May 14th, 2004


userinfo senji
2004/05/14 13:25:00 - Irony
Is it just me, or is the Women and Equality Unit missing a sense of Irony?
Current Mood: [mood icon] giggly

< | 13 glosses | comment | > )

userinfo andrewwyld
[userpic]
2004/05/14 06:08:00
That's not a bug, that's a feature.
reply | thread )
userinfo senji
[userpic]
2004/05/14 06:30:07
Having no sense of Irony is a feature?
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo andrewwyld
[userpic]
2004/05/14 07:58:12
This is a government thing ....
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo the_aviator
2004/05/14 06:50:59
Some are considerably more equal than others...
Not only a sense of irony, they're missing a basic literary education!
reply | thread )
userinfo sion_a
[userpic]
2004/05/14 06:56:35
If it is, then I am too.
reply | thread )
userinfo khendon
2004/05/14 07:03:39
Seriously? Or is this some kind of subtle metairony I don't understand?
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo sion_a
[userpic]
2004/05/14 07:11:48
Seriously. Unless this is some altered usage of the word "irony" I don't understand.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo khendon
2004/05/14 07:16:53
It's ironic because it purports to promote equality while having a title that is obviously *unequal*.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo sion_a
[userpic]
2004/05/14 07:58:46
*sigh* That's because it's starting from a point of inequality and trying to promote a specific disadvantaged group into a position of equality with what is considered to be the norm. Even if it does purport to an ideal of absolute equality of everyone, why shouldn't it approach it by tackling one set of needs at a time?

Sorry if I don't find straight white males giggling pedantically at their privilege funny. Spending time with minority activists will do that to you.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo khendon
2004/05/14 09:35:30
What about ethnic minorities? People of minority sexualities? What about where the system is unfair towards men? Those are just as important as women's rights.

And as for tackling one set of needs at a time - why? "Sorry if you're in a disadvantaged group that happens not to be women. Wait another ten years, then we'll look at getting round to you"? Equality should be all one piece.

reply | parent | thread )
userinfo sion_a
[userpic]
2004/05/14 10:11:16
Because the details of the needs of each group are different. One big push for "equality for all" would be lovely, but it would take huge amounts of resources, and practically far more can be acheived by going one step at a time. It's all very well having an idealistic view, but it won't get anyone anywhere, while being pragmatic and selective will at least help some people.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo khendon
2004/05/14 10:27:52
I'm not convinced that women should be the priority. Are they really more discriminated against than ethnic minorities, or people of minority sexualities?

Not to mention that having a "Minister for Women" and a "Women and Equality Unit" significantly entrenches women as the priority rather than allowing a continuous assesment as things change.
reply | parent | thread )
userinfo aldabra
[userpic]
2004/05/14 12:03:04
They do mention their minority-sexuality initiatives on the page, and there are other groups like the CRE which are reasonably establishment and going for equality in other areas. The thing is, you can legislate equality for *people* by making various kinds of discrimination illegal, but you still have the problem that childbearing is a different kind of difference and the fact that women-but-not-men are prone to it makes their inequality a different kind of inequality (rational, rather than irrational, for discriminators, for one thing) and much more structurally entrenched.
reply | parent | thread )

< | 13 glosses | comment | > )

Irony - Squaring the circle...

> log in
> recent entries
> fiends
> archive
> toothywiki page
> profile
> new entry
> recent comments


> go to top