came about from biology."

I'll give it a go. Religion is one of the oldest cultural constructions, around since the cave dudes. i would imagine there were a lot of heated arguments about sacrifices and the like, lots of power struggles, men being more biologically prone to violence than women, i would guess that men tended to control the outcome more. Now i now there are examples where women were the high priestesses etc, but in the end most of the surviving religions became male dominated.

Culture , like conciosuness, is emergent (not determined!) from biology, they can both influence human behavior and feedback into one another , but it's biology that influenced culture first.

 

[pete]

But Pete, we should all be concerned by the existence of the attitude, rather than focusing on the person who brings it up.

Assuming that you agree that the whores / liars thing as driver of society's attitudes exists...

In any event, let's ignore that for the purpose of discussing this specific point,

And you don't have to dig very deep to figure out that there are some people who tolerate the hostility toward women in ways that are dangerous. These people are not generally on Thumped, as far as I know, unless they don't post or keep it to themselves. All you have to look at -- which I said before -- is the fact that there is a market for the illegal trafficking of women to know that it's there.

I don't think anyone's denying that there are negative attitudes towards women.

I'm not discounting the baby killing argument at all. I never said that these people didn't believe that abortion is murder. However, the way that it is treated under the law does.

OK, but realistically how else would someone upholding the constitutional position treat it when drafting legislation?

Just because one fits neatly, doesn't mean that the others are just fashionable accessories.

And sometimes there is no bigger picture. Sometimes the bleeding obvious just is.

 

[pete]

well, it was an example, to illustrate a point. And while this has nothing to do with baby killing (talk about inflamatory language) you also don't have to dig too deep in some areas of Irish society to find extreme sexism. I come across it in work all the time and I just cannot believe I'm not judged on my merits but by my gender. I know a woman who was patted on the head by a man in a meeting recently. That however hasn't got anything to do with the issue at hand, but it does have bearing on Jane's arguement that there is sexism and anti-woman sentiment buried in society.

nobody is denying sexism in irish society. what i have a problem with accepting is the idea that sexism (as in male superiority / dominance) is in some way related to this concept of women as whores / liars. I've always considered it to have come from the historical subjugated/subservient/weak/in need of protection position of women in society, but i don't read books good so who knows.

The point i'm trying to make (poorly, i'll admit) is that anti-abortion / pro life types don't need to think of women as whores or liars (even subconsciously) to validate their position. They are protecting the defenceless, the unborn, those who cannot speak for themselves etc etc etc and the legislation / constitutional position reflects this.

In short, the fact that the laws are there in no way supports the whore / liar thesis.



Incidentally, I think a line of whore/liar merch at ladyfest would have been a big success.

 

[mazzyianne]

nobody is denying sexism in irish society. what i have a problem with accepting is the idea that sexism (as in male superiority / dominance) is in some way related to this concept of women as whores / liars. I've always considered it to have come from the historical subjugated/subservient/weak/in need of protection position of women in society, but i don't read books good so who knows.

The point i'm trying to make (poorly, i'll admit) is that anti-abortion / pro life types don't need to think of women as whores or liars (even subconsciously) to validate their position. They are protecting the defenceless, the unborn, those who cannot speak for themselves etc etc etc and the legislation / constitutional position reflects this.

In short, the fact that the laws are there in no way supports the whore / liar thesis.

This isn't meant to be patronising but reading feminist theory actually does change your outlook on this stuff. Depends on the feminist really but, I thought feminism was a big load of crap all the way through 3 years of sociology (i didn't pay attention or do any reading), one day it was like someone took blinkers off my eyes. Then I become the equality nerd I am today

I think the consititution is a perfect exaple of institutionalised sexism, it's insane. Women are protrayed as existing only in the home, as childbearers and housekeepers.

The whores and liars thing is connected because the implication is that women shouldn't be outside the home, they can't look after themselves, will only go bringing some ungodly sex act on themselves, they should go from father to husband and have an eye kept on them at all times.

There's this book called 'moral monopoly, the rise and fall of the catholic church in Ireland' that has some good stuff on women and the church. Don't forget the constitution (and thus all our laws) is totally based on GODS WORD.

 

[snakybus]

I think it's interesting that all the women are nice and polite to Pete, who's the "father figure" of thumped, whereas I get DE-REPPED!

what am I, the mental uncle?

 

[glen]

It's because they feel intimidated by your name.

 

[pete]

The whores and liars thing is connected because the implication is that women shouldn't be outside the home, they can't look after themselves, will only go bringing some ungodly sex act on themselves, they should go from father to husband and have an eye kept on them at all times.

See now that's where i'd disagree. The constitution is a product of its time, and so would be expected to reflect the prevailing attitudes of that era. So it's probably not entirely surprising that it has been framed by a mindset that sees women as needing the protection or stewardship of their betters, i.e. men, naturally.

However, the problem I have with using the words "whores" and "liars" is that both words imply a wilfully "evil" action or choice, rather than the misfortune that would (passively) come to pass on a weak, defenceless, unprotected woman. Make sense?

 

[mazzyianne]

I think it's interesting that all the women are nice and polite to Pete, who's the "father figure" of thumped, whereas I get DE-REPPED!

what am I, the mental uncle?

Sorry snaky, I was reading through pages catching up and replying was pointless...

I'm scared of pete.

 

[Lefty Frizzell]

It's because they feel intimidated by your name.

Yep. What woman wouldn't be intimidated by a man with an oversized penis wearing a knuckle duster and holding a whip.

 

[pete]

I think it's interesting that all the women are nice and polite to Pete, who's the "father figure" of thumped, whereas I get DE-REPPED!

what am I, the mental uncle?

I didn't like to mention the fact that nobody's de-repped me. I'm not naive enough to think it's because i've got universal approval. if it's any consolation, nobody's repped me either. nothing unusual there though.

 

[mazzyianne]

See now that's where i'd disagree. The constitution is a product of its time, and so would be expected to reflect the prevailing attitudes of that era. So it's probably not entirely surprising that it has been framed by a mindset that sees women as needing the protection or stewardship of their betters, i.e. men, naturally.

However, the problem I have with using the words "whores" and "liars" is that both words imply a wilfully "evil" action or choice, rather than the misfortune that would (passively) come to pass on a weak, defenceless, unprotected woman. Make sense?

Well, yes actually.
I don't agree but that's ok.
I need be reading about structural adjustment, not feminism today, so cant get into it more.
We should have a whores and liars thread some day though.
Debating is freakin deadly, even on the internet.
Technology wha'!

 

[snakybus]

Sorry snaky, I was reading through pages catching up and replying was pointless...

oh, that's okay...I'll....I'll get over it....

...some day

 

[billygannon]

I think it's important to point out that there are women who are whores and liars.

And I disagree with Damien Duff being aborted.

 

[pete]

if it's any consolation, nobody's repped me either.

except billy.

 

[nofunchee]

ok, i've missed a lot of this thread but i get the impression that readin about half of it has given me the general gist of a circular argument revolving on the fuel of age old disputes, chronic missunderstandings, and humour.

i interject to tell you all about something i learned a few weeks ago re the legal system and misogynistic hangovers.

apparently rape cases in ireland are the only criminal trials where the judge specifically directs the jury to not base their verdict solely on the evidence of the victim/survivor. as we are all probably aware, legal conventions such as this are based on precedence. this particular convention can apparently be traced back to a direction made by lord hale to a jury in a rape trial a couple of centuries ago, which was something along the lines of "women and little boys make up accusations of rape". since then jurys have been told to be careful about believing the testomony of a rape victim.

 

[egg_]

if it's any consolation, nobody's repped me either. nothing unusual there though.

I tried and got this "You must spread some Reputation around ... etc." Tried repping Igor too and got the same

 

[Corey]

apparently rape cases in ireland are the only criminal trials where the judge specifically directs the jury to not base their verdict solely on the evidence of the victim/survivor. as we are all probably aware, legal conventions such as this are based on precedence. this particular convention can apparently be traced back to a direction made by lord hale to a jury in a rape trial a couple of centuries ago, which was something along the lines of "women and little boys make up accusations of rape". since then jurys have been told to be careful about believing the testomony of a rape victim.[/quote]


Too right, i say. As one genius among us once put it;

"Rape crisis? What crisis?"