Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

One of Labour's top two posts should always be held by a woman Watch

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    They are physically stronger, braver, funnier and better leaders.


    It is rooted in fact, many studies have shown it to be true.

    And the issue of human courting is not "irrelevant". It also isn't the only physicological difference.
    Men are not braver than women. That they are funnier is down to subjective opinion. Where do you source this unsubstantiated tripe? Why are you continuing to state that men make better leaders when there is no evidence to support this? It is foolish and inaccurate to make such sweeping generalisations.

    And do you mean 'physiological' or 'psycological' differences? Either way, the difference between the genders is minimal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Men are not braver than women. That they are funnier is down to subjective opinion. Where do you source this unsubstantiated tripe? Why are you continuing to state that men make better leaders when there is no evidence to support this? It is foolish and inaccurate to make such sweeping generalisations.
    Women are more submissive. It's quite self evident. You can see it in how they act.

    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    And do you mean 'physiological' or 'psycological' differences?
    Both really.

    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Either way, the difference between the genders is minimal.
    LOL They are designed to be different and complement each other. That is why they exist. Radical feminists are so funny! :eek3:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    She should resign, and then get back to the kitchen where she belongs.



    (:p:)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    She didn't actually say that she doesn't want men in the top positions, she just said that there must also be a woman. If a male MP said that, I think people would consider it perfectly fair. It doesn't make sense that the population is roughly half half male:female ration, but the government isn't - it shows a clear fault in the representative system. And frankly, in times of discrimination, affirmative action is needed until there is no longer discrimination. Makes perfect sense.
    Are you kidding me? It's an absolute joke. You sound just like Nick Griffin: "We must discriminate by only allowing white party members until balance is restored". It's utter *****.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Women are more submissive. It's quite self evident. You can see it in how they act.


    Both really.


    LOL They are designed to be different and complement each other. That is why they exist. Radical feminists are so funny! :eek3:
    What? All women are submissive? Are you out of a Dickens novel? There are so many examples to draw upon which contradict this statement ...

    It is hard to distinguish which (if any) differences between men and women are due to social engineering, as opposed to nature. Unfortunately, these 'differences' are exploited and used to perpetuate inequality against women (women are more 'caring' and consequently must stay at home and raise children, to the deteriment of their independence). I remain unconvinced that any real differences do exist.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just because the population is 50:50 does not mean the politician should be 50:50

    people vote them in, maybe the population like men to be in charge!
    Maybe women in general make crap politician apart from Thatcher.

    Why do people have this idea that men and women are equal??
    Women only seem equal because of “MAN MADE LAWS” which gives them this idea and help.

    Women in general are not natural leaders of men!

    Its bull [email protected] that women are 50:50 when it comes to leadership of men.....”Man made laws “are giving women false ideas
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    What? All women are submissive? Are you out of a Dickens novel? There are so many examples to draw upon which contradict this statement ...

    It is hard to distinguish which (if any) differences between men and women are due to social engineering, as opposed to nature. Unfortunately, these 'differences' are exploited and used to perpetuate inequality against women (women are more 'caring' and consequently must stay at home and raise children, to the deteriment of their independence). I remain unconvinced that any real differences do exist.
    You fool, you lack any logic, you think the way you do because of social engineering.
    GET YOUR REAL FACTS RIGHT, OTHER THEN THE CRAP YOU LEARN FROM FEMALE TEACHERS AT SCHOOL....
    WOMEN ARE NOT MORE CARING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    MEN AND WOMEN CARE ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS,

    MAN CARES MORE ABOUT ADVANCING SOCIETY! WOMEN CARE ABOUT PETTY THINGS.


    Just because the population is 50:50 does not mean the politician should be 50:50

    people vote them in, maybe the population like men to be in charge!
    Maybe women in general make crap politician apart from Thatcher.

    Why do people have this idea that men and women are equal??
    Women only seem equal because of “MAN MADE LAWS” which gives them this idea and help.

    Women in general are not natural leaders of men!

    Its bull [email protected] that women are 50:50 when it comes to leadership of men.....”Man made laws “are giving women false ideas
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Do you understand what I'm saying? Just beause women can now join some political job doesn't mean they will - just because there's no more discrimination doesn't mean that people will lose all their attitudes towards women in politics. Women as well, are aware of that attitude and are put off being politicians. This means that the discriminative past is kept alive despite new laws against discrimination and that something must be done about it.

    What exactly then, are you arguing? Absolutely no-one has the power to control attitudes or opinions, especially if their ingrained. Women have to stand up and be counted, and as you said yourself their legal right is already in place, it's whether attitudes change that is important - and that is their responsibility. If women are so annoyed by lack of female representation in parliament then they need to do something about it, more women need to become interested in politics, and want to establish a career in it.

    Also your point that "women...are aware of that attitude and are being put off being politicians" just proves that you want it handed to you on a plate; being afraid of the stigmatism of becoming a politician and being in possession of a vagina (is there really any such stigmatism anyway?!), while moaning that there is no equality is pretty stupid.
    Women need to change things for themselves. As much as I loathe the old horse, Maggie Thatcher lead the way. It is possible for women to succeed in politics, so why this pointless law? And why all the whining?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I swear she is working secretly for the Tory Party. If she becomes leader of the Labour Party after the general election ,Labour will be out for four terms, as it it is taken over by Class warriors, unionistas, and feminazis. It will be like the 80's all over again. Keep talking harriet.

    Does she really think the women who are in and would be in the cabinet represent the majority of British women? Women like Harriet and her ilk despise other women almost as much as they do men. Does she really think a woman who rose to the top of British Politics despite not being 'helped' by the the Likes of Harriet ,Mrs Thatcher would allow the incomptent women who have been in Labours cabinet? Even Jackie Smith admitted she had no business being Home Secretary.

    Labour wanted split arses as MP's and didn't really care if they are the best people in the job already. Look where it got them.... Theres a reason why cabinet is dominated by men right now.Because the women if it's possible are worse than the men.

    If some male Tory had said women cannot not be left to run things on their own.Some feminazi would rip his sausage off. She is gold. More Harriet please. Harman a prime example of positive discrimination.

    Her election motto should be 'Harman it's in the name...'
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrBOOBOO)
    You fool, you lack any logic, you think the way you do because of social engineering.
    GET YOUR REAL FACTS RIGHT, OTHER THEN THE CRAP YOU LEARN FROM FEMALE TEACHERS AT SCHOOL....
    WOMEN ARE NOT MORE CARING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    MEN AND WOMEN CARE ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS,

    MAN CARES MORE ABOUT ADVANCING SOCIETY! WOMEN CARE ABOUT PETTY THINGS.


    Just because the population is 50:50 does not mean the politician should be 50:50

    people vote them in, maybe the population like men to be in charge!
    Maybe women in general make crap politician apart from Thatcher.

    Why do people have this idea that men and women are equal??
    Women only seem equal because of “MAN MADE LAWS” which gives them this idea and help.

    Women in general are not natural leaders of men!

    Its bull [email protected] that women are 50:50 when it comes to leadership of men.....”Man made laws “are giving women false ideas
    I can't argue with this. It's beneath me. :haughty:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrBOOBOO)
    I can’t believe Ms Harman can get away with making statements like this.

    “One of Labour's top two posts should always be held by a woman, Deputy Leader Harriet Harman has told a paper”

    “She does "not agree with all-male leaderships" because men "cannot be left to run things on their own" she told the Sunday Times.” --to me this is so sexist and if a man said this about women, he would be forced to resign.

    And Under her controversial new equality bill, women will find it easier to demand equal pay and employers will be given a legal right to discriminate in favour of female candidates.

    That’s like saying, just because there are more women at universities, we should favour more male students rather than making men work harder in their exams!

    Its about time men voted her out as their MP, she does nothing for men and gets their vote to get in to power and rants and makes sexist laws against men.
    Frustrating isnt it. What Harriet is saying is typical of supremacist feminists, as opposed to a socialists. Socialists should not see gender as an issue when it comes to power, and particularly reformist socialists (ie, the Labour party) because they believe in a meritocracy - someone gets into power because they are good at what they do, not because they are a man or a woman.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eradicus)
    What exactly then, are you arguing? Absolutely no-one has the power to control attitudes or opinions

    I like to believe otherwise. If these deep set attitudes could not be chandes, then we'd still be living in the mid-ages. Attitudes can greatly be changed by the government and media, sometimes more than one's family.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    I like to believe otherwise. If these deep set attitudes could not be chandes, then we'd still be living in the mid-ages. Attitudes can greatly be changed by the government and media, sometimes more than one's family.
    The queston we should ask is, whether they should be changed.

    Those attitudes of our forefathers will not just have come out of nowhere, they would have had a reason to do so.

    It is our duty to pass on the customs to the next generation.

    This book, In Praise of Prejudice by Theodore Dalrymple, shows how important it is to preserve the attitudes of our ancestors.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichaelG)
    Frustrating isnt it. What Harriet is saying is typical of supremacist feminists, as opposed to a socialists. Socialists should not see gender as an issue when it comes to power, and particularly reformist socialists (ie, the Labour party) because they believe in a meritocracy - someone gets into power because they are good at what they do, not because they are a man or a woman.
    'Meritocracy' is a very poor way of expressing what Harman believes in; although it does unfortunately characterise much of the New Labour project.

    Harman, as I read her, is much more about overcoming oppression and domination - she is a former human rights campaigner. The driving idea behind this is that politics should work to promote the interests of those who are typically oppressed, as historically women have been.

    What we must remember is that fewer than 1 in 5 Westminster politicians are female.

    I think that it is right to have one of the two top positions in government held by a women, not because men are incompetent, but because she would provide a role model to young women and help to break down the *white male in grey suit* image of politicians. This image is crucial and must be overcome.
    The problem is that many young women feel that politics is 'not for them'. The same can be said for those from the working classes and ethnic minority backgrounds. In order to have a stake in politics, people must feel they have ownership and membership of it. That is difficult when the political classes are so narrowly constituted. You don't need a woman to represent woman's issues; but you do need a woman to embody female political ownership on equal terms to men.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The queston we should ask is, whether they should be changed.

    Those attitudes of our forefathers will not just have come out of nowhere, they would have had a reason to do so.

    It is our duty to pass on the customs to the next generation.

    This book, In Praise of Prejudice by Theodore Dalrymple, shows how important it is to preserve the attitudes of our ancestors.
    Well I agree that our ancestors were great and we've learnt a lot from them on most levels, however I disagree that they were so good that we can't get any better, and frankly, we can be much better than them as far as intelligence and its results (technology, politics, lifestyle, etc.) are concerned.

    This can clearly be seen in the past as well, generations have generally got better rather than worse, the people in the mid-ages were better than those in prehistory and so we are quite on the right way to getting better than those before us.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Well I agree that our ancestors were great and we've learnt a lot from them on most levels, however I disagree that they were so good that we can't get any better, and frankly, we can be much better than them as far as intelligence and its results (technology, politics, lifestyle, etc.) are concerned.

    This can clearly be seen in the past as well, generations have generally got better rather than worse, the people in the mid-ages were better than those in prehistory and so we are quite on the right way to getting better than those before us.
    I'm not saying we can't improve on things but what you are advocating isn't improvement. It's social engineering for the sake of an idealogy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I'm not saying we can't improve on things but what you are advocating isn't improvement. It's social engineering for the sake of an idealogy.
    ^ Ideology

    I'm not a fan of labels and ideologies, frankly, I much rather prefer taking things in a straightforward, independent way.

    Social engineering isn't something planned or optional, it's perfectly natural and it takes place all the time. For example, the whole society and social structure is engineered.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elementric)
    Are you kidding me? It's an absolute joke. You sound just like Nick Griffin: "We must discriminate by only allowing white party members until balance is restored". It's utter *****.
    You're taking this the wrong way.

    Do you think helping poor children get into higher education is discrimination? This is an attempt to give poor people a chance to higher education and better options, after a past when universities were associated with rich people - as political jobs were associated with men.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    She didn't actually say that she doesn't want men in the top positions, she just said that there must also be a woman. If a male MP said that, I think people would consider it perfectly fair. It doesn't make sense that the population is roughly half half male:female ration, but the government isn't - it shows a clear fault in the representative system. And frankly, in times of discrimination, affirmative action is needed until there is no longer discrimination. Makes perfect sense.

    Thats the biggest load of crap I have ever heard in my life.

    Just because there is a 50:50 ratio of men to women does not mean government has to be equally split, somebody doesnt have to be the same as you to be able to do their job and represent you. If you notice women are allowed to vote, do you know what that means? it means that women have voted men into power, not because they feel that women cant do the job, but because they think that those people are the best for the job.

    Men and women are not the same, we are equal but we are different, you cant just blame everything on discrimination. There are reasons for everything and not all of them are ridiculous or aimed at opressing people, your assumption is that because things you value more are maybe dominated by men that there must be some kind of discrimination, this simply isnt the case.

    Affirmative action is discrimination, dont fight fire with fire. also I would like to know, what discrimination? women are treated better in this country than pretty much anywhere else in the world. You can bang on about unequal pay etc but in reality there is very little to actually base these claims of mass inequality on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    She didn't actually say that she doesn't want men in the top positions, she just said that there must also be a woman. If a male MP said that, I think people would consider it perfectly fair. It doesn't make sense that the population is roughly half half male:female ration, but the government isn't - it shows a clear fault in the representative system. And frankly, in times of discrimination, affirmative action is needed until there is no longer discrimination. Makes perfect sense.
    no no no no no . The best person for the job should always get the job. I can't stand people who fail to see the never-ending spiral of issues to come if positive discrimination is accepted nationwide
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.