Sexist Publishing Company? on 17:15 - Feb 15 with 1381 views | Flashberryjack | You couldn't make it, other than in a sketch from the two Ronnies. | |
| |
Sexist Publishing Company? on 22:13 - Feb 16 with 1273 views | BrynCartwright | Sorry; just another blatant sexist promotion of females over males. Where is the meritocracy here? If all the best authors were female I would applaud endlessly because they deserved it. Just, please, have some regard for the people that work for it and produce the best works. | |
| |
Sexist Publishing Company? on 23:04 - Feb 16 with 1251 views | londonlisa2001 |
Sexist Publishing Company? on 22:13 - Feb 16 by BrynCartwright | Sorry; just another blatant sexist promotion of females over males. Where is the meritocracy here? If all the best authors were female I would applaud endlessly because they deserved it. Just, please, have some regard for the people that work for it and produce the best works. |
"Just, please, have some regard for the people that work for it and produce the best works." That's sort of the whole point. For decades and decades, that hasn't applied. I don't personally agree with any sort of positive discrimination, simply because I get fed up of people saying 'you only got that because you're a woman and you're meeting a quota'. But the flip side is people say that anyway I guess. Only substitute 'who have you slept with' for 'meeting a quota'. The difficulty is redressing the balance on any number of things that for ever have been subject to positive discrimination the other way. You just haven't noticed it. And the media haven't reported it. There has never been a meritocracy. Because of blatant sexist promotion of males over females. I'll give you a small example. Last week, as I'm sure you know, saw the 100th anniversary of a percentage of women first getting the vote. Understandably, there was media attention. And we had to listen to Matthew Parris on Radio 4 complaining that women were dominating the reporting. And he felt threatened by it. For one bloody week! Imagine how women feel for the other 51 weeks of the year, and 52 weeks of every other year. | | | |
Sexist Publishing Company? on 05:05 - Feb 17 with 1204 views | Mo_Wives |
Sexist Publishing Company? on 23:04 - Feb 16 by londonlisa2001 | "Just, please, have some regard for the people that work for it and produce the best works." That's sort of the whole point. For decades and decades, that hasn't applied. I don't personally agree with any sort of positive discrimination, simply because I get fed up of people saying 'you only got that because you're a woman and you're meeting a quota'. But the flip side is people say that anyway I guess. Only substitute 'who have you slept with' for 'meeting a quota'. The difficulty is redressing the balance on any number of things that for ever have been subject to positive discrimination the other way. You just haven't noticed it. And the media haven't reported it. There has never been a meritocracy. Because of blatant sexist promotion of males over females. I'll give you a small example. Last week, as I'm sure you know, saw the 100th anniversary of a percentage of women first getting the vote. Understandably, there was media attention. And we had to listen to Matthew Parris on Radio 4 complaining that women were dominating the reporting. And he felt threatened by it. For one bloody week! Imagine how women feel for the other 51 weeks of the year, and 52 weeks of every other year. |
In honour of that great day 100 years ago, thought I'd share this image I dug out in my research. As you can see it shows old Emmiline Pankhurst, when in the middle of her usual troublemaking and shouting of racial epithets, she accidentally inhaled a Dorito, which became lodged in her throat. Luckily there was a friendly member of the police force on hand to deliver a quick Heimlich manoeuver to the moaning git, so she could get back to her moaning.... God bless the Patriarchy. | |
| |
| |