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

Harriet Harman: Men Caused Credit Crunch Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....&in_page_id=34



    Is there a more abhorrent woman in UK politics?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lateralus)

    Is there a more abhorrent woman in UK politics?
    Margaret Thatcher :wink2:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    She's not really making the best case to support her claim that a male only cabinet is a bad idea is she
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Bless, she's mixing up getting column inches with gaining respect.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's true that there are too few women working within the financial sector. Harriet Harman is an incredibly astute politician; her appearances on Question Time have shown her to be a credible, trustworthy and perspicacious politician.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    It's true that there are too few women working within the financial sector. Harriet Harman is an incredibly astute politician; her appearances on Question Time have shown her to be a credible, trustworthy and perspicacious politician.
    I thought you said that there was no difference between the genders?

    So what difference does it make if women are essentially men, anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There was a fantastic piece in the letters section of The Times today which completely ripped the **** out her equality drive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    It's true that there are too few women working within the financial sector.
    Could you tell me what the correct number of women would be, and how that is determined?

    Harriet Harman is an incredibly astute politician; her appearances on Question Time have shown her to be a credible, trustworthy and perspicacious politician.
    :laugh:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I thought you said that there was no difference between the genders?

    So what difference does it make if women are essentially men, anyway?
    I think you deserve credit for so completely and utterly distorting what I said. I maintain that I do not believe there are any tangible differences between the genders - this therefore means that there should be no gender dominated professions, which is why there should be more women working in the financial sector in the interests of gender equality.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Could you tell me what the correct number of women would be, and how that is determined?



    :laugh:

    A more correct number would be around half. Currently, there are only110 woman non-executive directors, 14.5 per cent of the total. This is unacceptable.

    Are you incapable of arguing or are you just going to limit yourself to a smiley?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    I think you deserve credit for so completely and utterly distorting what I said. I maintain that I do not believe there are any tangible differences between the genders - this therefore means that there should be no gender dominated professions, which is why there should be more women working in the financial sector in the interests of gender equality.
    Do you agree with Harman then when she proposed the need, at all times, for a woman to occupy either the position of PM or DPM? Surely, if there is no 'tangible differences' between either sex, logic suggests there is absolutely no need.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moreiniho)
    Do you agree with Harman then when she proposed the need, at all times, for a woman to occupy either the position of PM or DPM? Surely, if there is no 'tangible differences' between either sex, logic suggests there is absolutely no need.
    Of course there is need, indeed because there are no differences. Where is the equality in a male dominated Cabinet?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moreiniho)
    There was a fantastic piece in the letters section of The Times today which completely ripped the **** out her equality drive.
    Do you have a link, or can you quote some of it so I can find a link?

    This women is an absolute joke, everytime she opens her mouth the hole just gets deeper.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Of course there is need, indeed because there are no differences. Where is the equality in a male dominated Cabinet?
    That is an absolute fail of logic. Surely there would only be a need to revise the current situation if, and only if, man and woman had inherently different characteristics. If, as you claim, they are inherently the same, what's the need to swap one for the other?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lol! Talk about a nutty woman. She says

    However, she did not express disagreement with the sentiment, adding: "I do seriously think that half the financial services industry is women now. Women make up half the workforce of insurance companies and banks. Why shouldn't they have a say on boards as well?"
    and then later on says

    Ms Harman went on: "When I was first in politics, issues like wanting to have longer maternity leave for women after they've had a baby, wanting to be able to work flexibly, making sure that part-time workers, who are mostly women, weren't treated as second-class citizens - those sort of issues didn't get a look-in in politics, when politics was overwhelmingly men."
    Does she not realise that perhaps you have to have had a lengthy period working in the industry, or to demonstrate a desire to have such, to sit on the board, and perhaps taking long periods of time off is not really conducive to that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    I think you deserve credit for so completely and utterly distorting what I said. I maintain that I do not believe there are any tangible differences between the genders - this therefore means that there should be no gender dominated professions, which is why there should be more women working in the financial sector in the interests of gender equality.
    So practicality doesn't matter? It's all about the mythical "equality", then? Good to know.

    But what is it like to be a women who thinks that she's essentially the same as a man? Who basically wants to be a man? Who has no concept of feminicity?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    A more correct number would be around half. Currently, there are only110 woman non-executive directors, 14.5 per cent of the total. This is unacceptable.

    Are you incapable of arguing or are you just going to limit yourself to a smiley?
    Don't most women have children which slows down their career progression?
    If you want to be a director, dont have kids.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Of course there is need, indeed because there are no differences. Where is the equality in a male dominated Cabinet?
    If cabinet members should be selected on their merit and not on the basis of what hangs between their legs, then it is certainly possible that all the members of the cabinet be men if all the best candidates are men. Saying that half the cabinet should be women whether those women are better than male candidates for those positions is sexist, and it is saying that people should be judged by what sex they are rather than how good at their job they are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I love Harriet Harman and I think she should continue to express her views...












    To aid in destroying the Labour Party.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    If cabinet members should be selected on their merit and not on the basis of what hangs between their legs, then it is certainly possible that all the members of the cabinet be men if all the best candidates are men. Saying that half the cabinet should be women whether those women are better than male candidates for those positions [/b]is sexist[/b], and it is saying that people should be judged by what sex they are rather than how good at their job they are.
    It's called positive discrimination.

    And that's a different debate - there was a thread on it a few days ago.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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

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