ADD YOUR POST FOR INTERNATIONAL WOMENS DAY

First topic message reminder :



Her daughter also won a Nobel Prize

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

100% agreed, hence why you failed to read my point, here it is again:

 only those who create inequality see sides and differences between people.

And these are the people that need to be exposed and an International Women's day is an ideal opportunity to highlight these injustices just as Sam is doing. Correct?

Many people face inequality, is the point women, or equality for all?
The point is equality for all, you do not achieve that based off fighting for one group, but fighting for equality for all.
Do you not agree?

I'll fight (if I could) for women to have equal rights - that's the point here isn't it?

On a wider scale everyone deserves equality but we can't just bundle them all up together to solve them all at the same time. It was International women's day and an ideal moment to highlight what is still going on after all these years.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Many people face inequality, is the point women, or equality for all?
The point is equality for all, you do not achieve that based off fighting for one group, but fighting for equality for all.
Do you not agree?

I'll fight (if I could) for women to have equal rights - that's the point here isn't it?

On a wider scale everyone deserves equality but we can't just bundle them all up together to solve them all at the same time.  It was International women's day and an ideal moment to highlight what is still going on after all these years.

Wrong again.
The central point is equality, the fact is we can divide this into countless areas is side tracking from the very issue of people understanding the fundemental point of equality for all.
Sure champion sub related issues and the need to, but when you champion a day on equality, it has to be a day you champion this for all.
Do you not agree?

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

100% agreed, hence why you failed to read my point, here it is again:

 only those who create inequality see sides and differences between people.

Nah, I think you mean only those who believe in differences between people create inequality.

I see plenty of differences in the treatment people receive based on the differences some perceive between them

Are you asking me tomato or tomatoo?
You have basically said the exact same thing I have just said.
Inequality is created by those who see differences.

I think I said the same thing you meant But it sort of sounded like you were saying that if you even perceive differences in how people are treated, you create inequality.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Are you asking me tomato or tomatoo?
You have basically said the exact same thing I have just said.
Inequality is created by those who see differences.

I think I said the same thing you meant But it sort of sounded like you were saying that if you even perceive differences in how people are treated, you create inequality.

Sorry mate, this annoys me, it sounded?
Seriously?
You mean you read it a certain way did you not?
You interpreteted this a certain way to your train of thought?
Your formed your own view from what I stated and even then it was wrong.
People have differences in many apsects as we are all individuals. It is creating differences where none really exist that brings about inequality.
That is what I meant.

Good night mate

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Many people face inequality, is the point women, or equality for all?
The point is equality for all, you do not achieve that based off fighting for one group, but fighting for equality for all.
Do you not agree?

I'll fight (if I could) for women to have equal rights - that's the point here isn't it?

On a wider scale everyone deserves equality but we can't just bundle them all up together to solve them all at the same time.  It was International women's day and an ideal moment to highlight what is still going on after all these years.

Wrong again.
The central point is equality, the fact is we can divide this into countless areas is side tracking from the very issue of people understanding the fundemental point of equality for all.
Sure champion sub related issues and the need to, but when you champion a day on equality, it has to be a day you champion this for all.
Do you not agree?

So you are saying that we should fight for ALL equalities ALL at the same time and not focus on any specific equalities like women's rights?

Sam Harris is focusing on just women's rights in that clip I gave you. Is he wrong to do that?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Wrong again.
The central point is equality, the fact is we can divide this into countless areas is side tracking from the very issue of people understanding the fundemental point of equality for all.
Sure champion sub related issues and the need to, but when you champion a day on equality, it has to be a day you champion this for all.
Do you not agree?

So you are saying that we should fight for ALL equalities ALL at the same time and not focus on any specific equalities like women's rights?

Sam Harris is focusing on just women's rights in that clip I gave you. Is he wrong to do that?

You still cannot grasp the central point can you?
How do you teach equality?
Through one group Irn that suffers this?
Please I am so interetested to now kn ow why you fail badly at understanding inequality.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Wrong again.
The central point is equality, the fact is we can divide this into countless areas is side tracking from the very issue of people understanding the fundemental point of equality for all.
Sure champion sub related issues and the need to, but when you champion a day on equality, it has to be a day you champion this for all.
Do you not agree?

So you are saying that we should fight for ALL equalities ALL at the same time and not focus on any specific equalities like women's rights?

Sam Harris is focusing on just women's rights in that clip I gave you. Is he wrong to do that?

You still cannot grasp the central point can you?
How do you teach equality?
Through one group Irn that suffers this?
Please I am so interetested to now kn ow why you fail badly at understanding inequality.

I do understand equality. What is that you need to know that inequality in women's rights is right there in your face with the barbaric regime that discriminates just like Sam Harris is pointing out.

Surely you must see it as well?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You still cannot grasp the central point can you?
How do you teach equality?
Through one group Irn that suffers this?
Please I am so interetested to now kn ow why you fail badly at understanding inequality.

I do understand equality. What is that you need to know that inequality in women's rights is right there in your face with the barbaric regime that discriminates just like Sam Harris is pointing out.

Surely you must see it as well?

Sam Harris is on my own page here and you fail to see why because you fail to see the root cause of equality.
What Sam speaks of here is religion creating inequality where nones existed until written works made men wrongly believe they were better than women. You see you fail to see this inequality was invented, where none existed, men invented it to make them be superior.
You really are quite ignorant of this concept are you not Irn?
All I see is you not even understanding Sam Harris.
Do you understand what a root cause is.
What is the root cause of inequality for women today?
The Abrahamic religions.
In Celtic times women were equals.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

You still cannot grasp the central point can you?
How do you teach equality?
Through one group Irn that suffers this?
Please I am so interetested to now kn ow why you fail badly at understanding inequality.

I do understand equality. What is that you need to know that inequality in women's rights is right there in your face with the barbaric regime that discriminates just like Sam Harris is pointing out.

Surely you must see it as well?

Sam Harris is on my own page here and you fail to see why because you fail to see the root cause of equality.
What Sam speaks of here is religion creating inequality where nones existed until written works made men wrongly believe they were better than women. You see you fail to see this inequality was invented, where none existed, men invented it to make them be superior.
You really are quite ignorant of this concept are you not Irn?
All I see is you not even understanding Sam Harris.
Do you understand what a root cause is.
What is the root cause of inequality for women today?
The Abrahamic religions.
In Celtic times women were equals.

No, no Didge I do see it and I see it in the barbaric regimes that discriminate against women and so does Sam and he makes that quite clear in that clip that I showed you. I'm agreeing with him and I'm sure you are as well,,,,,aren't you?.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Sam Harris is on my own page here and you fail to see why because you fail to see the root cause of equality.
What Sam speaks of here is religion creating inequality where nones existed until written works made men wrongly believe they were better than women. You see you fail to see this inequality was invented, where none existed, men invented it to make them be superior.
You really are quite ignorant of this concept are you not Irn?
All I see is you not even understanding Sam Harris.
Do you understand what a root cause is.
What is the root cause of inequality for women today?
The Abrahamic religions.
In Celtic times women were equals.

No, no Didge I do see it and I see it in the barbaric regimes that discriminate against women and so does Sam and he makes that quite clear in that clip that I showed you. I'm agreeing with him and I'm sure you are as well,,,,,aren't you?.

What a poor deflective point when you kinow I am showing you to be quite the idiot here.
How did this poor view of women form from Irn that Sam is speaking of here which I have stated happenms when people form inequalities when none exist?
Come on sunshine, stop being a pathetic weasel and answer the question?


In your own time?

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Sam Harris is on my own page here and you fail to see why because you fail to see the root cause of equality.
What Sam speaks of here is religion creating inequality where nones existed until written works made men wrongly believe they were better than women. You see you fail to see this inequality was invented, where none existed, men invented it to make them be superior.
You really are quite ignorant of this concept are you not Irn?
All I see is you not even understanding Sam Harris.
Do you understand what a root cause is.
What is the root cause of inequality for women today?
The Abrahamic religions.
In Celtic times women were equals.

No, no Didge I do see it and I see it in the barbaric regimes that discriminate against women and so does Sam and he makes that quite clear in that clip that I showed you. I'm agreeing with him and I'm sure you are as well,,,,,aren't you?.

What a poor deflective point when you kinow I am showing you to be quite the idiot here.
How did this poor view of women form from Irn that Sam is speaking of here which I have stated happenms when people form inequalities when none exist?
Come on sunshine, stop being a pathetic weasel and answer the question?


In your own time?

It is the barbaric regimes that Sam is talking about isn't it? The inequality of women who suffer under them isn't it?

I see that and so does does Sam. Do you disagree with him then?

I've already posted a piece about unequal pay for women in Britain, so I thought I would follow it up with the inequalities in America:

The war on women permeates American society. Consider the non-progress of equal pay for equal work.

Imagine the outrage if employers routinely told two men applying for the same job, "I need forklift operators. You both have equal experience. I'll hire you both. Of course, Bob will earn one dollar an hour because he's short, and John will get 78 cents an hour because he's tall." Tall men wouldn't tolerate height discrimination and would quickly enact laws prohibiting it.

Yet, women in American today earn 78 cents to a man's dollar, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and have struggled for decades to achieve equal pay for equal work.

During WWII, women joined the work force and men joined the armed force. In 1945, the men came home and employers were allowed to replace female workers with males without cause. Many companies who had hired women during the war, reverted to hiring only men, and working women saw their jobs reclassified and their wages lowered. Newspapers published separate job listings for men and women and ran identical jobs, but with different pay scales for men and women.

In the 1950's, women entered the job market in great numbers, and bosses (usually men) paid them less for equal work because, supposedly, women didn't need the money. They worked for extra money and men worked to support their families. Also, old cultural messages taught that women belonged in the home taking care of children and should be punished for invading men's terrain.

Feminists fought to correct the gender wage gap and, because of their efforts, President John F. Kennedy signed The Equal Pay Act on June 10, 1963. It read in part:

No employer shall discriminate between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.

When Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, a woman earned 59 cents to a man's dollar. In 2014, 51 years later, women earn 78 cents per men's dollar. While this represents an improvement of 19 cents for the average woman -- or about one cent every three years -- that's still $10,876 in lost income every single year for the average woman. Over a 45-year working life, the average woman will have been paid nearly half a million dollars less than her male colleague doing the same job.

The Equal Pay Act doesn't seem to be working very well.

In 2014, women don't flit around working for pocket change. In the United States today, mothers are the primary or sole breadwinners in more than 40 percent of families. They work for the same reasons men do and merit the same pay. In any case, an employee's economic situation shouldn't matter. The argument of half a century ago that women didn't "need" the money as much as men was simply an attempt to defend the indefensible concept of different pay scales for the same work.

According the U.S. Census Bureau, women compose 47 percent of America's total labor force and are more likely than men to hold two jobs outside the home (5.2 percent or women vs. 4.6 percent of men.) Of single mothers, 74 percent of them work, and four million of them -- 29 percent --earn such low wages that they live in poverty. In families headed by single men, 670,000 -- only 13 percent -- live in poverty.

To strengthen the Equal Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act was introduced in 2009 and 2011 and consistently rejected and blocked by Republican members of Congress.

Senior Senator Barbara Mikulski, (D-MD), serving in Congress since 1987, reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Bill in January 2013 arguing for its justice and labeling arguments against it as "mean or meaningless."

On April 9, 2014, in another straight party-line vote, the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 2199; 113th Congress) was again blocked by a Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. What is so toxic about this bill?

The Paycheck Fairness Act attempts to close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act, protect female employees, praise employers who lessen gender discrimination, and make it easier to seek redress and enforce the Equal Pay Act.

It allows workers to share wage information and punishes employers who retaliate against sharers. It requires the Department of Labor (i) to increase outreach and train employers to eliminate pay inequality; (ii) to continue collecting wage information based on gender; (iii) to begin a grant program to train women in wage negotiation skills; and to establish a National Award for Pay Equity for employers who successfully move toward genderless employment. If employers don't observe gender neutrality in the work place, it allows workers to sue for punitive damages for wage discrimination.

So, if a woman employee asks the man standing next to her at an identical press and finds she's making three quarters of his wage for the same job, and she asks for a raise and her employer ignores or fires her, she can go to court. If she wins her suit, her employer will have to pay damages and change his employment practices to be gender neutral. Senator Mikulski points out that employers can avoid lawsuits by complying with the law.

On the face of it, these seem like reasonable measures to aid the Equal Pay Act in achieving its goal of pay equity. The main sticking point for the Republicans seems to be the idea that a woman can sue for enforcement of the law.

Summarizing the opposition's positions, Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote in her opinion piece in the New York Times:

The Paycheck Fairness Bill would set women against men, empower trial lawyers and activists, perpetuate falsehoods about the status of women in the workplace and create havoc in a precarious job market. It is 1970s-style gender-war feminism for a society that should be celebrating its success in substantially, if not yet completely, overcoming sex-based workplace discrimination.

Let's review the tenets of this argument.

1. She writes that women asking for more money in the job market "would set women against men" on the subject of equal pay. My question is: So what?

2. She states that hiring a lawyer to sue for equal pay empowers the lawyer, so women shouldn't sue. Er, actually it empowers the plaintiff -- in this case women who've been shortchanged. Aren't women entitled to claim what the law has deemed just?

3. She is concerned that women demanding and getting more equality in the workplace would empower activists. So?

4. She says gender discrimination in the work place is a lie. Perhaps she hasn't discussed this with the majority of working women who hold a different opinion.

5. She argues that if women received equal wages for equal work, it would "create havoc in the precarious job market." Wasn't that a key argument for retaining slavery?

6. She asserts that demands for women's equal pay are "1970s-style gender-war feminism." Actually, they're 2014 feminism, as we're only 78 percent of the way to parity.

7. And finally, she thinks women should be celebrating their lower paychecks because our society has succeeded "in substantially, if not yet completely, overcoming sex-based workplace discrimination." Be patient. Celebrate. Men prefer us when we're smiling.

Senate Republicans unanimously blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act on April 9, 2014.

What were the four female Republican Senators' reasons for opposing the bill?

Senator Kelly Ayotte, (R-NH) worried that it would prohibit merit-based pay, although merit pay is carved out in the original bill.

Senator Susan Collins, R-ME, was concerned about the suing and believed the Civil Rights Act and the 1963 Equal Pay Act provided enough protection for women. "I think this bill would result in excessive litigation that would impose a real burden, particularly on small businesses. So I think existing laws are adequate... Let's not all jump to conclusions, I don't think you can assume discrimination."

Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) thought the bill didn't need much thought because, "It's politics... a one-sided vote for political reasons, so [Democrats] can use it in campaigns."

Senate Republicans unanimously blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act on September 15, 2014, for the second time this year with none of the four Republican Women Senators supporting it.

Although the four female Republican Senators represent only a small fraction (13 perccent) of women in the U.S., their negative votes affect all women. Do their constituents agree with them? They, together with the other 87 percent of American women, must choose between being patient -- like good girls -- or continuing the fight for equal pay at the ballot box.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-riley-phd/half-a-million-dollar-rip-off_b_6088394.html

Strikes me, here and on the other side of the pond, that the people blocking equality is pay for women are the RW, men, and I'm sad to say in this case, women as well.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


What a poor deflective point when you kinow I am showing you to be quite the idiot here.
How did this poor view of women form from Irn that Sam is speaking of here which I have stated happenms when people form inequalities when none exist?
Come on sunshine, stop being a pathetic weasel and answer the question?


In your own time?

It is the barbaric regimes that Sam is talking about isn't it? The inequality of women who suffer under them isn't it?

I see that and so does does Sam. Do you disagree with him then?

How did this barbaric regime form Irn?
Come on, are you that stupid?
Was it invented to make women seem inferior?
You realy are allowing your emotions to get the better of you.
Think before you answer.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


What a poor deflective point when you kinow I am showing you to be quite the idiot here.
How did this poor view of women form from Irn that Sam is speaking of here which I have stated happenms when people form inequalities when none exist?
Come on sunshine, stop being a pathetic weasel and answer the question?


In your own time?

It is the barbaric regimes that Sam is talking about isn't it? The inequality of women who suffer under them isn't it?

I see that and so does does Sam. Do you disagree with him then?

How did this barbaric regime form Irn?
Come on, are you that stupid?
Was it invented to make women seem inferior?
You realy are allowing your emotions to get the better of you.
Think before you answer.

You are sliding away from the basic point that women are discriminated against under these barbaric regimes. Where it came from is neither here nor there because it''s real and it's happening right now or haven't you noticed? Sam has and he is making exactly that point in the clip I showed you.

Do you have a problem with that?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

How did this barbaric regime form Irn?
Come on, are you that stupid?
Was it invented to make women seem inferior?
You realy are allowing your emotions to get the better of you.
Think before you answer.

You are sliding away from the basic point that women are discriminated against under these barbaric regimes. Where it came from is neither here nor there because it''s real and it's happening right now or haven't you noticed? Sam has and he is making exactly that point in the clip I showed you.

Do you have a problem with that?

What an idiot.
The point is that inequality was invented by religion in many cases.
Root cause, just as we see it in many groups, whether it be race, sexuality etc, which it seems you fail to grasp.
How do you combat inequality off only one subject Irn, when you fail tpo understand inequality itsellf and how it is created?
Seriously, do you even understand this fundemental point where all discrmination is formed from?
It is left wing idiots such as yourself that make discrmination worse becauese you fail to even understand it and what creates this.
Seriously, allow people to take on this problem where as seen you have not the first clue.
You tackle inequality at the heart of the problem, where people create differnces where none exist.
Clearly this point has not sunk in yet.
Would you like me to dumb in down for you?

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

How did this barbaric regime form Irn?
Come on, are you that stupid?
Was it invented to make women seem inferior?
You realy are allowing your emotions to get the better of you.
Think before you answer.

You are sliding away from the basic point that women are discriminated against under these barbaric regimes. Where it came from is neither here nor there because it''s real and it's happening right now or haven't you noticed? Sam has and he is making exactly that point in the clip I showed you.

Do you have a problem with that?

What an idiot.
The point is that inequality was invented by religion in many cases.
Root cause, just as we see it in many groups, whether it be race, sexuality etc, which it seems you fail to grasp.
How do you combat inequality off only one subject Irn, when you fail tpo understand inequality itsellf and how it is created?
Seriously, do you even understand this fundemental point where all discrmination is formed from?
It is left wing idiots such as yourself that make discrmination worse becauese you fail to even understand it and what creates this.
Seriously, allow people to take on this problem where as seen you have not the first clue.
You tackle inequality at the heart of the problem, where people create differnces where none exist.
Clearly this point has not sunk in yet.
Would you like me to dumb in down for you?

Yes, yes, yes, I understand all that and I understand that discrimination against women is alive and well particularly so under these barbaric regimes just like Sam and I are saying.

It needs to be challenged Didge and I'm sure you agree with me on that,

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


What an idiot.
The point is that inequality was invented by religion in many cases.
Root cause, just as we see it in many groups, whether it be race, sexuality etc, which it seems you fail to grasp.
How do you combat inequality off only one subject Irn, when you fail tpo understand inequality itsellf and how it is created?
Seriously, do you even understand this fundemental point where all discrmination is formed from?
It is left wing idiots such as yourself that make discrmination worse becauese you fail to even understand it and what creates this.
Seriously, allow people to take on this problem where as seen you have not the first clue.
You tackle inequality at the heart of the problem, where people create differnces where none exist.
Clearly this point has not sunk in yet.
Would you like me to dumb in down for you?

Yes, yes, yes, I understand all that and I understand that discrimination against women is alive and well particularly so under these barbaric regimes just like Sam and I are saying.

It needs to be challenged Didge and I'm sure you agree with me on that,

You understand fuck all on this and have proven you are a fuckwit on this.
You still fail to see the central point about inequality and centre on one problem we see with inequality.
How on earth do you educate people on equality if they fail to understand how it forms?
Seriously?
Do you need me to draw you pictures to help?

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


What an idiot.
The point is that inequality was invented by religion in many cases.
Root cause, just as we see it in many groups, whether it be race, sexuality etc, which it seems you fail to grasp.
How do you combat inequality off only one subject Irn, when you fail tpo understand inequality itsellf and how it is created?
Seriously, do you even understand this fundemental point where all discrmination is formed from?
It is left wing idiots such as yourself that make discrmination worse becauese you fail to even understand it and what creates this.
Seriously, allow people to take on this problem where as seen you have not the first clue.
You tackle inequality at the heart of the problem, where people create differnces where none exist.
Clearly this point has not sunk in yet.
Would you like me to dumb in down for you?

Yes, yes, yes, I understand all that and I understand that discrimination against women is alive and well particularly so under these barbaric regimes just like Sam and I are saying.

It needs to be challenged Didge and I'm sure you agree with me on that,

You understand fuck all on this and have proven you are a fuckwit on this.
You still fail to see the central point about inequality and centre on one problem we see with inequality.
How on earth do you educate people on equality if they fail to understand how it forms?
Seriously?
Do you need me to draw you pictures to help?

Calm down Didge, I think most people understand that a lot of this discrimination comes from religious nonsense but that's not the whole story is it? There are many other forms of discrimination against women that have nothing to do with religion and it's alive and kicking even here in our supposedly modern world and I'm sure you know that.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



You understand fuck all on this and have proven you are a fuckwit on this.
You still fail to see the central point about inequality and centre on one problem we see with inequality.
How on earth do you educate people on equality if they fail to understand how it forms?
Seriously?
Do you need me to draw you pictures to help?

Calm down Didge, I think most people understand that a lot of this discrimination comes from religious nonsense but that's not the whole story is it?  There are many other forms of discrimination against women that have nothing to do with religion and it's alive and kicking even here in our supposedly modern world and I'm sure you know that.

Man alive it so boring when posters losing a debate then thown in emotive claims to the other when they still cannoty grasp the point.
I am fine irn, just not playing your infantile games anymore.
How does discrmination form?
The answers are here for you and the fact you elude to other discriminationto women proves even further how clueless you are, as where does this view to controll women come from?
In many cultures today that treat women second just as we onece did in the west, where does it stem from?
I will tell you a secret, it comes from myths.
In other words religions
Discriminations created where none exists.
Can you grasp this now?

How did this thread turn into a debate when it was suppsed to be a celebration?

eddie wrote:How did this thread turn into a debate when it was suppsed to be a celebration?

Morning Eddie

Here is what I said and why it is a debate when I see such a day even though done for the right reasons as the wrong approach:

I am not a big fan of these days, even if the intention is all for the right reasons, because they further make a view of seperation between genders.
There is even an international man's day, when both should be incorporated into an interntaional equality day.
Inequality of women is not a woman's issue but a human issue we all have to help bring about a change to have equality for all.
This is why I think we are approaching this problem from the wrong angle.
You best serve and champion a cause by making the day based on the issue itself, equality. The issue is equal rights which then incoorporates all inequalities faced by groups of people from race, gender, sexuality etc.
Why seperate the causes when many different groups suffer inequality?
We should tackle inequality as a human problem.

Morning didge
I know, I saw.

I'm going to make an International Debaters Day and we will all celebrate together

eddie wrote:Morning didge
I know, I saw.

I'm going to make an International Debaters Day and we will all celebrate together

lol that is just an excuse for you to have a day called "International Eddie Day" having it named after you because you thought it up.

eddie wrote:How did this thread turn into a debate when it was suppsed to be a celebration?

That is what I want to know. Maybe because some people are to far up their own arses to actually celebrate something?

Even Richard Dawkins joined in, from his website:

Feel free to add your “best feminist” below, or disagree with the Guardian’s choices. In the meantime, let me express appreciation on this day for the many contributions women have made to this website. I am in fact proud that many of the most active and vociferous participants on the site are women, and I hope we maintain the atmosphere that promotes that.

https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/international-womens-day-google-doodle-and-a-message-from-leon/

risingsun wrote:Even Richard Dawkins joined in, from his website:

Feel free to add your “best feminist” below, or disagree with the Guardian’s choices. In the meantime, let me express appreciation on this day for the many contributions women have made to this website. I am in fact proud that many of the most active and vociferous participants on the site are women, and I hope we maintain the atmosphere that promotes that.

https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/international-womens-day-google-doodle-and-a-message-from-leon/

Completely back his view point on the contributions of women, which is not the view point I am making in regards to the problem of bringing about equality by making the problem of inequality a "human" problem.
This is why you fail to grasp what some people are saying.

Brasidas wrote:

eddie wrote:Morning didge
I know, I saw.

I'm going to make an International Debaters Day and we will all celebrate together

lol that is just an excuse for you to have a day called "International Eddie Day" having it named after you because you thought it up.

Well of course

risingsun wrote:Even Richard Dawkins joined in, from his website:

Feel free to add your “best feminist” below, or disagree with the Guardian’s choices. In the meantime, let me express appreciation on this day for the many contributions women have made to this website. I am in fact proud that many of the most active and vociferous participants on the site are women, and I hope we maintain the atmosphere that promotes that.

https://richarddawkins.net/2015/03/international-womens-day-google-doodle-and-a-message-from-leon/

Indeed, Dawkins and Harris have both been passionate supporters of International Women's Day realising the important role it plays in keeping a focus on inequality and the role women can play in challenging it.

If you need any confirmation of the sexism that still exists, see my post in UK News. As a proud Scot, you will seethe.

Maryam Namazie is an Iranian-born secularist and human rights activist, commentator and broadcaster.

Know of her, she is brilliant.

Here we go a woman celebrate.

This is the girl for me

Think she is amazing Jane, all the integrity in the world!

captainJane wrote:

Here we go a woman celebrate.

Hi Jane, I think Section 28 and South Africa puts her out of the running

Think that is why Jane had the puking emoticon on the bottom lol

risingsun wrote:

Know of her, she is brilliant.

She is and it's people like her that can end inequality against women and these barbaric practices. Some people can't seem to grasp just how important they are.

Irn Bru wrote:

captainJane wrote:

Here we go a woman celebrate.

Hi Jane, I think Section 28 and South Africa puts her out of the running

Still celebrating the ding dong day here, it always cheers me up to sing that sentimental song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InfxZI4jZaQ

captainJane wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Hi Jane, I think Section 28 and South Africa puts her out of the running

Still celebrating the ding dong day here, it always cheers me up to sing that sentimental song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InfxZI4jZaQ

This is why some of the left are no better than what they claim of the right. To actually cheer someone dead, who no matter if you think they did wrong, this woman did inspire a generation of women. Hence why she is very important in being the first female Prime Minister in this country.
Nothing will take away these facts, whether you like her or not and why she stands out as an inspirational character to women.
She reached the top, in what was then a "man's world".
So what she did for women is very significant, she inspired other women to succeed where they thought it was impossible.

US President Barack Obama described her as a role-model for women - saying "She stands as an example to our daughters".



Night all

Brasidas wrote:This is why some of the left are no better than what they claim of the right. To actually cheer someone dead, who no matter if you think they did wrong, this woman did inspire a generation of women. Hence why she is very important in being the first female Prime Minister in this country.
Nothing will take away these facts, whether you like her or not and why she stands out as an inspirational character to women.
She reached the top, in what was then a "man's world".
So what she did for women is very significant, she inspired other women to succeed where they thought it was impossible.

US President Barack Obama described her as a role-model for women - saying "She stands as an example to our daughters".



Night all

She isn't in the same league as the women we have seen on here who really are trying to make a difference in ending inequality against women everywhere.
I really don't see her figuring anywhere in International Women's Day in any shape or form.

There was a programme on Women's Sufferage on BBC2 tonight, they discussed Thatcher's contribution and said although she got to the top, she actively stopped other woment getting there and would not promote women even if they had shown they would be good at the job unless colleagues really pushed her.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:This is why some of the left are no better than what they claim of the right. To actually cheer someone dead, who no matter if you think they did wrong, this woman did inspire a generation of women. Hence why she is very important in being the first female Prime Minister in this country.
Nothing will take away these facts, whether you like her or not and why she stands out as an inspirational character to women.
She reached the top, in what was then a "man's world".
So what she did for women is very significant, she inspired other women to succeed where they thought it was impossible.

US President Barack Obama described her as a role-model for women - saying "She stands as an example to our daughters".



Night all

She isn't in the same league as the women we have seen on here who really are trying to make a difference in ending inequality against women everywhere.
I really don't see her figuring anywhere in International Women's Day in any shape or form.

Was I trying to compare her to anyone?
No
You just hate her and thus by hating her are incapable of seeing any good, because as seen some others here on the left take great pleasure jumping for joy at her death, which is again sad and pathetic, because there is no denying that she was inspirational by over coming hurdles to reach the top and she did this being a woman. If you want to compare that to other women, be my guest, which is avoding the whole point about her being able to succeed ion basically what as a "man's world" back them. So tough luck that you do not see here figuring in helping inspire women find equality, because she achieved this voted in where no other woman had achieved before in this country. You have no argument because you hate here and hate to admit she was inspirational to a generation of woman. If you do not like the facts tough, the extyreme left never liike facts. I suggest you get over your hate because you come from a family of miners, as that is what this really is about why you are incapable of being impartial on this point to her inspiration to a generation of women by over coming hurdles that no woman had done before.

From checking out CaptainJane's link, a lot of people don't like Thatcher. Are they all wrong?

This woman gave me the courage to write my first song:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA5AvKZ9gO4

Ben_Reilly wrote:From checking out CaptainJane's link, a lot of people don't like Thatcher. Are they all wrong?

This woman gave me the courage to write my first song:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA5AvKZ9gO4

There is nothing wrong not liking someone, never claimed otherwise, what is wrong is celebrating their death, not having any respect for the family and friends of the person who has passed away who was like any Politician who makes good and bad policies. I dislike Blair and think he is a complete prick, but I would not start celebrating his death by singing songs, even though because of his stupidity he has cost the lives of people.

Ben_Reilly wrote:From checking out CaptainJane's link, a lot of people don't like Thatcher. Are they all wrong?

This woman gave me the courage to write my first song:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA5AvKZ9gO4

Nope, they definitely aren't wrong, and that bitch shed no tears for the families she destroyed, and praised Pinochet who murdered and tortured thousands of people.

Brasidas wrote:
This is why some of the left are no better than what they claim of the right. To actually cheer someone dead, who no matter if you think they did wrong, this woman did inspire a generation of women. Hence why she is very important in being the first female Prime Minister in this country.
Nothing will take away these facts, whether you like her or not and why she stands out as an inspirational character to women.
............................

"...this woman did inspire a generation of women."

THERE'S Didgeri displaying his famously inimitable sense of humour, yet again..

Lone Wolf wrote:

Brasidas wrote:
This is why some of the left are no better than what they claim of the right. To actually cheer someone dead, who no matter if you think they did wrong, this woman did inspire a generation of women. Hence why she is very important in being the first female Prime Minister in this country.
Nothing will take away these facts, whether you like her or not and why she stands out as an inspirational character to women.
............................

"...this woman did inspire a generation of women."

THERE'S Didgeri displaying his famously inimitable sense of humour, yet again..

Best you sit down son before you fall down.
face facts she did inspire being as she reached the top where no woman had before in this country.
You lefties are priceless for not recognising the truth.

Thatcher got a few things wrong, but the best thing she did was to tame the unions who were getting too big for their boots! They are getting that way again.