When we know what we've done to help out as a country (or not), and people are making excuses and commending our little effort, it's not because they think we should be making more of an effort.

That's all issue's affecting women get ...dismissed with a pathetic shrug.

I of course appreciate the current situation facing the world, in which case you would expect things to be postponed and rescheduled for consideration. This was not the case. The war was used as an excuse to shelve a very important issue for the British workforce.

Am I surprised you dismiss this like it was something trivial because it is a female focused issue ( although it affects families not just women)? ... No.

well childcare issues also apply to dads, suppose you hadn’t considered that,, so don’t shrug this off as some sort of misogynistic act from Parliament, even with all the females, personal and professional, by Boris’ side (Carrie, Priti, , Nadine, Liz), nor suggest, unprovoked, that I’m misogynistic either. Because out of nowhere you’ve gotten personal, when this was a political discussion

Ukraine is more important right now whether you like it or not. We have female citizens, our own fighting out there, we’re trying to get them back. We have female Ukrainians trying to get in. We had Zelenskyy that very day, front page news, talking to Parliament, and to the nation itself.

It hasn’t been ‘shelved’, nor has the war been used as ‘an excuse’. If you want it debated so much, why not start a petition? I can’t believe you’re criticising the government for putting a war higher on its agenda than domestic policies that don’t affect everyone , like this war will. Put yourself in Boris’ shoes hun.

Are mums going to nuke the U.K. because on International Women’s Day Boris decided not to debate childcare issues? no.

You did see this right? .....
affects families not just women

Your comment was very dismissive..my reply reflected that. Who said the situation in Ukraine wasn't important. It was a petition... and I can criticise the government if I feel it's justified. All that was needed was a commitment to revisit this at a time when world events didn't (quite rightly) take precidence. That to me was the failure.

Utterly horrific and scary , vulnerable people being taken advantage of.

Every time i watch the coverage of the war in Ukraine, things get worse & worse. maternity hospital bombed ..... there's no words . They literally don't give a damn who or what they destroy .... callous . SO many innocent civilians having to flee their homes.

I was replying to your claim that childcare is only a woman’s issue. Nowhere in what I replied to have you claimed it was a ‘family issue’

‘Dismissive’, yeah because, Ukraine, and Ukranian women trying to get here, are more important right now. That doesn’t mean you need to call me or Parliament misogynistic.

Has it been said anywhere ‘we won’t discuss childcare issues ever again’ …?

Parliament is misogynistic by default so I think it's fine to call parliament misogynistic. It's just a statement of fact.

In the post you quoted of hers she literally said it was a family issue

How so?

That's a 50,000 word post right there Oliver, it would essentially be impossible to go into. All I can really say is, with enough study of sociology, politics and history it becomes impossible to ignore that the very roots of "democracy", and really all politics, stretching back until the dawn of any sort of written record keeping, is unquestionably paternalistic, misogynistic and classist (and in my opinion the class system itself, and certainly the entire system of free market capitalism, is rooted in male instinct if you follow the thread far enough).

Not to be ironically classist about it but... It's not really something that it's possible to go into without vast amounts of background reading.

Once you see it though it becomes painfully obvious.

parliament dates back centuries, so the fundamental constructs were formulated by men. A framework designed by men, for men. It's not difficult to understand that the only way to change that is to come up with a new framework that is not inherently biased

The response is woeful.....

Priti has no answer to illegal mainly men crossing the channel, but women and children fleeing war and trying to come the legal routes...nah...bear in mind all of these people will have family members here already

Parliament now is different to parliament then. Everyone who's in parliament is there because they stood, and were elected.

Maybe in some ways the world needs to wake up to the fact there are two genders and they both matter ... But when it comes to standing for election and actually voting, everyone is equal.

Yeah it's bonkers innit, priorities totally screwed. She's unwilling to do anything to abate the migrant crisis largely consisting of fighting age men, but the refugees - mostly women and children as Ukraine's men are trying to defend their country - are getting bound in red tape?

The problem with Priti Patel is that she's not tough enough on asylum seekers?

This is not a normal country.

Can you explain why then, it’s misogynistic, rather than just shrug it off?

The point is she says we have to have checks to protect the UK but she has still not managed to do that with the channel crossers, she lets them in...she needs to do the same with the women and children...checking can be done in this side as it is with the channel crossers

What would you like her to do with the channel crossers, that, under international law, are within their rights to arrive in a country and claim asylum?

I mean, she was looking at creating sonic boom machines to capsize them or send them back into the waves at one stage, and she's tried making rescuing them punishable with a sentence.

We did the least when in the EU, now we're trying to do even less, so what do you think is the silver bullet she's missing?

If you hate having refugees arrive here, maybe campaign against selling the bombs to countries that create a constant supply of refugees to begin with. Also a solid climate change policy, because as the planet continues to heat up, more and more people will be displaced.

So you’re using the ‘centuries old’ argument

the monarch controlled Parliament, who was in it etc in the 1800s, , so can you explain why Victoria never intervened if it was so misogynistic , in fact she presided over the extension of the reform act giving most males right to vote sometime in the 1860s or 1870s
She was 17 years too late actually for even a nod at female reform

The only female positive thing Victoria did I think was the bedchamber crisis, which was early on in her reign anyway

I don't hate anything about anything, just pointing out the inconsistencies of her approach

I have always said we should be giving refuge to the most vulnerable, you can check my post history if you care to

It’s not as simple at that,

Her approach has been nothing but consistent, but I'm sorry it's still not consistent enough for you.

When the most vulnerable have been as consistently demonised by our media and politicians, then it's natural that acceptance of which kind of people fall into that category, isn't necessarily in line with the truth.

It's nowhere near that simple, even if parliament was 50/50 men and women it would still be built on millenia of patriarchal power structures.

Something to consider, I suppose: Margaret Thatcher was by far - by FAR - a bigger representative of patriarchal power than John Major.

If you can understand that and understand why, that's a decent starting point.

We could all be refugees soon except there will be no where to run to the way things are panning out

Think I have closed the thread now I have turned into Zizu ...even my cup half full attitude is faltering :bawling:

Chizu rises from the ashes like a phoenix :laugh:

Niamh will determine when it’s closed, although she seems to enjoy watching drama unfold

It is a bit dramatic Cherie, Russia have struggled more than they thought to even take Ukraine, there's literally zero chance of them staging an effective invasion of Europe let alone the UK (the hardest part of Europe to invade).

Unless you're talking about nukes but we're obviously nowhere near that sort of worry yet. The important thing to remember on that front is that despite what the tabloids say... Putin is not insane. Power hungry and without conscience, maybe, but he hasn't "gone mad", its a completely false narrative.

:laugh:

I don't think he is mad either or ill, but he has seen how a virus can bring Western economies to their knees, who is to say he wont release one of those

unfortunately, i rate your position as somewhat optimistic. Nukes and other devastating ordinance could easily come into play from russia. Nukes are not the only catastrophic weapons they have available

Putin isn’t power hungry but has invaded Ukraine to get power over Crimea? Right

The point is that using them on the UK or any EU country would essentially be a Russian murder-suicide of the entire planet. He can't survive it and Russia can't survive it, so the only scenarios where he does it, are ones where he has nothing left to lose OR if he was indeed insane.

Read it again I think you missed a full stop.

Sorry have dyslexia

Leave our Neem alone :fist:

Depends really. If the migrants from the middle east bring their culture with them, it won't be long until there's an ISIS here too.

Though you were probably referring to nuclear war :joker:

Nuclear, Biological, chemical...I feel Putin has spent the last two year not only putting on lockdown lbs but plotting

Depending on who you ask he's either insane or cunning, conniving or impulsive, sick and dying or just power hungry, or the latest in the long line of Literally Hitlers :joker: I'm not sure how much time he's spent planning all this, but I'm still not sure if it'll be over soonish, create a new "crappy status quo" that drags on for ages and doesn't really touch us, or if it will end us all...