Slap on the wrist for Slugger

Fionola Meredith has a very good piece in this month’s edition of Village magazine. Her first couple of paragraphs looks at the reaction on Slugger to the appointment of Kelly Andrews to the Parades Commission, replacing Don McKay. She rightly points out that the very first comment here had nothing to do with this woman’s political position, intellectual capacity or experience in conflict management. Yokel described her as ‘a bit of a looker’. She says that ‘Yokel and his ilk make up a significant proportion of the North’s politicos (both wannabe and actual). ‘When they are not sizing up female public figures, politicians and commentators like prize heifers, they treat them with scorn or bored indifference.’The rest of the article goes on to describe Andrews, and her hopes for her role on the Parades Commission. But Meredith is raising the issue once more of the role of woman in public life in Northern Ireland. I was never a fan of the concept of the Woman’s Coalition, but perhaps that was finally the only way to push women into the forefront of public life, not as a aberration or exception, but as a force with something to offer. There are no easy answers to the dearth of capable women in public life, although there is much to be hopeful for among most of the parties. But the true problem lies in the minds of people who can only see the face or figure and not through to the ability or intellect therein. I for one am really glad to see this article, and hope that it is one more step in the process of acceptance of worth.

  • SuperSoupy

    Just read through the thread in question and Fionula’s point is unfair. Only the first and last comment related to looks the rest of the thread was a sound discussion on the merits of appointees and political position.

    Taking a discussion of 50 comments and filtering it down to the two weakest comments isn’t sound analysis.

  • In journalistic circles sometimes it is stated that ‘never let the truth get in the way of a good story’ especially their own story.

  • Pete Baker

    While “society is sexist” appears to be Fionola’s main complaint in the article.. the fact that she chooses to target Slugger is, in fact, quite interesting.

    But for matters of clarity it’s worthwhile pointing out a couple of other facts.

    Whatever the interpretation of Yokel’s comment anyone chooses to make, he/she isn’t an “avid blogger” on Slugger or, to my knowledge, anywhere else.

    However frequently someone uses the comments zone, it’s not blogging – it’s commenting on a blog. A small but important difference that someone really should know if they’re going to criticize a blog.

    Secondly the first comment by an “avid blogger” comes in the original post, by me, and I did in fact reference Andrews as “the co-leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland”.

    Not that Fionola would have an issue with blogging.. or Slugger in particular..

  • Miss Fitz

    Meredith did not suggest that all of the posts were in that vein. She simply accurately records the first reaction to the piece.

    In terms of her targetting Slugger, (which I dont accept as a valid point) this blog is a public space where opinion is aired. It is a mainly male-blog with mainly male bloggers and commentors. It is a reasonable place to come to test opinion, and she is spot on by highlighting this ‘first reaction’.

  • spiritof07

    But she IS a bit of a looker!

  • Pete Baker

    Miss Fitz

    The first reaction on Slugger O’Toole by an “avid blogger”, or otherwise, to the announcement was my post where, as I pointed out, I did in fact reference Kelly Andrews’ political position – in contrast to the claim made in the article.

    That Fionola didn’t distinguish the difference between blogging and commenting on a blog is, at best, an indication of her failure to understand what blogging actually involves.

  • Miss Fitz

    No Pete
    It is really about you being pedantic.

    For the purpose of an article like that, all you can do is worry about whether or not someone makes a fine distinction between the various roles.

    You have completely ignored the gist of both the article and my post, a situation that does not surprise me in the slightest.

  • Pete Baker

    Miss Fitz

    I actually agree with the general complaint of both your post and the article – it’s not a situation specific to NI, politics, commentors on blogs, nor for that matter the mainstream media where Fionola makes her living.

    But I will take exception to the attempted characterising of Slugger, and in particular “avid bloggers”, in the way the article does.

    That Fionola doesn’t get blogging is clear, why is a different matter, but I will also point out where she is inaccurate as well – as in the first reaction point.

  • Much Fuss

    I don’t see what all the fuss is about. I mean, take a look:

    http://ccso.server101.com/det.htm

  • The Dubliner

    “There are no easy answers to the dearth of capable women in public life…”

    Lack of capable women in general? There are easy answers but you won’t like them because they don’t fit your unsupported assumption that the number of brilliant females is equal to the number of brilliant males.

    Miss Fitz, can you tell me why no women became dot com billionaires at a time when only a personal computer and a brilliant idea was needed to become successful?

    Can you tell me why only a handful of women have become CEOs of Fortune 500 companies despite several decades of negative discrimination against men in favour of the less capable? Could the answer be that shareholders promote those who are the most capable and will make them the most money instead of promoting by gender?

    Can you tell me why 97% of Nobel prizes have been won by men? Is it because scientific advances that are made by women are hushed up by science or is it because women are less capable than men?

    Can you tell me why all of the great mathematicians are men? Is it because it is illegal for women to use the pencil and paper that is needed to right pure mathematics?

    If you can answer the above, then you’ll have your answer why few women reach the top in politics. And it isn’t because someone asked awkward questions such as the above.

  • Dewi

    Dubliner – you are a tiresome idiot – try and create a society where women are equal for God’s sake.

  • Rory

    For those not versed in the hoo-ha, the mystique if you like, of contributing to blog sites the term ‘blogger’ is a generic that includes those who contribute or merely visit the site. When, for example, someone asks Herself, ” ..and what’s Rory up to?”, she, not infrequently, replies, ” Hrrmph! off blogging with the sluggers again. Silly old….”. And this is understood by her friends who are avid web users to simply mean that I am visiting a blog site.

    I suppose it equates with the old common description of those who always had “their noses buried in historical tomes” as historians, whereas those who authored those tomes – or at least taught them at university level – would wish, like sacred priests, to be considered solely anointed to be so addressed.

    But that piece of pedantry is a diversion from the issue. Fionola Meredith has flattered Slugger by homing in on the fear of women, of their issues and indeed of their very opinions that is evident even on this site where, although robust and sometimes volatile, the debate allows at least for the humanity and different experience of the other. She is right however to draw attention to the fact that , even on this – perhaps the best of Irish sites – whenever a woman raises an issue that relates to the position of women in our society then some boy in the back of the class begins to snort and snigger and even the swots at the front of the class are reluctant to tell him to shut up.

    I ain’t no swot but maybe it is high time we started. Or perhaps we should have profiles, including full length photographs, of all contributors so that we could judge, for example, whether or not, say, Yokel is “a bit of a looker”. Herself reckons that in my case this is a very bad idea – but, hey! anything for truth and justice.

  • Johnny Foreigner

    “I was never a fan of the concept of the Woman’s Coalition, but perhaps that was finally the only way to push women into the forefront of public life, not as a aberration or exception, but as a force with something to offer.”

    The Womens’ Coalition were pointless. A political party without political opinions.

    “There are no easy answers to the dearth of capable women in public life, although there is much to be hopeful for among most of the parties. But the true problem lies in the minds of people who can only see the face or figure and not through to the ability or intellect therein.”

    Who be they? Saying that someone is good looking does not imply their incompetence you know. Or their lack of intellect. If anything, as I understand it, psychological studies have shown human prejudice to work in the opposite direction in that we tend to view good looking people as more competent and intelligent.

    “I for one am really glad to see this article, and hope that it is one more step in the process of acceptance of worth.”

    Who is not accepting someones worth and in what way? I’m not saying you’re wrong be you certainly seem to be putting two and two together and getting five.

  • Pete Baker

    “I suppose it equates with the old common description of those who always had “their noses buried in historical tomes” as historians, whereas those who authored those tomes – or at least taught them at university level – would wish, like sacred priests, to be considered solely anointed to be so addressed.”

    Wrong, Rory, as anyone who has actually made the jump from the comment zone to blogging will attest to.

    And it’s not about pedantry – that is a diversion.

    But it is significant when a mainstream journalist such as Fionola chooses to criticise – not “flatter” – specifically, avid bloggers on Slugger O’Toole.

    And gets it wrong.

  • SuperSoupy

    If you want to head off down the rabbit trail of definitions it is fair to point out many wouldn’t consider Slugger a blog at all.

  • Miss Fitz

    I am with soupy and rory on this. As I said, it is quite reasonable to come to this site to test the temperature on issues.

    Most people would use the generic term ‘blogger’ for anyone contributing to a forum such as this.

    The fact that there are sub-texts and sub-rules known to the afficionadoes of this site is a side issue.

    I think the issue is the content, and not the feelings of someone miffed by an incorrect appelation

  • Intelligence Insider

    Pete is quite right, Meredith is making comments about a blog while quoting comments on a blog. She was never too high on my list of good journalists but I think she’s just dropped below Danny Morrison. [enough II – edited moderator]

  • Rory

    “Wrong, Rory, as anyone who has actually made the jump from the comment zone to blogging will attest to.”

    That is merely a subjective riposte, Pete and my understanding of the term as common parlance for all who visit and comment on these sites stands unassailed. Common misnomers eventually – and very swiftly these days- become accepted usage. Tough on the purists, but – tough!

    Anyway, never mind that – when do we get to put the photies up?

  • Roisin

    Christ, just thinking out loud here: I’m not sure that men’s comments on women’s looks are worse than other women’s from some of the reading I’ve been doing recently. Women are often harsher critics of other women and ourselves than many, if not most normal* men.

    She’s good looking and a couple of people commented to that effect. There are few women, or men, who object to being complimented. If she wasn’t good looking what would be the reaction though? I think the answer to that is more telling.

    * Misogynists need not apply.

  • Pete Baker

    The conversation on a blog is the key, which is why Rory is wrong with his high priests comment – it’s not as if we haven’t covered that definition previously.

    Hint: it’s not specific to this site.

    But I have no desire to take the thread down the cul-de-sac of hair-splitting.. that would be a diversion.

    “I think the issue is the content”

    Indeed. And in this case, I’ve pointed to factual errors in the article – as in the initial claim made about the first reaction on Slugger O’Toole which is placed in the introduction to the article.

    As I said to begin with,

    It’s not that Fionola would have an issue with blogging.. or Slugger in particular..

  • Roisin

    [i]what would fionola know…wouldnt touch her with a bargepole
    Posted by bbbbbbb on May 05, 2007 @ 07:48 PM[/i]

    [see above edit – moderator]

    See, the above comments about Fionola Meredith tell me more than the complimentary comments made about Kelly Andrews.

  • Miss Fitz

    I would add to that list Roisin:

    It’s not that Fionola would have an issue with blogging.. or Slugger in particular..

    Posted by Pete Baker on May 05, 2007 @ 10:40 PM

  • Roisin

    The Dubliner

    [quote]Can you tell me why 97% of Nobel prizes have been won by men? Is it because scientific advances that are made by women are hushed up by science or is it because women are less capable than men?

    Can you tell me why all of the great mathematicians are men? Is it because it is illegal for women to use the pencil and paper that is needed to right pure mathematics?

    If you can answer the above, then you’ll have your answer why few women reach the top in politics. And it isn’t because someone asked awkward questions such as the above.[/quote]

    They’re not awkward questions, they’re stupid questions. Fewer women enter these fields and so fewer women are noted for their contribution to them.

  • Pete Baker
  • George

    Pete,
    your argument reminds me of a Sunday newspaper claiming in a libel case that calling somebody a “gay bachelor” was not claiming he was homosexual but merely a description of a happy single man.

    Forgetting the argument about whether calling someone could ever be libellous, it was accepted that the word “gay” had taken on a new meaning.

    I’m with Rory and his acolytes when they argue that for most people today, in 2007, the term “blogging” includes those who post as well as those who reply.

    As for how women are represented, we are in a time where the set “boundaries” have evaporated.

    We live in a world where many men look to protect their workplace fiefdoms while women are expected to make the necessary total sacrifice in search of a career without any hope of receiving the requisite reciprocal rights.

    But we also live in a world where more and more women look to protect their own family fiefdoms by demanding male acquiescence regarding responsibility without the requisite reciprocal rights.

    It looks like being a long war with no winner.

  • George

    Should read “calling someone gay”

  • Miss Fitz

    I thought the following comments about and from Joyce Burnell Bell were worth noting.

    “Many distinguished astronomers including Sir Frederick Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Jeremiah Ostriker have expressed the view that Burnell should have been awarded the Nobel Prize with Hewish and Ryle.”

    “Because [physics and astronomy] are predominately male, inevitably, the standards, the norms are the male. The system doesn’t always stop to think, `Has this person had a career break, perchance, or are there other constraints?’ …Do we use a quantity of achievement as a measure of ability?”

    Burnell reports that her career was shaped in a large part by her husband’s frequent relocations and the birth of a son.

    “A lot of my working life has been driven by family circumstances. I worked part-time for 18 years and was married to a peripatetic husband who moved around an awful lot, so I sought whatever job I could get in astronomy or physics wherever he was… Although we are now much more conscious about equal opportunities I think there are still a number of inbuilt structural disadvantages for women. I am very conscious that having worked part-time, having had a rather disrupted career, my research record is a good deal patchier than any man’s of a comparable age… The life experience of a woman is rather different from that of the male …” — Jocelyn Bell Burnell, 1996.

    You can also find your dot com millionaires, Nobel winners and other succesful women here

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/women.html

    http://www.theresmoretolifethanshoes.com/Interviews.html

  • Miss Fitz

    Sorry, got Professor Bell’s name incorrect in my post. It’s Jocelyn Bell Burnell, of course.

  • Pete Baker

    That’s a bizarre analogy to use, George.

    As a reminder, here’s my earlier criticism of the ‘factual’ content of the article – for those who argue that there is no distinction between the zones –

    Secondly the first comment by an “avid blogger” comes in the original post, by me, and I did in fact reference Andrews as “the co-leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland”.

  • George

    Pete,
    not bizarre in my view. You may argue that there is a distinction but the overwhelming majority of people don’t see one.

    I get the same comments at home as Rory does. The word “blogging” has taken on a more general meaning.

    Dubliner,
    shock, horror, disbelief – men hand out prizes to men and don’t value the work of women.

    Nobel prize winner Otto Hahn but brains of the operation and no Nobel Prize Lise Meitner.

  • Miss Fitz

    No pete
    She was referring to the comment after the post. She was referring to Yokel as the avid blogger, and indeed Yokel is/was very avid here at one time if not still.

    She was simply saying that the first comment after the post was to objectify Kelly, and not assess her on her merit.

    Let it go

  • Pete Baker

    “but the overwhelming majority of people don’t see one.”

    So much for the supposed expertise of journalists, george.

    Miss Fitz

    I realise that you are more focussed on the general argument, but the specific targetting of Slugger, which I know you don’t see, should be countered.

    And I’ve pointed out where, especially for those who see no distinction between the zones, the claims made in the article are false.

  • George

    Pete,
    I think you misunderstand me. Meredith is using words as the majority of us understand them.

    In further defence of Meredith, she does say Yokel’s is the “the very first comment on Slugger O’Toole”. I see no targeting of Slugger.

    I see “comment” and “blogger” and from that I get commenter on a blog.

    That said, if I see “thread” and “blogger” I also get blogger.

    But Meredith has put in the necessary words for those who want to to make the distinction.

    Providing the facts as you need them without clogging up the article unnecessarily = good journalism.

  • Miss Fitz

    Pete
    The article says ‘ the very first comment on Slugger O’Toole, a popular northern politics blog.’

    Now, what exactly is false about that? She described Yokel as an ‘avid blogger’ and some might argue that is an accurate description.

    I think you need to be very clear about exactly which claim in the article is false.

  • Rory

    Can anyone please explain why so few Dubliners have won a Nobel prize? Or why a Dubliner was not first to split the atom or write “Capital” or “Don Quixote” or compose Beethoven’s Fifth or identify the genetic code or to have a bonny baby or to make baked beans on toast?

    Were they all too busy running around looking for the square root of 2, do you think? I think we should be told.

  • Pete Baker

    I’ve been very clear in what I’ve said, Miss Fitz.

    But for those who argue that there is no distinction between the original post and the subsequent comments on that post.

    Secondly the first comment by an “avid blogger” comes in the original post, by me, and I did in fact reference Andrews as “the co-leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland”.

  • Miss Fitz

    Pete
    We obviously have very different interpretations.

    You are calling what you wrote both a post AND a comment.

    I would argue it has to be one or the other. In this case, I believe you wrote a post, and comment number one is from Yokel

    If your post is also a comment, the numbering system should start at 2 and not 1 as it presently does.

    You refer to Kelly Andrews appropriately in the post, BUT THE FIRST COMMENT went on to objectify her.

    I think you are trying to make out that what you said should have been taken into consideration, and that is just petulant

  • Rory

    …and why has a Dubliner never been cited as a hero among those of the Sioux Nation who defeated Custer at Little Big Horn?

    I simply cannot understand how history can be so remiss, so cruel. Is it not time that Dubliners were treated as valuable human beings like any other despite those obvious shortcomings such as those above mentioned (and others too numerous to recount)? Surely we are today a much more tolerant society. Or is this a step too far for the mind of human society to contemplate at this stage of its development?

  • Pete Baker

    “You are calling what you wrote both a post AND a comment.

    I would argue it has to be one or the other.”

    *shakes head*

  • George

    Rory,
    “and why has a Dubliner never been cited as a hero among those of the Sioux Nation who defeated Custer at Little Big Horn?”

    Because like Charles Banks, Richard Farrell, John Foley, Michael Caddle, John Dolan, William Eades and many more, the Dubs were too busy fighting on the other side.

  • Rory

    Now, now, George, it’s a bit late to be introducing logic into this debate. You will start confusing the misogynists.

    Anyway, any old fool could get himself enlisted in the US 7th Cavalry and only a idiot of a man would ever have followed Custer. You didn’t get many women riding along with him. They had much more sense. Even Libby made sure to stay at home and grow rich on the hagiography that inevitable and happy widowhood conferred on her.

  • The Dubliner

    “Dubliner – you are a tiresome idiot – try and create a society where women are equal for God’s sake.” – Dewi

    Child, it is not up to me or anyone to make women as capable of high achievement as men are. That is a matter for genetics.

    “They’re not awkward questions, they’re stupid questions. Fewer women enter these fields and so fewer women are noted for their contribution to them.” – Roisin

    And why do fewer enter fields where intellectual brilliance is needed to achieve success? Explaining that anomaly in almost every field where it applies – physics, economics, chemistry, mathematics, business, etc – by simply stating that women weren’t interested in those fields doesn’t do anything but affirm my point that women are not as capable as men as can be objectively determined by comparing their respective achievements. Your argument leaves women stuck in the caves since it was only men who were interested in progressing from them – and women were only along for the ride.

    “You can also find your dot com millionaires, Nobel winners and other succesful women here

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/women.html

    http://www.theresmoretolifethanshoes.com/Interviews.html” – Miss Fitz

    Completely irrelevant since there was no claim made that women have not won Nobel Prizes. Indeed, I specifically stated that women have won 3% of them. The claim was that the evidence all points to men being more capable than women in areas were brilliance is needed to succeed.

    That is why there are no female dot com billionaires, despite there being absolutely no barrier to women being as successful as men were at a time when only a personal computer and a brilliant idea was needed to succeed. Ergo, the issue wasn’t the modest levels of ability that is needed to become a millionaire (and that is very modest indeed): it is the brilliance that is needed to become a billionaire. Only men have shown that brilliance despite both genders operating in the dot com boom and despite both genders wishing to be rich and successful. What was it, exactly, that stopped a two women from developing the information algorithms that started Google or driving it to mega success, for example? Why are all of the software billionaires men?

    “Dubliner,
    shock, horror, disbelief – men hand out prizes to men and don’t value the work of women.

    Nobel prize winner Otto Hahn but brains of the operation and no Nobel Prize Lise Meitner.” – George

    Can you provide examples to support your claim that great scientific advances by women were ignored? It’s hard to think of any scientific advance in the 20th century that hasn’t received an award, isn’t it? Do you think that if a woman had discovered the quark or DNA, for examples, that we would not have heard of these discoveries?

    In your thesis, the fact that women have received less than 3% of Nobel Prizes and men have received 97% is not evidence that men are more capable than women as high-achievers, but is, in fact, evidence of a sinister conspiracy by men to suppress the brilliant achievement of women. Talk horseshit much? 😉

  • The Dubliner

    Oh, and George, don’t forget to post that list showing that all of the achievements by men that were awarded by the Nobel Committee were actually achievements that belonged to women. Murray Gell-Man (the man who discovered the quark that I mentioned) will, no doubt, be most distressed to be exposed as a fraud instead of being seen as one of the most brilliant physicists since Einstein. That will be quite a long list so take all the time you need to compile it. I’m sure you’ll have shown us that the true number is the politically correct 50/50 at the end of the exercise, and not 3/97.

  • The Dubliner

    Let me simply the argument for all of those who are of the dismal PC disposition that proffers claims that are not supported by anything more substantive than hysterical invective. The objective evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the ‘genius gene’ (whatever that quality is that makes people ultra-achievers) is predominantly found among the male gender. Ergo, those who argue that the female is as equally capable of generating brilliant achievers as the male gender is are simply deluding themselves, choosing to either ignore the objective evidence to the contrary or proffer an incessant litany of cockamamie reasons why the objective evidence is doesn’t support the contrary conclusion.

    Most of these reasons have the male gender in the role of suppressor and have an agenda of promoting negative discrimination against men in securing more high-achiever (without the achievement) roles for women in the workplace (or in politics). However, there is a reason why only a handful of the Fortune 500 companies have chosen to promote women CEOs: the reason is because shareholders are only concerned about maximizing their profits and will choose their CEO on the basis of exceptional ability. You need brilliance to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company and that brilliance is more commonly found among men than women – hence the statistics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gender bias as women are found of claiming. If a woman can make shareholders richer, she’ll get the job. Women see negative discrimination as being a mechanism to get them the best jobs without being, necessarily, the best candidate for the job. That sexism by women is simply a self-serving ruse. Likewise, there was nothing whatsoever to stop women from becoming great mathematicians. All that was needed for the purpose was a pencil, paper, and that mysterious genius gene, yet all of the great mathematicians were men. Again women will seek to explain this anomaly by factors that are irrelevant, since mathematics has a form of beauty that draws its practitioners to it. If the genius was there in equal numbers in both genders, then it would have found expression in equal numbers in both genders. No man forbid a woman from writing pure mathematics, so claims of discrimination are hogwash. Nor did any man forbid a woman from coming up with a brilliant idea during the dot com boom when only a brilliant idea was needed to make a fortune. But not one single female dot com billionaire was generated – nor did 30 years of the software business generate one single female billionaire. Men dominated all the great achievements here too. That is why men have won 97% of Nobel Prizes (a prize that serves as a truly objective and gender-neutral measure of brilliant achievement). It is not because science has hushed-up great advances by women or wrongly awarded the prize to the token male in the ‘team’ (as George suggested). If a woman discovered a cure for cancer, it would not be hushed-up in-order to suppress women.

    As the evidence shows, the reason that women aren’t as successful as men in areas that require outstanding ability is simply because women don’t have that ability as much as men do. For every one female genius in any field of enterprise there are nineteen male geniuses. That is why you will see men dominate. And setting quotas that there aren’t enough brilliant women to fill won’t change that – as you’ll see in 50 years time when that Fortune 500 list has the same overwhelmingly domination of male brilliance as it has now.

    In regards to politics – well, folks elect the mediocre so perhaps none of the above is particularly relevant to this thread after all. 😉

  • Roisin

    The Dubliner,

    I wasn’t gonna bother*, as you’re such a long winded bore as well as such a cretinous boor.

    The only intellectual difference between men and women, relating to mathematics, is a part of the brain dealing with spatial awareness (and it’s probably why you think you have a big one, while the women you show it to just laugh out loud). Men are better at spatial coordination than women because that part of their brain is better developed than women. Women’s brains catch up though, usually by the time they’re in their 30s. The only impact, mathematically, this has on girls/women is that sometimes girls/women find trigonometry more difficult than boys/men, not from a pencil and paper equation pov, but in terms of visualising. Nurture or nature is unknown. Boys are given lego and mechano, girls are given dolls and plastic teasets to play with.

    Eastern European, former communist bloc countries, produce proportionately far more women in science and engineering than western countries. Why do you think that is? Go on, in less than 200 words (that’s important, my limited attention span for reading tripe you see) see if you can figure that one out all by yourself. Feel free to use a pencil and paper if you need to.

    * Five minutes of my life I’ll never get back because of this.

  • Dewi

    Pete and Miss Fitz – keep on bickering all day today also. It’s fun.

  • Porlock

    Meredith is a one-trick pony when it comes to writing and regards herself as some sort of authority on the matters of women and their supposed rights.

    It’s what she does, albeit not particularly well.

    She is neither a valued nor a mainstream journalist, just a hack commentator who earns a crust and a “look-at-me” byline where she can. There is clearly a continuing market for this type of pseudo-intellectual femminist mopery, so let her get on with it.

    Meanwhile, I’m off to get Mrs Porlock her newspapers and breakfast. She knows her place. I know mine.

    Porlock

  • Would some direct me to the literature on the ‘genius’ gene – what is apparently only possessed by males?

    I am still living apparently in the past, where only several genes are primarily responsible for intelligence, and they are not just held by males, as this link indicates:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/850.358.stm

  • Rory

    The Dubliner has convinced me – men are wonderful. How did we ever manage before they came along? Now there’s a question – must be a Nobel Prize winning piece of research in there somewhere.

  • Benn

    I’m with Dewi, a bit too much bickering. So two main questions going on here. 1) The place of women generally, and politicians and other power types specifically, in the north, and 2) the sanctity of blogging and bloggers and the slippery slope of generalizing, etc etc. The second one I’ll leave to those of you so inclined. For the first question let me loop around the initial concern raised by Miss Fitz but come at it from another direction. Last week a woman was talking about society and the “justice” system in relation to rape. One in five or six reported, then how many of those came to trail, how many of those earned convictions, and how much time (average four months) was served by convicts. Whether or not her stats were spot on, the take away message for her – and for me – was that women don’t count for very much in their very essence as far as the system is concerned. So starting from the innocent individual, if women are treated so poorly and society doesn’t condemn it, how much is to be expected of their role/place/rights at the top of the heap? Commenting on their looks before coming to the content of their character or their intellect is no surprise. Any news programs offered anywhere with topless males doing the reading? Curious about Dawn Purvis though… Anyway, point 1, I’m with Miss Fitz et al. Ben

  • Porlock

    Countless millions of years of evolution and women still haven’t got the bloody message!!

    They are either complicit in how society treats them or they are incapable of doing much to prevent it. Cut that cookie how you will and men still come out on top.

    Look at the magazines aimed at women—and mostly written by women. Look at the women’s sections in the national press—again, mostly written by women.

    It’s part of your genetic make-up. Girly, fluffy, child-bearing, tailored clothing, lipsticks, bright colours. And do you know something? It really is ok. You don’t need to get hung up on it. It’s nature, red in tooth and claw.

    Whinge all you like, ladies, this is a battle you are never going to win. And why? Because deep down most of you don’t actually want to win.

    Porlock

  • Social Darwinism – with the feminist coda a la The Dubliner – in a new mode, Porlock.

    “In Social Darwinism,” David S. Brown wrote in his biography of Richard Hofstadter, “he argued that deeply internalized beliefs moved people, for ultimately whoever controlled the prevailing value system – defining God, morality, politics, and patriotism – won the right to apportion rewards.” (p. 29)

    In sum, do some reading and reflection before you pontificate again, please.

  • fair_deal

    I wouldn’t be getting to het up about the mention of slugger. Fionola has been carrying a grudge ever since one of her articles got a mauling. Hence the reductionism of the thread comments that SuperSoupy identified.

    Those more used to the cosy and closeted world of media luvvies can’t seem to cope with the blogsphere so try and put it in a negative pigeonhole.

  • Wilde Rover

    To play devil’s advocate,

    Let us consider the possibility that Yokel was merely making a pithy, ironic observation about the style over substance nature of 21st century politics.

    After all, aren’t young, dynamic, good looking politicians, both male and female, all the rage?

    Perhaps, in the interest of balance, female sluggers might want to suggest which of the male politicians, from across the divide, are “lookers”.

    Would Gerry Kelly and Jeffrey Donaldson, with that whole Daniel O’Donnell thing, lock down the older female vote?

    Who are the young political studs who, as they spin around the electoral pole, tickle the fancy of the younger female voters?

  • Wilde Rover

    At the risk of muddying the semantic waters further:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blog

    According to one source, blogging includes adding material, yet another source suggests the verb blog means to read, write, or edit a shared online journal.

    Is writing in the comments section considered adding material?

    And even if it is, it’s still in conflict with the latter source.

  • Mick Fealty

    Fascinating discussion.

    Both Fionnola and Kelly have had real cause to complain about comments on their appearance in the past on Slugger. So, although Soupy’s comments at the top of the thread are absolutely fair and accurate, I would not like to see us dodge the issue she raises, or somehow to have people believe it doesn’t happen. It clearly does.

    And I’m not sure she is actually picking on Slugger as anything other than a reflection of the reality that women politicians meet day in, day out – though Roisin’s remarks are reflected in Naomi Long’s observation that in the chamber some of the worse personal comments come from other women.

    Yet Naomi has proved herself to be one of the most able politicians in Northern Ireland. I don’t know of anyone, from any of the political parties I’ve spoken to, that doesn’t hold her in high esteem. They mostly attribute that respect to her record, of hard work and consistency.

    We have seen a lot of non politics here in Northern Ireland over the period of the Peace Process™. If politics comes second to the personal, it may be because it has mostly consisted of inscrutable negotiations going on behind closed doors and endless discussions in the chamber of the Stormont Assembly that actually have little import in the real world.

    But I would also say (much as we generally discourage it here on Slugger) that politics invites personal comments. And for some more than others. David Trimble, for instance, attracted endless negative judgements about his notoriously poor interpersonal skills, and sometimes highly personal remarks about his appearance. Political sketch writers often rely on appearance to give real impact to their writing. The Portadown News, for instance, regularly played upon the looks of politicians, often rather cruelly.

    These are not trivial matters. It is a matter of fine judgement as to when a remark slips from fair comment into the abuse zone. Yet how people come across is important in democratic politics, which, particularly when it comes to leadership positions, often comes down to (or at least includes) how people look.

    Bob Pierce, the British Consul General in LA, and former member of the Patten Commission on Policing, noted on Friday that when considering imbalance in policing they noted that women were also seriously under represented, but that European law nonetheless explicitly prevented them from discriminating positively on a gender basis. Nevertheless, as the peace has taken hold, the proportion of women joining rose significantly – I don’t recall if he mentioned a figure.

    Now that politicians seem no longer to be considered ‘legitimate targets’ by loyalist and republican paramilitaries, perhaps more women will follow Kelly’s lead and make the decision to come into politics. I don’t believe they need hippo thick skin, but democratic politics is a rough and tumble game the world over, and its women ‘pioneers’ will needs be prepared for that. But they also have an opportunity to subvert their image with a record in office and perhaps force people to consider them on that record, rather than on appearance alone.

  • femalepolitico

    Miss Fitz makes a very good point, women in politics are judged on their appearence more than anything else, its particularly bad in unionist politics.

    Great to have u back blogging btw Missfitz!

  • Garibaldy

    All politicians take a great deal of abuse. Why should the normal means of operating be suspended for women? Facile.

  • I wonder…

    Politicians should be abused, when they have done wrong, or beeing careless with money or morality or both. They’re fair game.

    Politicians come and go, government continues and women govern.

    What was the result of the last election?

    The same as the one before that: the government got in.

  • Miss Fitz

    Garibaldy
    No -one is suggesting that women should not take the same level and type of abuse as men in the same situation .

    The point of this debate is much narrower. It is the nature of the abuse, or indeed the fact that women in public life are judged first and foremost on their appearance, and then only then, on their intellect, contriubtion or political nous.

    I have always been accepting of the fact that I get a bit of abuse here from time to time, and when its the same kind of abuse as the men get: I have no problem. I cannot think of any other of the contributors who gets the same amount of personal abuse that I have gotten.

    Different rules apply across gender Garibaldy, its a fact.

    Female pol: Thank you kindly!

  • I wonder…

    Miss Fitz
    Seein’ as you’re here, I particularly enjoyed your pics of Rostrevor on Christmas day recently. I’ll be there this year!

  • Miss Fitz

    Cheers IW. Introduce yourself and we can get a hot buttered rum when you come in out of the Lough after your swim!!

  • Porlock

    Trowbridge (11.16am post):

    Don’t understand your point.

    Women are congenital losers in the so-called “battle of the sexes.” It really is that simple. Nature (or God, if you happen to be that old fashioned) has stacked the cards against them. Why fret about it? The world keeps on turning.

    Porlock

  • SuperSoupy

    Miss Fitz,

    While you do get a lot of stick I don’t think you get as much as Chris and you only draw in the amount you take from Pete 😉

  • Miss Fitz

    Soupy
    I take your point, but to be fair, some of the criticism of me in the past became very vindictive and personal. When I first started to post on Slugger, I used this pseudonym, and just kept it on when I started to contribute regularly. However, I have never hidden my identity, particularly through the Flickr photos, so I was open and got a fair amount of invective and nasty commentary.

    I have never heard or seen any of those kind of references to the other guys on here.

  • Iano

    Singleton, Chastity, Tourette’s Syndrome, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Schizophrenia ( +ic).

    These words all have different meanings to people in “The Real World” than the way journalists use them because journailists come from a self-selecting middle-class elite who can use words exactly as they want to mean something that they do not mean in “The Real World” which is why we have the blogger confsusion.

  • Lindsay W

    Fair play to Fionola and Miss Fitz for bringing this up. As a friend and party colleague of Kelly’s the original thread pissed me off at the time too … yes, Kelly’s a good looking girl, (married to a very attractive man) but by God does she work hard for the Greens, she is also one of the most determined women I’ve ever met. Shame people don’t focus on that when discussing her. Let’s face facts too it’s hardly the first time females have been objectified on Slugger either. Women, like men, don’t enter public life to invite comment on their sexual desirability. I believe there’s other websites to cater for that. It’s infuriating too to read the personal comments directed at Fionola – at least both these women have the guts, ability and professionalism to get out there and take this, unlike many of the commentators who have the luxury to take swipes and retain their anonymity.

  • SuperSoupy

    While there are valid and legitimate points to be made on objectification the sweeping generalisations and reductionism of Fionala and now Lindsay do the arguments little service.

    On both topics the vast majority of comments dealt with the subject matter.

    The main thing missing from their complaints are the words ‘some’ and ‘few’ or more accurately ‘very few’. Without them it reads like a hopeless and slightly hysterical victim mentality.

  • Roger

    I didn’t see the original thread but I had to look this girl up and she is quite good looking, its doubtful now if anyone will ever look beyond her looks.

    Besides I remember when the UUP election race was on a person called ‘Female Voter’ kept claiming that sex appeal was vitally important for the new leader and suggested that Empey could not compare with Peter Robinson. It works both ways.

    Incidentally does Kelly have a boyfriend?

  • The Dubliner

    “Would someone direct me to the literature on the ‘genius gene’ – what is apparently possessed by males?” – Throwbridge H. Ford

    Perhaps I could direct you to Specsavers so that you could properly read and reply to what is written instead of what you erroneously assume was written?

    There was no claim made that the genius-level ability that generates outstanding innovations is found only in females: the claim was that it is found predominantly in females (as conclusively demonstrated in the vast majority of scientific achievements, business success, intentions, etc, originating from the male gender).

    “The objective evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the ‘genius gene’ (whatever that quality is that makes people ultra-achievers) is predominantly found among the male gender.”

    “Social Darwinism – with the feminist coda a la The Dubliner – in a new mode, Porlock.” – Throwbridge H. Ford

    There is no element of Social Darwinism involved since their is no social progression via extermination of the weakest. Do you know why that might be? Let me clue you in: one gender cannot exterminate the other without exterminating itself.

    Did you receive your doctorate from the same university as Ian Paisley?

    “In Social Darwinism,” David S. Brown wrote in his biography of Richard Hofstadter, “he argued that deeply internalized beliefs moved people, for ultimately whoever controlled the prevailing value system – defining God, morality, politics, and patriotism – won the right to apportion rewards.” (p. 29) – Throwbridge H. Ford

    Ah yes… well what would a Throwbridge H. Ford post be without a conspiracy theory, eh? This is a rehash of George’s claim that the male members of the Nobel Prize committee have ignored the scientific advances of women, despite awarding 3% of those prizes to the female gender.

    If you wish to prove this conspiracy theory then you will need to show (a) that the scientific advances by the female gender in the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, economics, etc, were equal in number and importance to the number made by the male gender; and (b) that a number of un-awarded scientific achievement by the male gender does not exist that is equal to or greater than the number of un-awarded scientific achievement by the female gender; and (c) that peer nomination groups and the Nobel committee itself have successfully engaged in a systematic campaign of suppressing scientific achievement by the female gender for over a century.

    How are you going to do that, Mr Ford, when all of the great scientific achievements are already documented, the gender known, and men dominate in a number that is consistent with the ratio that the Nobel Committee has given us of 3/97?

  • The Dubliner

    Correction: “There was no claim made that the genius-level ability that generates outstanding innovations is found only in females: the claim was that it is found predominantly in males (as conclusively demonstrated in the vast majority of scientific achievements, business success, intentions, etc, originating from the male gender).”

    Don’t you love Freudian slips?

  • The Dubliner

    Okay, I’ll try that again:

    “Would someone direct me to the literature on the ‘genius gene’ – what is apparently [b]only[/b] possessed by males?” – Throwbridge H. Ford

    Perhaps I could direct you to Specsavers so that you could properly read and reply to what is written instead of what you erroneously assume was written?

    There was no claim made that the genius-level ability that generates outstanding innovations is found only in [b]males[/b]: the claim was that it is found predominantly in [b]males[/b] (as conclusively demonstrated in the vast majority of scientific achievements, business success, intentions, etc, originating from the male gender).

    “The objective evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the ‘genius gene’ (whatever that quality is that makes people ultra-achievers) is predominantly found among the male gender.”

    (Apologies for the spam)

  • Elvira

    Dubliner
    First, can we have your figures for your assertion that 3% of Nobel Laureates are women? The figure is not much higher, but it is actually higher than you contend.

    Secondly, with the advanced research that is being done in this field of isolating the ‘genius gene’, there is little scope for your speculation that it is more prvalent in the male species.

    Finally, you are incorrect in saying that there are no dot com female millionaires, there are.

    I have no hesitation in saying that women and men have different strengths and abilities. Women bear children for one thing, and in order to propogate the species she must be prepared to care and nurture her off spring.

    That does not preclude or presume that women are less intelligent or capable than men.

    What we do know is that for many generations, women were dominated in society by men. Since the liberalisation of society in general, we have seen women in the Western world come to much greater prominence in many fields, although that is not to say that there are historical examples of excellence in the past.

    I’m afraid I dont think much of your arguments, and I feel you lack a genuine basis for making them.

  • The Dubliner

    “First, can we have your figures for your assertion that 3% of Nobel Laureates are women? The figure is not much higher, but it is actually higher than you contend.”- Elvira

    If the figures you have show it to be higher, why don’t you post the figures you have instead of me posting a URL to the Nobel site?

    “Secondly, with the advanced research that is being done in this field of isolating the ‘genius gene’, there is little scope for your speculation that it is more prvalent in the male species.”- Elvira

    Proof please. It would be nice if equal ability to succeed could be proved in a laboratory, saving us all the trouble of having to search for it in actual success, wouldn’t it?

    “Finally, you are incorrect in saying that there are no dot com female millionaires, there are.”- Elvira

    You know, I really think Slugger should run ads for online spectacle companies. I made no claim about millionaires.

    “That is why there are no female dot com billionaires, despite there being absolutely no barrier to women being as successful as men were at a time when only a personal computer and a brilliant idea was needed to succeed. Ergo, the issue wasn’t the modest levels of ability that is needed to become a millionaire (and that is very modest indeed): it is the brilliance that is needed to become a billionaire. Only men have shown that brilliance despite both genders operating in the dot com boom and despite both genders wishing to be rich and successful.”

    Put simply: Millionaire = any Tom Dick or Mary. Billionaires = genius-level ability.

    “That does not preclude or presume that women are less intelligent or capable than men.” – Elvira

    Women can wipe their backsides as successfully as men can. However, the issue isn’t commonplace ability: it is the exceptional ability that is needed for exceptional success. The objective evidence shows that it is found predominantly among the male gender. That is why men dominate all areas where brilliance is needed to succeed. I don’t see any other way to measure exceptional ability than by observing exceptional results. Still, as I said, I’m looking forward to seeing it in a microscope (or whatever).

    “What we do know is that for many generations, women were dominated in society by men.” – Elvira

    Yawn… the male in the role of suppressor again. If it wasn’t for man’s ingenuity, women would still be trying to figure out what function fire has beyond setting their greasy hair on fire. It isn’t women who have made the great advances that have propelled us all forward, is it?

    “Since the liberalisation of society in general, we have seen women in the Western world come to much greater prominence in many fields, although that is not to say that there are historical examples of excellence in the past.” – Elvira

    Such as developing the Internet? That came after “liberalization” (whatever that is supposed to mean) but women didn’t have the brilliant ideas that drove it or, indeed, the personal computer or the software that runs it forward, did they? You will find women as programmers, business people, ect, but you won’t find them in the dynamic roles where that ‘genius gene’ is needed. Still, Roisin has assured us that is because women are mentally disabled by a mathematical handicap, so I guess we should just right-off anything that requires mathematical ability out of gender fairness, eh?

    “I’m afraid I dont think much of your arguments, and I feel you lack a genuine basis for making them.” – Elvira

    They’re not even arguments, really: they’re just pointing at the overwhelming objective evidence and drawing the appropriate conclusion from them (and not the inappropriate Politically Correct conclusion. It’s a good thing I don’t do online dating from message boards, eh?

  • SuperSoupy

    Say what you will about woman but I think we have conclusive evidence on the biggest dickhead.

  • Roisin

    The Dubliner,

    [quote]Still, Roisin has assured us that is because women are mentally disabled by a mathematical handicap, so I guess we should just right-off anything that requires mathematical ability out of gender fairness, eh?[/quote]

    Whatever ‘handicap’ I may have pointed out (if that’s what I did), none compare to the utter complete fool you have made of yourself.

    [quote]Such as developing the Internet? That came after “liberalization” (whatever that is supposed to mean) but women didn’t have the brilliant ideas that drove it or, indeed, the personal computer or the software that runs it forward, did they? You will find women as programmers, business people, ect, but you won’t find them in the dynamic roles where that ‘genius gene’ is needed.[/quote]

    Funny that the programming language, Ada, was named after the woman who is recognised as the first computer programmer. She also corrected Babbage’s errors. All in a short period of a few months, not a lifetime devoted to the subject. Genius gene, you say? You wouldn’t know one if it dribbled out of you.

  • The Dubliner

    SS, it’s not that I see you as a nasty piece of work despite your careful presentation of yourself as such. I don’t. I’m sure you have redeeming qualities, such as volunteering to do unpaid overtime at your local “Dollar N’ Pop” glory hole booth, and proffering your rectum to tired old Long-John Silver as a place to park his pegleg before retiring to his hammock for the night, but you could you do us all a favour and keep your impudence out of this thread if all you have to contribute to it is no more impressive or substantive than your party piece of as using your protruding harelip as a guitar pick? Thanks.

    Roisin, I’m not sure if you are actually stupid or simply trolling, but I am inclined toward the former. Nevertheless, I will repeat (perhaps pointlessly) the salient point that you are unable to grasp: “There was no claim made that the genius-level ability that generates outstanding innovations is found only in males: the claim was that it is found predominantly in males (as conclusively demonstrated in the vast majority of scientific achievements, business success, intentions, etc, originating from the male gender).”

    Now, child, since no-one claimed that women were not capable of genius, why are you wasting my time refuting a claim that wasn’t made? Desperation of some unspecified sort? 😉

  • Elvira

    Dubliner

    Since 1901, the Nobel Prize has been awarded to 768 people. Of those, 33 were women.

    Marie Curie won the prize on 2 occasions.

    That works out as a percentage of 4.3%

    As I said before, its a small difference, but it illustrates how shallow and inaccurate your arguments are really.

  • ffffarttrrricck

    miss fitz re: post 17
    im guilty of calling you some nasty things in the past. i apologise for being so childish

  • What an incredible amount of spam, including vague allusions to some of the conspiracies which have plagued the world, The Dubliner!

    You cannot even spell my name correctly, and then you turn my claim about what you are saying completely on its head. Then you modify your argument by stating that men have more of the ‘genius gene’ when there apparently is no such gene, citing an unattributed quotation – apparently something you made up to support your own version of Social Darwinism. The Nobel Prize is the highest example of how man-made myths are the standard by which morality, politics, patriotism, and the like are judged and rewarded. And Brown’s book isn’t a rehash of anything which has been posted on this claptrap thread.

    Do some reading and reflection before you spout off again.

  • For a good example of how men direct the world’s development, and reap its rewards – a much better guide than the claptrap about the Nobel Prize winners (Kissinger getting the Peace Prize?) – note the links on the first women astronauts:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6613934,00.html

    http://www.starhop.com/cm_bio.htm

    The first 13 women astromots were sidelined so that the male ones could take all the glory and rewards, and then when the US was involved in a most dangerous, covert mission with the Challenger – sending up a bulky laser to put its first weapons in space – sending up Christa McAuliffe as the first civilian in space in case the whole operation went up in smoke. And when it did, everyone was talking about what happened to the guinea-pig woman rather than the laser.

    Just think of what would have happened if the Nobel Committees had honored women like Jane Fonda, that woman challenging the Burmese tyrants, etc., ad nauseam. It certainly would have resulted in much less scraping the bottom of the barrel for the male dregs.

  • susan

    Well, it is surely a bright new day dawning when a smug wee shite seeking to add some frisson of excitement to his existance must resort to citing the number of Nobel laureates and dot.com billionaires (most pointedly not mere millionaires) to stake his claims in yet another round of “it’s true that the women are worse than the men.”

    When Jocelyn Bell Burnell and my mother were coming of age, the argument would have been, “Why are there so few women doctors, soliticitors, philosophers, professors…etc.” but in a few short decades the gap has narrowed to Nobel laureates and dot.com billionaires. Huzzah.

    Perhaps our number cruncher (pardon, I’m running late and I’ve forgotten your poster name) could do a comparison of English born versus Irish born laureates, or Jews or C of E versus Roman Catholic laureates? I am neither English, Jewish, nor C of E, but it would be kind of exciting to be here when the Dubliner discovers historical context and other variables. Rather like being present at the discovery of a new species.

    I suspect there always will be some gaps, for reasons more to do with society and the demands of family, reasons more emotional and moral than intellectual. There will always be women, and countless men as well, that compromise their career trajectories to better nurture future generations, whether through parenting, teaching and education, etc. I would argue that should be more a source of hope for the future than despair.

    Mick Fealty’s points in his post were excellent, and badly needed to be stated in this thread. Miss Fitz I am so happy to see you blogging again more regularly now that you’ve completed your studies, as I’ve said. I know objectivity is infinitely easier up here in the cheap seats, but as a gentle suggestion, the next instance you have an important topic you do not want to see personalised or trivialised…perhaps a more illuminating title than “Slap on the Wrist for Slugger” next time? It is too bad permission was not granted to provide longer excerpts from the main piece for non-subscribers.

    I admire greatly women who forge ahead in politics despite remarks infinitely more personal and inappropriate than Yokel’s (and that is just addressing the compliments). I’m sure Kelly Andrews, Naomi Long, and our growing number of female politicos would no more be deterred by these remarks than Gerry or Martin would have to be coaxed out of the coat closet with bikkies for unkind remarks about Gerry’s beard of Martin’s curls.

    And that is just one reason they will continue to earn growing respect, influence and prominence.

  • Bill

    “Slap on the Wrist for Slugger?” next time.

    Taking a lead from #83 as the current title is too Australian.

  • SuperSoupy

    Dubliner,

    I didn’t think your nonsense was worthy of much thought but as you need it spelt out for you – judging the ability of women without intense examination of societal and other factors, merely concentrating on outcome in limited fields is just the same as saying Africans are mentally inferior to Europeans.

    It’s a base bigotry dressed up as science or fact.

    I’ll leave you to your attempts at gratuitous offense you aren’t worth wasting time on.

  • coldflow

    I visit this site only on rare occasions and I came on looking for some intelligent satire on the ‘transfigured’ Dr Ian. Reading this thread I’m amazed at how introspective the regular bloggers are. The main issue Meredith raises is far more interesting than dancing on a pin head about the nature of blogging – a pity it hasn’t been discussed. Perhaps this underlines Meredith’s point – the male bloggers couldn’t care less about the ‘women in public life’ issue.

  • miss fitz

    Fartrick

    Your apology has meant a lot to me thank you.

    It’s so easy in this anonymous ether world to forget that the people we discourse with are mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, in short that there is a human lurking behind the keyboard. I appreciate that you made the effort.

  • Yokel

    God I missed out on all of this.

    Who would have believed some, who is this person Meredith? A Journo or something? would have bothered to raise this.

    Anyway, thanks a lot to her for thinking what I said was important enough to actually repeat & comment on. I couldnt have asked for more if I had paid her to do it.

    But well done to her for missing the entire point of my post which I remember well, which was it’ll be a shock to the system for the Orange Order to be dealing with a woman and an attractive one at that. I wouldnt be the only oen thinking that.

    Does it make a difference that she’s a woman and attractive? Actually yes it may do, it may help her it may hinder her.

    Fact, live with it.

  • The Dubliner

    Trowbridge, you have failed to support your claim (that the Nobel committee has ignored the achievement of women and favoured the achievement of men) with the evidence. It is merely your assertion.

    Instead, you have adopted the standard defense of the Politicaly Correct brigade of intolerant bigots (which I am surprised to find you among), which is a quasi-fascist approach of ignoring the evidence, alleging a sinister conspiracy (if the first preference of ignoring isn’t working), and enaging in incessant ad hominem attacks against the person presenting the evidence, hoping that such abuse will end the debate. It won’t. It’s water off a duck’s back. The conclusion is derived because of a social consensus that it is the Politically Correct conclusion to draw irrespective of what the evidence is. Not very scientific, is it?

    “If you wish to prove this conspiracy theory then you will need to show (a) that the scientific advances by the female gender in the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, economics, etc, were equal in number and importance to the number made by the male gender; and (b) that a number of un-awarded scientific achievement by the male gender does not exist that is equal to or greater than the number of un-awarded scientific achievement by the female gender; and (c) that peer nomination groups and the Nobel committee itself have successfully engaged in a systematic campaign of suppressing scientific achievement by the female gender for over a century.”

    Ignore it is you choose, but it won’t be any less valid just because you do. 😉

    “I didn’t think your nonsense was worthy of much thought but as you need it spelt out for you – judging the ability of women without intense examination of societal and other factors, merely concentrating on outcome in limited fields is just the same as saying Africans are mentally inferior to Europeans.

    It’s a base bigotry dressed up as science or fact.” – SuperSoupy

    And that is base idiocy dressed up as sanctimonious piety. We are not talking about race: the topic is gender. You are making a tripe attempt to confuse two wholly distinct issues. You are fail to grasp the other fundamental flaw in your analogy: it is that women do not live on separate continents to men, so comparing two factors that co-exist in one location with factors that separate is just idiotic. In short, there are mitigating reasons why Africans are poorer in scientific achievement to the West, but the analogy has no relevance whatsoever to the issue under discussion.

    And while we’re on the topic: frankly, I’d be surprised if you ever got close enough to pussy to notice the startling resemblance between the both of you.