Dressing in pink

[northernladyuk]

Because I think they're detrimental to their own cause - staff quota's based on sex (or race or anything else come to that) ensure that appointments are not made according to ability.

And do all feminists want staff quotas based on sex?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I doubt you'd be running a successful umbrella without them.

True but the feminists of 100 years ago who secured rights for women are very different from the whining 'it's not fair' brigade that we have today

[northernladyuk]

True but the feminists of 100 years ago who secured rights for women are very different from the whining 'it's not fair' brigade that we have today

With their whining about female genital mutilation?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

And do all feminists want staff quotas based on sex?

No idea but that seems to be the way that things are heading - take UK Feminista - they don't seem to want equality but, rather, preferential treatment.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

With their whining about female genital mutilation?

A very specific argument which has nothing, in my opinion, to do with feminism - it's a brutal and barbaric practice which, I have no doubt, is condemned by as many men as woment

[northernladyuk]

A very specific argument which has nothing, in my opinion, to do with feminism - it's a brutal and barbaric practice which, I have no doubt, is condemned by as many men as woment

Female genital mutilation is about the oppression of women and girls by patriarchal societies. How is that nothing to so with feminism? Why do you think that male condemnation of the practice means it's nothing to do with feminism? Do you think many men want to remove the vote from women?

Feminism is a broad movement with no unified voice. Overall it has been a progressive movement to give women more freedoms and rights. You mention 100 years ago, this is the history of marital rape in England (from wiki):

Ending the exemption in England and Wales[edit]
Main article: Rape in English law
The marital rape exemption was abolished in England and Wales in 1991 by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, in the case of R v R[115][116] been promulgated in 1736 in Matthew Hale’s History of the Pleas of the Crown (see above).
The first attempted prosecution of a husband for the rape of his wife was R v Clarke.[117] Rather than try to argue directly against Hale’s logic, the court held that consent in this instance had been revoked by an order of the court for non-cohabitation. It was the first of a number of cases in which the courts found reasons not to apply the exemption, notably R v O’Brien[118] (the obtaining of decree nisi), R v Steele[119] (an undertaking by the husband to the court not to molest the wife) and R v Roberts[120] (the existence of a formal separation agreement).
There are at least four recorded instances of a husband successfully relying on the exemption in England and Wales. The first was R v Miller,[121] where it was held that the wife had not legally revoked her consent despite having presented a divorce petition. R v Kowalski[122] was followed by R v Sharples,[123] and the fourth occurred in 1991 in the case of R v J, a judgment made after the first instance decision of the Crown Court in R v R but before the decision of the House of Lords that was to abolish the exemption. In Miller, Kowalski and R v J the husbands were instead convicted of assault or indecent assault.
R v R in 1991 was the first occasion where the marital rights exemption had been appealed as far as the House of Lords, and it followed the trio of cases since 1988 where the marital rights exemption was upheld. The leading judgment, unanimously approved, was given by Lord Keith of Kinkel. He stated that the contortions being performed in the lower courts in order to avoid applying the marital rights exemption were indicative of the absurdity of the rule, and held, agreeing with earlier judgments in Scotland and in the Court of Appeal in R v R, that “the fiction of implied consent has no useful purpose to serve today in the law of rape” and that the marital rights exemption was a “common law fiction” which had never been a true rule of English law. R’s appeal was accordingly dismissed, and he was convicted of the rape of his wife.

Because feminism has no unified voice, there are contradictory arguments from different feminists. This doesn't unvalidate the broad progress of feminism, which as mudskipper says, has brought you so many rights. But carry on hating feminists if it helps.

[expat]

Because I think they're detrimental to their own cause - staff quota's based on sex (or race or anything else come to that) ensure that appointments are not made according to ability.

But if they are already not being made according to ability (which is clearly so) then quotas can at least fix the results of that for the time being. In that respect it's a workaround rather than a fix, but it helps people who are suffering unfairly.

More than that, the very need to apply the quotas can focus people's attention on the fact that the workaround is still needed, i.e. the system is still broken, it is still unfair to women.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Female genital mutilation is about the oppression of women and girls by patriarchal societies. How is that nothing to so with feminism? Why do you think that male condemnation of the practice means it's nothing to do with feminism? Do you think many men want to remove the vote from women?

Feminism is a broad movement with no unified voice. Overall it has been a progressive movement to give women more freedoms and rights. You mention 100 years ago, this is the history of marital rape in England (from wiki):



Because feminism has no unified voice, there are contradictory arguments from different feminists. This doesn't unvalidate the broad progress of feminism, which as mudskipper says, has brought you so many rights. But carry on hating feminists if it helps.

Genital mutilation is an act of cruelty which would be just as intolerable where it to be carried out on males as it is when it is carried out on females. The practice is an ancient one which has no place in modern society but I think it is an issue which should be taken up by everybody.

By saying that male condemnation of the practice doesn't mean it's not a feminist issue means that you are creating a divide that you are trying to prevent which, in my opinion, is half the problem.

[MicrosoftBob]

But if they are already not being made according to ability (which is clearly so) then quotas can at least fix the results of that for the time being. In that respect it's a workaround rather than a fix, but it helps people who are suffering unfairly.

More than that, the very need to apply the quotas can focus people's attention on the fact that the workaround is still needed, i.e. the system is still broken, it is still unfair to women.

If quotas are so good, why not have them for child custody in divorce cases where the system is broken

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

But if they are already not being made according to ability (which is clearly so) then quotas can at least fix the results of that for the time being. In that respect it's a workaround rather than a fix, but it helps people who are suffering unfairly.

More than that, the very need to apply the quotas can focus people's attention on the fact that the workaround is still needed, i.e. the system is still broken, it is still unfair to women.

So what you are saying is that business owners should be forced to recruit people that they don't want to recruit? What would you suggest? That every business should have a workforce that is 50/50 - would that apply to every business?