British Politics

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

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.

Comparisons don't limit themselves to concurrent phenomena so of course you can compare EU to something that existed before EU   Which is exactly what you did when you, in response to Graeme's statement that "historically, women worldwide have had less political power and social capital than men" claimed that "none more so than the European Union."

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Comparisons don't limit themselves to concurrent phenomena so of course you can compare EU to something that existed before EU   Which is exactly what you did when you, in response to Graeme's statement that "historically, women worldwide have had less political power and social capital than men" claimed that "none more so than the European Union."

You can if you want but it'll always be an anachronistic comparison compared with the comparison one should make which is between the EU and then individual states. My ''none more so than the EU'' inherently contained within it a post war date range, and it was accumulative. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[action]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

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. 

wasn't the sign addressed at people in leading positions, like you argued?

now it's the electorate in a broader sense....

this is a rather fundamental decision you have to make here: who is it aimed at? and if you change your mind, and now it's aimed at the electorate, what's the message then? surely, the broader electorate is in no position to grant women leading positions (except for certain activitites in bed and other places), so your explanation falls a bit flat then

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

You can if you want but it'll always be an anachronistic comparison compared with the comparison one should make which is between the EU and then individual states. My ''none more so than the EU'' inherently contained within it a post war date range. 

Graeme wasn't talking about just how women are treated today, or in modern times, he was taking a more historical perspective. Hence the "historically".  If you want to comment to that, but limit yourself to only modern times, then it is a good time to point that out because what might seem to be inherent to you, especially in hindsight, might not have been to others.

Anyway, it is interesting that you point out that there is not gender equality in the upper echelons of the EU. I would think that would just reflect the current situation among top politicians in Europe, since, after all, it is individual member states' politicians that end up in the EU system. Another reason why Norway should be part of the EU, to help balance things.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

wasn't the sign addressed at people in leading positions, like you argued?

now it's the electorate in a broader sense....

this is a rather fundamental decision you have to make here: who is it aimed at? and if you change your mind, and now it's aimed at the electorate, what's the message then? surely, the broader electorate is in no position to grant women leading positions (except for certain activitites in bed and other places)

I think there are many addresses: Trump for being a sexist jerk, his own voters to strengthen group belonging (tribalism), all men who discriminate against women, and everybody who reads it just to know where the major stands on the issue. 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Graeme wasn't talking about just how women are treated today, or in modern times, he was taking a more historical perspective. Hence the "historically".  If you want to comment to that, but limit yourself to only modern times, then it is a good time to point that out because what might seem to be inherent to you, especially in hindsight, might not have been to others.

Anyway, it is interesting that you point out that there is not gender equality in the upper echelons of the EU. I would think that would just reflect the current situation among top politicians in Europe, since, after all, it is individual member states' politicians that end up in the EU system. Another reason why Norway should be part of the EU, to help balance things.

One can certainly speak of the EU in terms of ''history'' considering its antecedent stretches back to 1951.

The United Kingdom has had two female head of governments. Norway I believe two also?. 70 Presidents between 1951 and today and only one female is a very poor showing for the EU. 

[action]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think there are many addresses: Trump for being a sexist jerk, his own voters to strengthen group belonging (tribalism), all men who discriminate against women, and everybody who reads it just to know where the major stands on the issue. 

we're on the same plane then. I happen to think so too: it's aimed at every man (obviously not women, since the sign clearly adresses men).

it is a message to "all" men: if you "fear" strong women, you're weak.

none of this "oh but women have trouble reaching leading positions" or other silly explanations. the sign doesn't have a broader explanation, unlike your first statement (you have just admitted that yourself, in your last post by referring to "all men who..."), no it's just plainly addressing all men and basically calling them weak if they dare to fear a strong woman. fear, why? irrelevant. because everyone is addressed, not just CEO's

basically, what I and others on here were calling out all along.

and you still haven't offered a logical justification to make such a sweeping, ridiculous statement

Edited June 4, 2019 by action

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

The United Kingdom has had two female head of governments. Norway I believe two also?. 70 Presidents between 1951 and today and only one female is a very poor showing for the EU. 

Yes, we've had two, but both of them sat for repeated periods. We typically also consistently have a cabinet of about half women, half men. So it is not too bad. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, action said:

we're on the same plane then. I happen to think so too: it's aimed at every man (obviously not women, since the sign clearly adresses men).

it is a message to "all" men: if you "fear" strong women, you're weak.

none of this "oh but women have trouble reaching leading positions" or other silly explanations. the sign doesn't have a broader explanation, unlike your first statement (you have just admitted that yourself, in your last post by referring to "all men who..."), no it's just plainly addressing all men and basically calling them weak if they dare to fear a strong woman.

I have never claimed that the mayor refers to all men as weak. It is obviously all men who fear strong women, and I have been consistent on this throughout this thread. 

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, we've had two, but both of them sat for repeated periods. We typically also consistently have a cabinet of about half women, half men. So it is not too bad. 

Compared to the EU which is staffed by gin soused flatulent old bureaucrats, Norway is a utopian ''equality of the genders''.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Compared to the EU which is staffed by gin soused flatulent old bureaucrats, Norway is a utopian ''equality of the genders''.

Nah, it is not utopian. Everybody can get there. 

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I have never claimed that the mayor refers to all men as weak. It is obviously all men who fear strong women, and I have been consistent on this throughout this thread. 

first, you've changed the addressees:

- men in leading positions who are discriminating women

- to: "I think there are many addresses: Trump for being a sexist jerk, his own voters to strengthen group belonging (tribalism), all men who discriminate against women, and everybody who reads it just to know where the major stands on the issue. "

second, you also changed the meaning of the sign:

- from the well defined issue of women having trouble getting to leading positions

- to all discrimination against women

I'm just having trouble finding the line in your thinking.

but the bottom line is: you offer no logical explanation, justification, to speak to "all men" and calling them "weak, IF they fear strong women". Plenty of reasons have been given by me and others, to show why this is a fallacy, and you have turned around the hot potatoe and gave irrelevant explanations of varying scope.

You also seem to have misread my previous post, where you seem to think I said you claimed that the mayor refers to all men as weak. I never said you stated that. Re-read my previous post if you don't believe me.

 

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, action said:

first, you've changed the addressees:

- men in leading positions who are discriminating women

- to: "I think there are many addresses: Trump for being a sexist jerk, his own voters to strengthen group belonging (tribalism), all men who discriminate against women, and everybody who reads it just to know where the major stands on the issue. "

second, you also changed the meaning of the sign:

- from the well defined issue of women having trouble getting to leading positions

- to all discrimination against women

I'm just having trouble finding the line in your thinking.

but the bottom line is: you offer no logical explanation, justification, to speak to "all men" and calling them "weak, IF they fear strong women". Plenty of reasons have been given by me and others, to show why this is a fallacy, and you have turned around the hot potatoe and gave irrelevant explanations of varying scope.

I have never said the sign is meant to only be directed against men in leading positions. With such a vague sentence it could obviously be intended to be directed towards all kinds of men and situations. My immediate reaction, though, was that this was an entry into the "glass ceiling" debate, but as later discussed, it doesn't seem to have been but rather be related to anti-abortion laws.

I am sorry you are having troubles

I don't think you need any "justification" for saying that only weak men fear strong women. And if it is understood to be an entry in the glass ceiling debate, or more general how men have discriminated against women, then that in itself is justification for saying this is wrong and that men who do this are jerks. 

[janrichmond]

I am a strong woman and i believe most other women are strong too. I find it to be a condescending message. I certainly don't need some bloke holding a bit of card to empower me. Especially if it feels forced/fake or a way to enamour a few people to think you're a progressive sensitive type. Bollocks to him.

[action]

19 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

 

I don't think you need any "justification" for saying that only weak men fear strong women. And if it is understood to be an entry in the glass ceiling debate, or more general how men have discriminated against women, then that in itself is justification for saying this is wrong and that men who do this are jerks. 

fair enough.

to this, I answer as in my first posts on the matter.

even though the message is true in some case, the tone of the message (patronising), the way it is presented (a mayor holding a signpost) and the poor language that is used (weak), I think the offensive nature of it far outweighs the marginal benefits of the message to the point where I can see no opportunity to support this behaviour. it's merely above common internet-trolling behaviour

4 minutes ago, janrichmond said:

I am a strong woman and i believe most other women are strong too. I find it to be a condescending message. I certainly don't need some bloke holding a bit of card to empower me. Especially if it feels forced/fake or a way to enamour a few people to think you're a progressive sensitive type. Bollocks to him.

I'm also not sure what the implications are to "weak" women. it seems he is only defending strong women. but where do weak women stand in this? is it ok if men fear those? Ok this is becoming a bit silly I agree, but the mere distinction between "strong" and "not strong" women is questionable in and of itself.

[janrichmond]

5 minutes ago, action said:

I'm also not sure what the implications are to "weak" women. it seems he is only defending strong women. but where do weak women stand in this? is it ok if men fear those? Ok this is becoming a bit silly I agree, but the mere distinction between "strong" and "not strong" women is questionable in and of itself.

It also made me think about the blokes that get beaten by their wife/gf. These are usually strong men that have been raised (correctly) to never hit a woman, even in retaliation. That was my first thought tbh.

[Dazey]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Free pint to the first person to photoshop a cock in place of the microphone. 

[janrichmond]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Free pint to the first person to photoshop a cock in place of the microphone. 

Already a cock behind it. 

[Graeme]

I don't think it's supposed to be talking about 'strong' and 'weak' as personal attributes (physically or mentally), except in the instance of men who feel threatened by the idea of a woman with a lot of agency and influence over her own destiny (in which case the idea is that they are 'weak' characters who need to put someone else down for their own personal advancement). The 'strong' applied to women should really be more about a society where women do not inherently face greater adversity, women in a strong social position... 

Obviously the wording leaves it open to interpretation, but that was immediately the way I read it, and why I didn't have any particular problem with it.

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, janrichmond said:

It also made me think about the blokes that get beaten by their wife/gf. These are usually strong men that have been raised (correctly) to never hit a woman, even in retaliation. That was my first thought tbh.

Good point. I’ve had my head kicked in by an angry ex before and it’s not pleasant when you can’t twat them one back but you just don’t. That’s why I sometimes think I’d be happier gay. It would just be so much easier to punch the other half in the face when they’re acting like a wanker.  

[Dazey]

Here’s one for you @janrichmond

 

[action]

if the goal of the sign, is to help women achieve higher status, then why not address the weak women, rather than strong ones?

if the mayor is talking about "strong" women, don't they have high positions, as per definition?

isn't it, on the contrary, "weak" women, women on the lower end of the social ladder, that the mayor should be addressing?

now I realise that all of these questions have a very demeaning taste about them. To pose them, you have to start from the presumption that women can be divided in "weak" and "strong". not a distinction I made. The lovely mayor of london did. All i'm trying to do here, is make sense of the mess he plastered on that board.

[DieselDaisy]

He should be focusing on tackling London's knife crime rather than being a rent-a-gob for political correctness. 

[DieselDaisy]

Ahh, the tolerant left,

 

[Graeme]

It's such a bullshit fallacy when right-wingers criticise left-wingers for not tolerating intolerance.