British Politics

[Len Cnut]

29 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

With the assumption that "strong" means you are well-qualified, skilled, and confident, "weak" would mean the opposite. 

Which is part of the problem, as a statement a lot of assumptions can be made about it in a lot of different directions.  Its a lot broader a statement than one relating to qualifications and skills as though it is relevant only in relation to ones profession. 

[AtariLegend]

The Chukka's have had an exodus today. Chukka and Hedi jumped ship. 

Now it's just Anna Soubry leading a party of a few Labour blarities.

The pro EU, but pro conscription, bombing kids and austerity message with a happy face didn't catch on for some reason.

[SoulMonster]

36 minutes ago, action said:

it's even more ironic that the messenger is in a leading position himself - the mayor of london no less. How many women didn't get this position, because of him?

That's ridiculous  So because he is a man and a leader he is not allowed to point to a systemic flaw? All male CEOs should quit because of the glass ceiling? 

35 minutes ago, action said:

I assume that men in leading positions are well - qualified, skilled and confident, ergo, strong? But fearing strong women makes them weak?

I wonder how this process works

If you refuse to hire, promote or support excellent people because they are female, you are not doing what is best for your company. 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, AtariLegend said:

The Chukka's have had an exodus today. Chukka and Hedi jumped ship. 

Now it's just Anna Soubry leading a party of a few Labour blarities.

The pro EU, but pro conscription, bombing kids and austerity message with a happy face didn't catch on for some reason.

Austerity goes hat in hand with the EU. Have you never looked on the Greece debt crisis or Italy, forced to pass austerity budgets at the EU's behest?

[SoulMonster]

30 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Which is part of the problem, as a statement a lot of assumptions can be made about it in a lot of different directions.  Its a lot broader a statement than one relating to qualifications and skills as though it is relevant only in relation to ones profession. 

It is a lot broader than my interpretation, and my interpretation was wrong  Honestly, I believe the guy is using the expression wrong if he meant it in regards to anti-abortion. To me, it obviously is about workplace discrimination. But yeah, we all come from different places. 

[Graeme]

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

This is what I mean by patronising, these ridiculous, broad facebook status slogans that are just completely empty, posing as some sort of noble liberal stand when really they suffer from exactly the same kind of stupidity in their premise that the people to whom ol' Saj' is pandering are supposed to be (and some probably are I guess) making a stand against.  I don't think these things have a lot of respect for the intelligence of the people they are noshing off.

Is it not kinda disappointing that the argument over the last couple of pages has focussed on the medium (i.e. whether the sign is a shallow slogan and whether Khan looks like an idiot for holding it) rather than the reason the sign exists in the first place? 

Historically, women worldwide have had less political power and social capital than men. Even now when there have been steps taken to extend women's rights to vote, to work, to be promoted, to earn the same for doing the same job, not to suffer sexual harassment or abuse, etc. the reality is that just because it says on paper "we're equal now" doesn't mean that the inequality doesn't still extend throughout the whole system. Donald Trump's "Grab her by the pussy" comments are but one of a mountain of indicators that he does not care a jot for using his premiership to rectify this. That's surely the actual important bit, not if Sadiq Khan looks like a bit of a tool because of the way he chose to point it out.

[Len Cnut]

18 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Is it not kinda disappointing that the argument over the last couple of pages has focussed on the medium (i.e. whether the sign is a shallow slogan and whether Khan looks like an idiot for holding it) rather than the reason the sign exists in the first place? 

Historically, women worldwide have had less political power and social capital than men. Even now when there have been steps taken to extend women's rights to vote, to work, to be promoted, to earn the same for doing the same job, not to suffer sexual harassment or abuse, etc. the reality is that just because it says on paper "we're equal now" doesn't mean that the inequality doesn't still extend throughout the whole system. Donald Trump's "Grab her by the pussy" comments are but one of a mountain of indicators that he does not care a jot for using his premiership to rectify this. That's surely the actual important bit, not if Sadiq Khan looks like a bit of a tool because of the way he chose to point it out.

It kinda does address that part, thats part of why I find it all so objectionable, the fact that he's sort of using a worthy and just cause as a tool to hawk for votes.  I have an ingrained mistrust of politicians and situations like this is why.  The stand that needs to be made for feminism is something that deserves a lot more respect in the way it is addressed than our sleepy eyed mayor writing an ill-concieved slogan on a piece of card in pursuit of his on-going twitter beef with ol' candy floss-head.  Its not really indicative, to me, of a lot of respect for the cause.  Its a life and death thing, for many people across the world, many women I should say, and to use it so cheaply, whether it be to take a dig at Trump or pandering for votes, to me, is kinda vulgar and distasteful.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

It kinda does address that part, thats part of why I find it all so objectionable, the fact that he's sort of using a worthy and just cause as a tool to hawk for votes.  I have an ingrained mistrust of politicians and situations like this is why.  The stand that needs to be made for feminism is something that deserves a lot more respect in the way it is addressed than our sleepy eyed mayor writing an ill-concieved slogan on a piece of card in pursuit of his on-going twitter beef with ol' candy floss-head.  Its not really indicative, to me, of a lot of respect for the cause.  Its a life and death thing, for many people across the world, many women I should say, and to use it so cheaply, whether it be to take a dig at Trump or pandering for votes, to me, is kinda vulgar and distasteful.

Fot all I know he could be doing a lot more for equality than just this little stunt, that does not mean he can't also hold up a sign that basically says men who hold back women are jerks. There is nothing wrong in politicians also using slogans if it represents a deeper commitment that also manifests itself in more constructive actions. Sometimes all you have is 5 seconds, or a cardboard, then we must accept round, less precise statements. 

[action]

34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

If you refuse to hire, promote or support excellent people because they are female, you are not doing what is best for your company. 

I don't disagree with this per se, but the argument was that fearing strong women means you're weak.

you're moving the goalposts

I sense some underlying feeling in your post, that even you think the sign carried a ridiculous message. That's ok, it was.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

I don't disagree with this per se, but the argument was that fearing strong women means you're weak. 

That was obviously not intended literally. 

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

That was obviously not intended literally. 

of course it wasn't, it would be quite something if it was.

and therefore, it is beyond ridiculous (and the punchline is; it's the london mayor that carried the sign)

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, action said:

of course it wasn't, it would be quite something if it was.

and therefore, it is beyond ridiculous (and the punchline is; it's the london mayor that carried the sign)

It is not ridiculous as soon as you accept my interpretation which you have already admitted to agreeing to. 

[DieselDaisy]

31 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Is it not kinda disappointing that the argument over the last couple of pages has focussed on the medium (i.e. whether the sign is a shallow slogan and whether Khan looks like an idiot for holding it) rather than the reason the sign exists in the first place? 

Historically, women worldwide have had less political power and social capital than men. Even now when there have been steps taken to extend women's rights to vote, to work, to be promoted, to earn the same for doing the same job, not to suffer sexual harassment or abuse, etc. the reality is that just because it says on paper "we're equal now" doesn't mean that the inequality doesn't still extend throughout the whole system. Donald Trump's "Grab her by the pussy" comments are but one of a mountain of indicators that he does not care a jot for using his premiership to rectify this. That's surely the actual important bit, not if Sadiq Khan looks like a bit of a tool because of the way he chose to point it out.

None more so than the European Union. Historically the EU has had circa 70 different individual presidents, only one of which was a woman! But then when EU presidents are appointed via cronyism and not elected by democracy, what more can one expect?

(I should point out that the EU, in its current post-Lisbon incarnation, has a multitude of presidents, seven to be precise, operating simultaneously. The constitution is an utter mess.)

Edited June 4, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

None more so than the European Union. 

Are you saying than in the history of humanity there hasn't been a less gender equal organization than the EU? Sure you don't want to modify that? 

[DieselDaisy]

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Are you saying than in the history of humanity there hasn't been a less gender equal organization than the EU? Sure you don't want to modify that? 

There are not many political organisations that claim to be democratic and liberal that are so unequal today. The United Kingdom has had two female heads of government, serving under a female head of state, for instance. Your own country currently possesses a female prime minister. Yet the two most important presidencies of the EU, the Commission and the Council, it is a sausage party. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

31 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

There are not many political organisations that claim to be democratic and liberal that are so unequal today. 

Modification accepted 

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Fot all I know he could be doing a lot more for equality than just this little stunt, that does not mean he can't also hold up a sign that basically says men who hold back women are jerks. There is nothing wrong in politicians also using slogans if it represents a deeper commitment that also manifests itself in more constructive actions. Sometimes all you have is 5 seconds, or a cardboard, then we must accept round, less precise statements. 

In regards to your first point, yes, it is my opinion, based on little more than instinct and a mistrust of bureaucrats, that its a stunt and not sincerely meant.

And also no, there’s nothing wrong as such with holding up a sign saying blah blah blah but as we’ve previously discussed this particular sign, even on that level, isn’t particularly effective.

For your third point no, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with slogans other than the fact that they are often problematic by virtue of the simplicity of their approach to complex and worthy matters, they lend themselves better to advertising than substantial political discourse, which should tell you something in itself.  Sadiq is neither limited to 5 seconds or a piece of cardboard.

[DieselDaisy]

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

In regards to your first point, yes, it is my opinion, based on little more than instinct and a mistrust of bureaucrats, that its a stunt and not sincerely meant.

And also no, there’s nothing wrong as such with holding up a sign saying blah blah blah but as we’ve previously discussed this particular sign, even on that level, isn’t particularly effective.

For your third point no, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with slogans other than the fact that they are often problematic by virtue of the simplicity of their approach to complex and worthy matters, they lend themselves better to advertising than substantial political discourse, which should tell you something in itself.  Sadiq is neither limited to 5 seconds or a piece of cardboard.

I believe with the electorate being what it is, a combination of broader, lengthier arguments and shorter bullet points makes sense. But if you go for the slogans and the 140 letter tweets, you should be able to expand in depth when given the time. That would fit everybody. 

[DieselDaisy]

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Modification accepted 

Nothing to modify. The EU's antecedents reach back to 1951 so that gives us a historical period for comparison.

[spunko12345]

8 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

In regards to your first point, yes, it is my opinion, based on little more than instinct and a mistrust of bureaucrats, that its a stunt and not sincerely meant.

And also no, there’s nothing wrong as such with holding up a sign saying blah blah blah but as we’ve previously discussed this particular sign, even on that level, isn’t particularly effective.

For your third point no, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with slogans other than the fact that they are often problematic by virtue of the simplicity of their approach to complex and worthy matters, they lend themselves better to advertising than substantial political discourse, which should tell you something in itself.  Sadiq is neither limited to 5 seconds or a piece of cardboard.

See, if you'd just put all that fucking waffle into a punchy slogan I'd be able to follow your point 😁

[Len Cnut]

4 minutes ago, spunko12345 said:

See, if you'd just put all that fucking waffle into a punchy slogan I'd be able to follow your point 😁

Have you ever voted in your life?  

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Nothing to modify. The EU's antecedents reach back to 1951 so that gives us a historical period for comparison.

But surely you are aware that history reaches back further than 1951?

[spunko12345]

9 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Have you ever voted in your life?  

Very very rarely.

[DieselDaisy]

30 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But surely you are aware that history reaches back further than 1951?

But the EU - or more precisely the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), the EU's earliest antecedent - did not exist before 1951 so we have no means to compare that organisation with the various states before 1951 pertaining to female political participation.