A victory for the PC brigade?

I'm just nipping upstairs for a....

....whoops, too late!

 

Enormous Bazoomers.

 

I'd prefer one red helmet between them rather than two red helmets on them ...

 

Now you are just trying to wind feminists up!

 

Feminists only wanted to ban them because they are all lezzers and are fed up with feeling horny every time they open the paper.

 

Arrrrggghhhhhh

A job should be filled by the best person for that job, regardless of gender, race, sexuality hair colour, vegetarianism etc etc etc. People who moan about a lack of representation and equality then promote "positive discrimination" with all minority shortlists need shooting.

Rather than expending all that effort complaining, why don't they get of their backsides and apply or stand? On second thoughts, not sure if I'd want someone that stupid representing me.

 

Bangers

 

I'm going to put it to you that this post expresses your fears/fantasies rather than anything actually expressed by the contributors.

Certainly some feminists are concerned about the pornographisation of popular culture, like provocative T-Shirts for 6 year olds, or pop videos where barely articulate men perform in front of an endless succession of gyrating bottoms, or even porn fashion like the obsession for women to shave their pubic hair off and alter their labia just to be sexually 'normal'. I don't think they are alone in that concern though and before you go off on this tangent I think you need to demonstrate any 'feminist' campaign of the like exists.

 

I am not sure what direction you are heading in, all this talk about " gyrating bottoms" and "labia", ffs. Calm down a bit!

For someone that thinks everyone gets sexually excited and (in your words) "knocking one out" over page 3, you are risking doing yourself a mischief!

I am just telling you what some feminists were saying on the radio yesterday afternoon...that this "victory" is just the start...!

If you think I am lying again, then so be it.

They didn't actually go on to be specific about which issues they will be trying to address. I shall leave that to your (obvious) vivid imagination!:naughty: You little tinker, you!

 

Are you suggesting that a Brazilian is anti-feminist?

 

I agree to an extent.

Women politicians might not represent the ordinary women anymore than a male one would.

But this could be because the type of women to try and get into politics might be more aggressive, more ballsy, more argumentative, more power driven, less willing to reason, than the ordinary female (I don't believe there is a thing, more a diverse spectrum, but I'll use it to simplify this argument).

So then perhaps the political environment is made to benefit those who show the above tendencies. After all, those in politics at the moment are the ones that chose who gets to run, or who gets what job. Perhaps to really influence change in such a fixed structure, you are going to need a little bit of fluidity too.

 

I actually agree with Moose on this one!!

Newspapers should be censored in the same way daytime TV is censored. Sexualised images should not appear anywhere a child could just stumble across it. Children body image satisfaction is being eroded by fashion mags and availability of porn, leading to increasing self harm and anxiety. A 14 year old child mentioned how she wanted labiaplasty the other day. Of course, schools need to be doing better, but putting naked girls in daily newspapers is hardly helping this trend.

Feminists are incredibly torn on whether they even want to ban porn or not. On the one hand, they hate how much the woman is treated like an object with no power, with humiliation, money shots, pain, exploiting the poor etc. But they also have a strong sense that a woman should be able to chose whichever career she wants, should be free to flash or expose her body when she wants, and it is one of the only careers whereby the woman actually gets paid more than the man.

 

I am not suggesting that these displays that you and Moose are mentioning should be in a daily newspaper, but I understand why they are mentioned in this sort of discussion. We all do it sometimes, we bring out the "extremes" to illustrate why the "moderate" should be policed.

I am just disputing that breasts are anything like an extreme, dirty, or something to be hidden away. To me, they aren't.

100 years ago, ankles were considered out of bounds.

But, I acknowledge that I probably have a different background to most on here. I spent a lot of my early years in Scandinavia, Germany and Holland, where nudity is treated more naturally. I have not seen the latest figures, but I am sure it is the case that they dont have the same level of sexual crimes and teenage pregnancies, etc, over there, as we do over here. Of course, there will be a number of reasons why that is the case, but I wonder if suggesting that breasts are the to be hidden away is part of the answer.

But, as I said before, it is not the ending of page 3 that annoys me, I couldn't care less. It is the people that think they know better and try to censor us all that annoy me. Je Suis Charlie!

 

#NoBrazilianNoParty

 

Hmmm

 

Your fundamental misunderstanding of my post is staggering in its ineptitude.

Are you seriously suggesting to me that women's under-representation in public life, business and many of the professions is in some way due to them being less competent? Are you seriously suggesting that in a nation of 60+ million, with an electorate of 46 million, that two groups of 325 picked from two groups of 23 million each wouldn't be equally competent? Let's ignore the fact that there are actually rather more women than men for now. There would of course be an equal distribution of perfectly competent MPS, a few stars and a few 'bad apples' across the two groups.

The principal distinction between us all on this planet is the 50:50ish distinction in numbers between men and women. This is a far more important distinction than racial and religious ones. In fact, I'd say that if there were more women representing an Islamic view right now then the west v islam agenda would be far more easily diffused. This is because men and women's hormonal biochemistry is different (or at least the proportional mix of sex hormones) and therefore we have a different way of looking at things and a different order of priorities. Women talk to each other and reach concensus. We undulge in a testosterone fuelled scrap until someone 'wins' or we all get blown up. Great.

Women are held back by various 'glass ceilings', silly boys only clubs, an agenda to exclude 'the other' and a further desperate agenda to exclude women from positions of authority because men know better, it's the way we've always done things and we're entitled. Put simply, men are scared of the dark and what an increase in female representation might bring. Well not in my name.

This is nothing to do with a minority agenda. Women aren't a minority. Neither is it anything to do with tinkering at the margins with women only short lists etc which annoys me equally. What it would be is a celebration of both EQUALITY and DIFFERENCE. If you believe in equal representation then 50:50 is the only conclusion. Go for it then.

This suggestion (which I have previously thrown into the political ring) will not gain any real traction until the women's movement get behind it with suffragette gusto. Again, ******* about with page 3 and what's available on the top shelf is an irrelevance.

 

No no no and more no.
Your analysis of my post is somewhat wide of the mark. If a glass ceiling exists you need to solve the issue that creates the glass ceiling. Not circumvent the ceiling by installing a candidate from a reduced set of options. If you do this at best they will suffer because the same prejudice that created the ceiling in the first place will mean they are treated differently. At worst you'll install a less capable candidate because the best one for the job might have been barred from entry due to shortlist restrictions. Their performance will be evaluated as not up to scratch and it will reinforce the biased opinion that created the glass ceiling in the first place.

 

"Are you seriously suggesting to me that women's under-representation in public life, business and many of the professions is in some way due to them being less competent?"

He's not suggesting that. He's suggesting that for whatever reason few woman try to enter parliament. If this is for reasons of old boys club etc then let's discourage these practices. However, what isn't required is you to have a quota of 300. When that happens, some women will be discredited as people will think they are only in because of the Kelso shortlist, when in fact they were actually the best person for the job.

 

Kelso - I am of the opinion that when it comes to road cars woman are as competent, if not more competent than their male counterparts.

Are you in favour of forcing formula1 teams to employ one male and one female driver?

 

Rubbish. There are no shortlists. Each constituency has a male and a female MP. 325 each. Simple. Evaluated by who? Men no longer have a majority.

 

If I find out a woman is flying the plane I'm on, I get off. Best not to risk these things TBH

 

Again. There is no shortlist. There is no quota. It's a recognition of equality and difference. Two MPs per big seat. 325 each. Job done. End of. Dress up a 'hang on to what we've got' boys agenda whichever way you like. I see through it

 

I have heard their knockers can get in the way of the controls so this is a good point imo.

 

No. I can make the distinction between public representation (big issue) and Formula 1 (irrelevant issue on a par with Page 3).

 

Just why do women wear make up and pointy heeled shoes? because I won't vote for one that does.

 

well that and the fact that I've seen videos where she's too busy doing bad things with the co pilot. True story

 

Invite me to the cockpit. I'm all yours ...

 

And he was doing things with her. A freudian slip I guess. I rest my case ...

 

I refuse to vote for one that doesn't ...

 

All true. See my scheme. Currently what you're likely to get is some sort of faux testosterone driven Mrs T type ...

 

So in your brave new world, what if we have a reformed constituency where there are 2 excellent female candidates and 1 average male candidate and we have to employ the average male?

Why can we not just have the best people for the job, and in the meantime eradicate the glass ceilings and old boys club issues that you have highlighted?

Is there any MP at the moment that you feel has not been promoted highly enough due to gender? As far as I can see when a female MP shines they are fast-tracked quicker than their male counterparts so Cameron/Miliband/Blair can trumpet the fact in their self serving way.

If becoming an MP is unattractive as a career for females and this is a grassroots issue, then you should identify why this is and deal with those factors rather than your quota system.

 

Some good points.

1. Most MPs are selected from a far wider pool than from internal selection lists for each constituency. In your scenario, there would be plenty of opportunity for a second outstanding local female candidate to seek a ticket in an adjacent constituency. The incompetent male will be nowhere. A far better male will arrive by parachute. Happens all the time now anyway. There are now 325 constituencies. There are two 23 million pools. All things are equal. Except one pool is from Mars and one from Venus and yep, that does trump your specific case.

2. Nope. I have no example that you have enquired about. So what? The issue is that there's an unequal pool of male and female MPs to choose from for higher office. And, given that, that the females who 'make out' are the ones that are happy to operate in a male agenda driven environment. My scheme would free up a number of very competent females who are only happy to operate in a more equitable environment. Who can blame them? I support them.

As indicated (and ad nauseum now) this is not about quotas.

This is about Mars and Venus and their equality and distinction. Do please try and grasp this in future correspondence.

 

What is a 'glamour model' anyway?

Just a brainless drone showing their bodies off to other brainless drones isn't it?