Feminism Watch

This discussion is closed.
Elle
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#121
Report 14 years ago
#121
(Original post by Amazing)
True feminism is good, but the loudest "feminists" (who are in the minority) never seem to abide by it's true meaning. "Equalitism" or something like that would be a much better, less confusing word anyway.
You could always go for liberal..
0
gemma1811
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#122
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#122
(Original post by Amazing)
women have only really been going to the Law since the 70s.
Women have been studying Law at University for much longer thou! Since the 1900s
0
Amazing
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#123
Report 14 years ago
#123
(Original post by Elle)
You could always go for liberal..
That implies a lot of other things too though. And tend to suggest various political affiliations too.
0
Elle
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#124
Report 14 years ago
#124
(Original post by Amazing)
The Judiciary isn't as bad as it seems though. The numbers of barristers (and especialy solicitors) are pretty much equal gender wise. The main inbalances are in the higher up judges - but seen as to becoming a judge will take many decades, it's no surprise that there aren't many female judges yet; women have only really been going to the Law since the 70s.
Lol.. this is exactley the same argument I had with my interviewer at Cambridge. Have you had a look at the stats for QC's? They're pretty unbalanced too. Why is it that at the High Court the receptonist and the volunteers are always female?
0
Amazing
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#125
Report 14 years ago
#125
(Original post by Elle)
Lol.. this is exactley the same argument I had with my interviewer at Cambridge. Have you had a look at the stats for QC's? They're pretty unbalanced too. Why is it that at the High Court the receptonist and the volunteers are always female?
Again, it takes a very long time to become a QC also. And the receptionist thing is hardly inclusive to courts - how many men apply to be receptionists anywhere? I agree there's still some inequality in the workplace, particularly in the judiciary, but it seems you're trying to paint the blackest possible picture.
0
Elle
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#126
Report 14 years ago
#126
(Original post by Amazing)
Again, it takes a very long time to become a QC also. And the receptionist thing is hardly inclusive to courts - how many men apply to be receptionists anywhere? I agree there's still some inequality in the workplace, particularly in the judiciary, but it seems you're trying to paint the blackest possible picture.
Thats just how I see it..
0
Amazing
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#127
Report 14 years ago
#127
(Original post by gemma1811)
Women have been studying Law at University for much longer thou! Since the 1900s
As I said, female interest/opportunities in the Law only really started in the 70s though.

Heh, on a sidenote, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss rules. (is that how you spell it?)
0
gemma1811
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#128
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#128
(Original post by Amazing)
As I said, female interest/opportunities in the Law only really started in the 70s though.

Heh, on a sidenote, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss rules. (is that how you spell it?)
But their opportunites in Law actually started when they were able to study it? Their opportunites to practice in Law may have only really started in the 70s (i don't really know when this was so im assuming you date is correct)
0
Amazing
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#129
Report 14 years ago
#129
(Original post by gemma1811)
But their opportunites in Law actually started when they were able to study it? Their opportunites to practice in Law may have only really started in the 70s (i don't really know when this was so im assuming you date is correct)
Yeah, but the world was a lot more sexist then, so they didn't have a great deal of opportunites to go to the Law. The main influx of women becoming lawyers was in the 70s - whether that was because it suddenly became a lot easier for them or simply more of them were becoming interested in legal affairs then, I don't know. The point is the majority of female lawyers only started in the 70s, in which case it's understandable that not a great deal of them are judges yet.
0
Amazing
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#130
Report 14 years ago
#130
(Original post by Amazing)
Yeah, but the world was a lot more sexist then, so they didn't have a great deal of opportunites to go to the Law. The main influx of women becoming lawyers was in the 70s - whether that was because it suddenly became a lot easier for them or simply more of them were becoming interested in legal affairs then, I don't know. The point is the majority of female lawyers only started in the 70s, in which case it's understandable that not a great deal of them are judges yet.
Saying that though, female lawyers seem to have been getting fewer opportunities to become a partner in their firm than men - but again, I don't know if that's something quite specific to the law, or if that tends to happen in a lot of businesses.
0
gemma1811
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#131
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#131
(Original post by Amazing)
Yeah, but the world was a lot more sexist then, so they didn't have a great deal of opportunites to go to the Law. The main influx of women becoming lawyers was in the 70s - whether that was because it suddenly became a lot easier for them or simply more of them were becoming interested in legal affairs then, I don't know. The point is the majority of female lawyers only started in the 70s, in which case it's understandable that not a great deal of them are judges yet.
Ok, I get your argument there - but then explain why so many more women than men are cleaners? You still here people today say that 'cleaning is a woman's job'
0
Amazing
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#132
Report 14 years ago
#132
(Original post by gemma1811)
Ok, I get your argument there - but then explain why so many more women than men are cleaners? You still here people today say that 'cleaning is a woman's job'
Well, that's what it's perceived to be. Many more women apply to do cleaning jobs, so many more women are cleaners. And presumbably women would tend to be better suited for cleaning jobs anyway - I'm trying not generalise, but there are still a great deal of women who are just housewives, at least in comparison to "house husbands", so those women who have cleaned a lot would handle it better. It's not rocket surgery anyway (hmm).

I don't really see the relevance to women in the judiciary anyway...
0
lofichic
Badges: 0
#133
Report 14 years ago
#133
hahah Sasun you've given me the best laugh i've had all day.... i don't know about not having a woman in the army kos (sic) she might cry... but i'm pretty sure they shouldn't have/ or just plain shouldn't let you into university until you've sorted your grammar issues out.... lordy.
0
gemma1811
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#134
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#134
(Original post by Amazing)
Well, that's what it's perceived to be. Many more women apply to do cleaning jobs, so many more women are cleaners. And presumbably women would tend to be better suited for cleaning jobs anyway - I'm trying not generalise, but there are still a great deal of women who are just housewives, at least in comparison to "house husbands", so those women who have cleaned a lot would handle it better. It's not rocket surgery anyway (hmm).

I don't really see the relevance to women in the judiciary anyway...
Well it always used to be men that had all the jobs, including secretary jobs, but then it was realised that women were more dextrous. Someone has said on previous threads that women are generally more emotional that men, so surely women would be ideal in the judiciary system as they would be able to work their way through people's emotions better?
0
kikzen
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#135
Report 14 years ago
#135
(Original post by gemma1811)
Well it always used to be men that had all the jobs, including secretary jobs, but then it was realised that women were more dextrous. Someone has said on previous threads that women are generally more emotional that men, so surely women would be ideal in the judiciary system as they would be able to work their way through people's emotions better?
well no becuase their emotions would give them less impartiality.. theyd just be seeing their own emotions and not the facts of the case?
0
]{ingnik
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#136
Report 14 years ago
#136
(Original post by Elle)
You only have to look at the stats for members on executive boards who get the highest salaries in the country (of any type of company)- they are overwhelmingly male. As I said before- look in Parliament- thats the clearest picture you'll ever get. Female democratic candidate for President in the US was ousted right at the beginnning. There are so many examples..
well ok, but so what? maybe men are (shock horror) better than women at the higher jobs! and even if not, look at a nice graph and you will se that female involvement in such employment is on the increase, so why complain?
0
Amazing
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#137
Report 14 years ago
#137
(Original post by gemma1811)
Well it always used to be men that had all the jobs, including secretary jobs, but then it was realised that women were more dextrous. Someone has said on previous threads that women are generally more emotional that men, so surely women would be ideal in the judiciary system as they would be able to work their way through people's emotions better?
"work their way through people's emotions better"?

I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I doubt women are really a great deal more emotional than men - and being emotional person wouldn't necessarily make you better at perceiving or manipulating others emotions in court anyway (which I assume is what you were getting at).

I think men tend to make much better public speakers than women, which partly explains why they're not represented in the commons very well, and why there's far more female solicitors than there are barristers.

Over analysing the specific qualities of each gender gets us nowhere anyway. Gender imbalances can often be down to one gender "preferring" a particular type of job, but not by truly being any better at it. I realise that probably contradicts my theory on the number of women joining the law, but in general that's probably the way things go.
0
gemma1811
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#138
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#138
(Original post by Amazing)
I think men tend to make much better public speakers than women, which partly explains why they're not represented in the commons very well.
But the best speaker - that I believe - was Betty Boothroid (spelling?) - she was a woman and it was a great loss when she left
0
Amazing
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#139
Report 14 years ago
#139
(Original post by gemma1811)
But the best speaker - that I believe - was Betty Boothroid (spelling?) - she was a woman and it was a great loss when she left
Yeah, what relevance has that got to this though? One woman being a great speaker doesn't make much difference - and I said "public speakers", not the actual speaker of the House of Commons.
0
claire1985
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#140
Report 14 years ago
#140
(Original post by W.A.S Hewins)
The issue is that Boss Lady and Clare have a problem with men. Gemma is just the muddle-headed janitor of their little ideological lavatory.

Every time they post they include tag lines- one plainly stating that all men are 'stupid' (Boss Lady) and implying that men routinely use women as 'doormats' (Clare). This is every time they post, no matter what the subject of the thread is supposed to be, and they've been doing this for ages. They don't accept that such comments are prejudicial and sexist, but they do demand the right to stop other people from sending the same vibes back to them in the other direction. Moral: it's all right for them to badmouth men (99.9999999999% of whom they could never possibly know), but it's not all right for men to answer back.

Incidentally I don't object to them making such comments, just as long as I am allowed the same privilege.

Are they just dumb? Or are they hypocrites? Or both?
Hello Hewins, glad you could join us.. I'd like to make it clear that the quote in my sig came from a completely different era, 1913 to be precise (before women were enfranchised) and was said by Emily West, the Edwardian novelist. I put it in my sig because, as a history student, I am keen on using the past to show that things can move on, and by showing a time where women were reguarly subordinated, I think it serves as a reminder to women how far we have come in 90yrs. However, I also thinks it serves as encouragement for the women who are still subordinated by their culture, fathers, husbands, brothers, boyfriends etc.... I wouldn't be offended by it if I was male, I tested this one on my boyfriend and he thinks it is a funny quote, he is not in the least bit offended. Nor is he offended when I yabber on about the injustices still endured by women in the workplace. I have come to the conclusion that you only get offended by something (Hewins), if you are guilty and can identify yourself with it. Just like you had to tell us of your sexual conquests to make us all jealous (or laugh at just how sad and pathetic your life must be if you have to tell us about your sex life on an internet forum) to make yourself feel better.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a role model?

Yes - I know them personally (295)
26.06%
Yes - they're famous (288)
25.44%
No I don't (549)
48.5%

Watched Threads

View All