Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Oct '17 02:46
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/03/mexico-feminism-conference-unam

    "Outrage greets Mexican feminism panel with 11 participants – all of them male.
    Lopsided lineup reignites debate about representation of women in Mexico
    ‘What next? A conference on racism with only white people?’"

    "The lineup featured two panels with 11 participants – and all of them were male.
    It was, as one woman tweeted, the graphic description of “mansplaining”."

    "Many feminists saw the format as an insult or an act of provocation."

    "The under-representation of women in Mexican society spurred a group of feminists
    to found Con Nosotras, an initiative that encourages public speakers to boycott all-male forums."

    "For many, the incident illustrated a frequent problem related to male involvement.
    “Feminists don’t hate men,” González said. “We just want them to stop being protagonists everywhere.”"
  2. 04 Oct '17 05:53
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/03/mexico-feminism-conference-unam

    "Outrage greets Mexican feminism panel with 11 participants – all of them male.
    Lopsided lineup reignites debate about representation of women in Mexico
    ‘What next? A conference on racism with only white people?’"

    "The lineup featured two panels with 11 participants – an ...[text shortened]... ists don’t hate men,” González said. “We just want them to stop being protagonists everywhere.”"
    Read other newspapers occasionally
  3. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    04 Oct '17 06:55
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/03/mexico-feminism-conference-unam

    "Outrage greets Mexican feminism panel with 11 participants – all of them male.
    Lopsided lineup reignites debate about representation of women in Mexico
    ‘What next? A conference on racism with only white people?’"

    "The lineup featured two panels with 11 participants – an ...[text shortened]... ists don’t hate men,” González said. “We just want them to stop being protagonists everywhere.”"
    Maybe, just maybe, they were the best 11 people for the job.
    You wouldn't want to base selection on gender would you?
  4. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    04 Oct '17 09:12
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    Maybe, just maybe, they were the best 11 people for the job.
    You wouldn't want to base selection on gender would you?
    Hahaha
  5. 04 Oct '17 09:43
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    Maybe, just maybe, they were the best 11 people for the job.
    You wouldn't want to base selection on gender would you?
    maybe, just maybe, a committee working on gender issues could benefit from the opinion of one other gender?
  6. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    04 Oct '17 09:56
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    maybe, just maybe, a committee working on gender issues could benefit from the opinion of one other gender?
    Look the actual story is more balanced than the headline. It's amusing but not much more. The whole point seems to be that a feminist woman challenged ten blokes to a debate. I know which side I'd put my money.
  7. 04 Oct '17 10:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    Look the actual story is more balanced than the headline. It's amusing but not much more. The whole point seems to be that a feminist woman challenged ten blokes to a debate. I know which side I'd put my money.
    you mean to say that duchess didn't pasted the relevant parts of the story? that she took something out of the context?

    if what you're saying is true, i can't say that i am surprised.

    anyway, i was just responding to the wolfgang's question. yes, some issues need different opinions. trying to figure out how poverty affects people and what can be done to solve it with a panel of 12 millionaires who were born rich. racism with 12 white men. religious tension with 12 catholics. .

    doesn't matter much if the OP is true or not, the idea remains that a feminism panel cannot have all male membership. and no, Duchess, before you try to twist what i just said, that doesn't mean i say that feminism can only be defined by women.
  8. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    04 Oct '17 10:31
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    maybe, just maybe, a committee working on gender issues could benefit from the opinion of one other gender?
    Experts can represent opinions of others.
    I think it counter-intuitive to select people based on
    gender for a committee looking at gender discrimination!
  9. 04 Oct '17 10:38
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    Experts can represent opinions of others.
    I think it counter-intuitive to select people based on
    gender for a committee looking at gender discrimination!
    a committee on improving chocolate taste cannot be made entirely of people who never tasted chocolate and never will. yes, you can have a dairy specialist that can give an opinion on milk and another farmer that is an expert on cocoa farms. but at some point, someone has to taste the final product and compare it with what the previous product tasted like.
  10. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    04 Oct '17 10:41
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    you mean to say that duchess didn't pasted the relevant parts of the story? that she took something out of the context?

    if what you're saying is true, i can't say that i am surprised.

    anyway, i was just responding to the wolfgang's question. yes, some issues need different opinions. trying to figure out how poverty affects people and what can be d ...[text shortened]... y to twist what i just said, that doesn't mean i say that feminism can only be defined by women.
    D64 pasted a link to a balanced report which is easily checked, so suggesting that I have somehow debunked her post is not fair comment.

    If what I'm saying is true (what does that "if" mean? Am I an unreliable source?) then it will be supported by the linked article so why meditate on the possibilities instead of checking? Sometimes the empirical approach (check the facts) is better than the Rational approach (speculate in a haze of assumptions).
  11. 04 Oct '17 10:58
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    D64 pasted a link to a balanced report which is easily checked, so suggesting that I have somehow debunked her post is not fair comment.

    If what I'm saying is true (what does that "if" mean? Am I an unreliable source?) then it will be supported by the linked article so why meditate on the possibilities instead of checking? Sometimes the empirical appr ...[text shortened]... ach (check the facts) is better than the Rational approach (speculate in a haze of assumptions).
    i am saying that i didn't check what she posted, i didn't check the article, i don't care.

    what she said doesn't mention anything about a woman challenging 11 men to a feminism-off. you said that. i didn't bother to check which of you is right and i will not. Like i said, i don't care.

    I responded to the wolfgang ludicrous general premise that it is discriminatory to have at least a woman in a panel of 12 men. He made a general statement, not tied to specifics, that i attacked.
  12. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    04 Oct '17 11:08
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    i am saying that i didn't check what she posted, i didn't check the article, i don't care.

    what she said doesn't mention anything about a woman challenging 11 men to a feminism-off. you said that. i didn't bother to check which of you is right and i will not. Like i said, i don't care.

    I responded to the wolfgang ludicrous general premise that it is ...[text shortened]... woman in a panel of 12 men. He made a general statement, not tied to specifics, that i attacked.
    I am saying I did check what she posted. I did care. This would seem to give me some advantages in this discussion, since clearly you and wolfie are having a private conversation unhooked from reality.

    You know, there is a reason to post links and introduce new material for discussion, making the forum marginally less introspective and futile. Reducing everything to an endless reiteration of past arguments is not a mark of superiority - it becomes a conversation of the deaf.
  13. 04 Oct '17 11:45 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    I am saying I did check what she posted. I did care. This would seem to give me some advantages in this discussion, since clearly you and wolfie are having a private conversation unhooked from reality.

    You know, there is a reason to post links and introduce new material for discussion, making the forum marginally less introspective and futile. Reduc ...[text shortened]... teration of past arguments is not a mark of superiority - it becomes a conversation of the deaf.
    "since clearly you and wolfie are having a private conversation unhooked from reality. "
    and you care because? he said something, i disagreed. that was the end of it (unless he retorts with a different argument). what are you, the debate moderator? we don't have formal debates here, nobody stays on topic.

    "You know, there is a reason to post links and introduce new material for discussion, making the forum marginally less introspective and futile. Reducing everything to an endless reiteration of past arguments is not a mark of superiority"
    please tell me more what i am allowed and not allowed to debate.
    not that it matters much, but it is you who are incorrect here. The title of the thread, the fragments she posted, all make it obvious what she wants to bring to the table. It is the ludicrous notion that a panel on feminism can be made entirely of men. Wolfie took the opposite side, i berated it for it. If anyone is off topic here, it is you, not "wolfie", not I.

    I just didn't bother to check if the link is in anyway related to the title (it is not, it makes a completely different point like you said) because what interested me was the flawed argument wolfgan was making (trolling or earnest, i, again, don't care)
  14. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    04 Oct '17 11:52
    Originally posted by @zahlanzi
    "since clearly you and wolfie are having a private conversation unhooked from reality. "
    and you care because? he said something, i disagreed. that was the end of it (unless he retorts with a different argument). what are you, the debate moderator? we don't have formal debates here, nobody stays on topic.

    "You know, there is a reason to post links and ...[text shortened]... opposite side, i berated it for it. If anyone is off topic here, it is you, not "wolfie", not I.
    If you want a private debate then that is fine and I will leave you to it.
  15. 04 Oct '17 11:55
    Originally posted by @finnegan
    If you want a private debate then that is fine and I will leave you to it.
    thank you.