International women's day Mass protest

Silentcorner wrote: »

By access to power I am referring to the many many well funded (taxpayer funded) lobby groups that pile pressure on Government Ministers to fund their causes, which is one reason why an abused husband has no where to go and an abused wife has way more options.

Has it escaped your attention that those same Government Ministers are predominantly male? I wouldn’t say they ultimately have the power to determine how or where public funds are distributed, but they have more of a say than women all the same. The lack of domestic violence shelters for men isn’t so much a lack of funding issue so much as it is simply a lack of demand issue. I dunno about you, but I think there’s enough public funds wasted on vanity projects already without wasting more money on domestic violence shelters for men when there appears to be no demand for them. They’re not an ideal place for women and their children either.

A woman in this country has better access to education, health and justice than a man in this country....surely in an egalitarian state this would not happen!

You’re going to have to be a hell of a lot more specific than that, because access to education isn’t determined by sex, nor is access to health, nor access to justice. Depending upon your perspective of course your point of view is going to be coloured one way or the other, but as far as policies are concerned, your claims just don’t stand up.

Now, I don't believe is has gotten as bad here as it is in other countries like the US, but with weak willed ministers like Harris, and Mitchell O'Connor anything is possible.

Other countries like the US are bad? Jesus Christ. Again you’re pointing to a country where you claim women have an unfair power and influence over men, yet it’s generally men in the positions of power and influence who come up with the policies under which both men and women tend to suffer.

Gender quotas, which are manifestly undemocratic have been implemented across this state and most other states in the developed world....I assure you, I am not making anything up!

I genuinely don’t mind gender quotas tbh. They’re based upon the presumption that a person’s political views are based upon their sex. It’s only a matter of time before they’ll have to go back to the drawing board when it isn’t panning out the way it’s implementors had hoped.

A load of white, middle class, blue haired college sjw students and eternally " oppressed " women, it sounds like a fun protest.

Has any company been named yet, for paying men more than women for doing the exact same work/ hours ??? I wonder how many successful, career women will be attending this march, zero id say.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

After hours is the best advertising for why it's still needed. You will all be on bleating about men's day, nasty feminists and how women have it sooo easy .
It would give you a pain in your hole.

And you'll be bleating on the in same thread how every day is men's day.

Not really. That's also a complete cliché.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Don't know if it's for the same hours and work but Citigroup have been
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-01-16/citigroup-reveals-its-female-employees-earn-29-less-than-men-do

Again I'm not saying that they are paying less for the same hours and work just pointing out where a company has been named and the company has said that there is a gap as per your post.

Around the same time, and under pressure from Arjuna Capital, Citigroup and several other big U.S. banks reported a different measure for U.S. employees. Instead of comparing the median pay for men and women, the banks “adjusted’’ the pay gap to account for job title, seniority, education and other factors that affect compensation. All the banks, including Citigroup, reported that after adjustments, there was almost no pay gap between men and women.

Now i dont know if thats the bank trying to cover itself , but people can skew the data to get results thats suits them. That happens on both sides of the argument. But with the variables involved regarding hours, time spent with the company, production etc it'd be very easy to get the answers you want.

i'll give you an example. I worked in retail a few years ago , i got around 9 euro an hour starting off. A women i worked with got about 13 euro an hour because she'd been with the company for 10 years. We did the same work but cos she was there longer she got an extra 4 euro an hour. So theres your gender pay gap in reverse.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Jesus, you really have drank the cool aid...do you really believe that men are not physically, emotionally abused in large numbers, men are by some distance least likely to report abuse, (approx 5% of abused men will report abuse it is believed)for obvious reasons.

https://www.thejournal.ie/mens-domestic-abuse-ireland-3734811-Dec2017/

Hold on a second. We were discussing the need for domestic violence shelters for men. That has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that men are physically and emotionally abused in large numbers. It has to do with whether or not there is a demand for domestic violence shelters for men. I’ve already stated that I don’t believe domestic violence shelters are ideal places for women and children, so without drinking any koolaid, why would I ever want to advocate that funding should go towards providing inadequate and inappropriate services for men? That wouldn’t make any bloody sense.

Access to third level education is gained through our points system, girls have been outperforming boys for decades allowing them greater options when it comes to education, except in STEM of course which is now subject to all kinds of equality programs....imagine if it was the other way round!

Girls have not been outperforming boys for decades, and access to third level education is not solely governed by the points system either. There are numerous avenues into third level education now that weren’t there for previous generations whose families simply could not afford a third level education for their children. STEM isn’t some great be all and end all of education, and the numbers of women enrolling in STEM courses still doesn’t come close to even threatening the numbers of male applicants applying for STEM courses. According to CSO figures from 2016, teaching was by far and away the most popular choice for students entering third level education. The teaching profession has been screaming out for more men to enter the profession since the early 2000’s. They won’t. Why? It has very little to do with being accused of any untoward behaviour around children, and a lot more to do with the fact that employment opportunities and conditions are just grim. I don’t have to imagine if it was the other way round. Even when it is the other way round - men simply don’t want to enter female dominated professions. They aren’t prevented from entering female dominated professions, but men simply don’t want to work under those conditions. I can’t say I blame them. I wouldn’t either.

The state offers women healthcare that is not extended to men, certain cancer treatments for example, men die younger.

That simply comes down to cost effectiveness. There wouldn’t be much of a point in offering women treatment for prostate cancer, would there? In the same way, there isn’t much point in offering boys the HPV vaccine, a point made by Dr. Diane Solomon, head of the National Cancer Institute in the US, who so astutely observes -


“Men don’t have a cervix”

Yet in this country the same Minister Harris whom you criticised earlier announced last August -

Boys to get HPV vaccine in 2019

A woman in this country will receive a lower sentence than a man for a comparable crime (I am aware that men commit much more crimes), if a woman murders her husband she will not receive the same sentence as a man who murders his wife, she is more likely to avoid a conviction by some distance either, the same applies for all types of crimes that people commit.

Again, sentencing is not based solely upon a person’s sex, but a number of factors which are taken into consideration in each individual case. It doesn’t even come down to whether or not men commit more crimes or the types of crimes committed by either sex.

Every time there’s a thread on here where a man has been convicted of rape or sexual assault, there are a number of men pile in with stories of how they claim to have had experiences which didn’t cause them any upset, so by that same token which is their standards for themselves - a woman shouldn’t be upset if she is sexually assaulted by a man. Those men are just as entitled to make a complaint as women are, but they don’t, and then they complain when women complain as though women shouldn’t complain either?

Why should anyone else live by that standard? You say that men don’t report domestic violence and sexual assault, but women who do report domestic violence and sexual assault are still at fault, somehow? Again, how does that make any sense?

Take a look at the kangaroo courts US Universities that have done huge damage to many young men. https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2015/07/06/campus-rape-lie/[/url]

And you accuse me of drinking the koolaid? A mere handful of cases in US universities where young men’s lives are ruined, is supposed to hold a candle to the number of women whose lives are ruined by sexual assault committed upon them by men in US Universities? They’re a ridiculous concept of course, but if you’re going to complain about them, you have to acknowledge the reason they came into existence in the first place.

Just because women are not succeeding in getting elected in the same numbers as men does not mean there is something inherently wrong with the system or the electorate...it is very very difficult to get elected and it should be....it is not perfect, but reform the entire system as opposed to shoe horning individuals based on a collective identity.

Political Quotas are undemocratic, full stop, we wouldn't tolerate a quota of catholics, or muslims or any other collective, nor should we...the people we elect represent all of us, man or woman...until the lobby groups get their teeth into them that is!

Elections are entirely based upon shoehorning individuals into positions of power based upon a collective identity. We don’t live in a direct democracy, we live in a representative democracy, and that’s why quotas are being introduced. They are the very core principle of a representative democracy - representation! Currently in Irish politics there is inarguably a lack of representation of women, and quotas are a means to redress that imbalance where there are a majority of men who represent both men and women. Of course it’s understandable that you’re unlikely to notice this disparity if you’re a man, but equally understandable is the fact that if you’re a woman, it’s pretty hard to miss :pac:

We need to rid ourselves of our belief that it is only one gender that is problematic, it is doing more harm than good.

But you’re continually perpetuating it by suggesting that women have more influence and power than they deserve? You have yet to quantify just how much power you imagine women do “deserve” given that they make up half the population of this country? If anyone were to say “men have more power and influence than they deserve”, you’d lose your shìt, so why do you think then that it’s ok to say something like that about women, and then say that we need to rid ourselves of the belief that only one gender is problematic? You acknowledge that it does more harm than good, yet your own ideas are no different than the people you’re criticising!

I think they should have been incredibly embarrassed by the home made signs they put on the desk. Could they not figure out a printer and/or printing services?