WHY NO CALL FOR GENDER QUOTAS TO FIGHT THE RADIATION AT FUKUSHIMA?

Watching the story unfold of those brave 180 men (Fukushima 50) fighting the leaks at the nuclear power station in Japan, I suddenly realised that I have no seen calls from the UN Women's Committee, the UK Government's Minister for Women or Harman, the Fawcett Society, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, The Guardian etc about the lack of women involved.

Where is the call to impose a gender quota or an 'A' List or positive action? 

Where is the PR campaign about this awful discrimination at the nuclear plant because there are no women amongst the '50' (all reports say they are only men, so please do not complain if a few are female)?

Many of us would not want women there but we are not allowed to say that. However the silence of the feminist fundamentalists shows not only do they not want women there either but it also highlights their hypocrisy because according to their orthodoxy they should be calling for equality and quotas. 

Society as a whole recognises that men do these types of job and that is the way of nature. Society also recognises that those who do these types of job get paid more. Normal men and women call that fair, feminist fundamentalists call it discrimination. 

The silence of the feminist fundamentalists shows they want gender quotas when it suits them, when it doesn't, they say nothing.

Let's all ensure our thoughts are with those brave men and their families.

Posted by Skimmington  

Comments

[John kimble]

Good stuff as usual though I certainly wouldn't have any problem with women being there as long as it was on merit and they were as capable as the brave men involved.

Perhaps the only thing missing is to add if those brave men pass away after awful battles with cancer those same feminist fundamentalists will somehow manage to proclaim that it's the men's wives who were the real vicitms of the incident. (just as they do with wars, genocide and pretty much everything else where men are the vicitms)

[Pierce Harlan]

I literally let out an audible "ahhhh" when I saw this. I kid you not. Absolutely brilliant.

[JOHN TAYLOR]

Well stated Skimmingon and John...

I know I will not be around to celebrate the event, but would'nt it be nice - to also have an "International Families United Day"???

[Opus]

Which is more or less what I pointed out on The Spearhead! The usual Double Standards.

[Marx]

I asked this question too on one of the articles which claimed that men were used 'not because they were more disposable or better trained, but because they are more likely to die from old age than radiation related illnesses'.

So my question was "If it isn't about male disposablity or being better at the job, why aren't more older women involved?"

[John Kimble]

The Guardian refers to them as "men and women":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/16/fukushima-heroes-nuclear-japan-watches

Given the anti-male agenda of that newspaper there's a decent chance it's a lie, though it's more likely that they've found one female amongst the 200 who has a relatively safe role and therefore use her to pretend there's an equal amount of sacrifice between the sexes.

[Pete]

Er. Perhaps no woman do these jobs because Japan is a highly sexist nation where women still have limited access to work of any kind, not least the 'heroic' kind described above. Don't believe me? Go speak to some Japanese women, or do you guys have problems talking to women? I think there would be plenty of women more than happy to do these kind of jos if they were allowed - howabout all of the women in the UK who are police officers, fire officers, soldiers etc etc. What about the women on the Ivory Coast who were recently shot and beaten for protesting about the shootind and beating of women? What about all those extra women who get beaten up after a Rangers/Celtic derby when domestic violence in Glasgow goes up by 138%. But sorry, you're right, it's all women's fault - damn those pathetic, weak, lazy women. How dare they question our manhoods!!!???

[Groan]

Pete your comments betray your ignorance. Women are not in combat roles in the British Forces. Any time in the police and you would know women officers are rarely in the most dangerous roles . Your very last comment betrays you. It seems debate is not manly if it is on feminist terms. The point is not that women are protected from harm by men but that feminists are silent about such inequality. Of course there are many brave women and they can make a difference. But those who claim to speak for them focus on comfy boardrooms.

[Pete]

Hi Groan. Having spent plenty of time with the police I can assure you that women take on dangerous roles. I also know at least several women in the army who would be offended if you said to them their roles were not dangerous. Women arent protected from harm by men, they are harmed by men - and if they are protected, it is usually from - other men. You betray your own ignorance. As for the last comment, it was a little facetious I admit - if I want to make a serious comment I should avoid such things, but I was annoyed by the wingy tone of a lot of the stuff on here - men get the best stuff in all areas of life and keep the worst for women, and then winge when women ask for a bit of equality. Do you think the Fukushima 50 ever thought they would actually be risking their lives to shut down a nuclear reactor going into meltdown?

[Jon]

Pete: "or do you guys have problems talking to women?"

Ahhh, so we are all misogynists! Of course!

[paul parmenter]

Pete, if you want to make a serious comment you should avoid making ridiculous claims like "women aren't protected from harm by men, they are harmed by men" and "there would be plenty of women more than happy to do these kind of jos if they were allowed". If you peddle such tosh you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

[Pete]

Paul,
Justify your claims that what I said is tosh. As for mysogynists, you lot are way beyond that. I found this site hoping to find an adult discussion of some of the difficulties inherent in being a man. I thought I might find some answers, or at least some mature debate, about some of the difficulties I experience in my relationships with the women I am close to, and some of the frustrations I experience as part of being a 'man' - such as defensiveness, anger, inability to see another perspective or to admit I might be wrong sometimes. Instead I find a load of winging men who can only blame women for their problems and come up with the kind of juvenile headlines like the one at the top of this article. Of course you are all going to deny what I am suggesting. You spend your whole lives denying that there might be another perspective, and this site is a testament to that idea that you are 'all right, about everything and no one can tell you otherwise'. I think I will go and look for a more mature site! Best wishes guys, keep on defending your little island of misery. Stuck on there with Melanie Philips of all people!

[Pete]

But I should say, I didn't come on this site to start arguments, and I'm not saying nothing on here has any validity. I just think that women have to fight for everything they get - they threw themselves under horses to get the vote. So to suggest that women should be denied equality at work because a group working to stop a reactor blowing up is a false statement based on the incorrect assumption that women either wouldn't or couldn't do that kind of work, when the evidence suggests otherwise. People can pick apart everything I've said if they want, but if the validity of my point is simply dismissed out of hand, then I think that's a real shame. Anyway, I've got work to do! All the best. P

[Groan]

The regulations that prevent women soldiers entering combat units were debated inparliament. At that time the recent experience in the USA was influential. There the regulations were changed because of public disquiet at the deaths of women soldiers and a pilot. What this showed was the deep seated social expectation that women and children are in need of special protection. The flip side of this is the social expectations that young men will take the risks on behalf of their society. This latter is so deeply built into our socialisation that to question it is to "whine". As the suffragettes started their campaign universal male suffrage had not been achieved and female suffrage followed a short time after. The reality is that we are negotiating a new human circumstance in the rich west. There seems no good reason that women who want to take the risks of dangerous work should be prevented nor men be assumed to assume this responsibility. We have barely emerged from times when most women were mothers who spent most of their lives having or caring for offspring or men wresting a living from nature. Both having equally short lives. The evidence of lifespan alone suggests women have benefitted most from the rapid development of the last century. The very industries that fuelled this wealth killed as did the wars sparked by the scramble for resources. And this is still the case in much of the third world. So men neither uniformly benefit in society nor do women always suffer. Men and women should indeed equally shoulder responsibilities as well as enjoy rights. The problem is often that men's responsibilities are so taken for granted that their actual experience is completely ignored. This site does a great service in shining light on this .

[Pete]

Groan,
I pretty much agree with everything you said, and it was well said. But I still fundamentally disagree with the original point made - you can't dismiss women's desire for equality with reference to the fact that the Fukushima 50 are all men. I worked as a cleaner very briefly as a younger man, due to a stomach bug which kept me out of my job in nursing home kitchen. All of the other cleaners were women, and in fact most cleaners throughout the world are women - they clean up people's poo for about five pounds an hour - chldrens poo, old people's poo, poorly people's poo. I'd rather be a nuclear engineer any day, and if I was, I would'nt resent women for asking for more equality, I would support them in any way I could. Best wishes.

[Groan]

Like many a Newspaper the contributions stimulate. The comments varied. I hope you stick with the site.

Oddly enough I too worked as a cleaner in my youth ,though that was street "cleansing". You see there are even social norms about what one can clean. People and offices are cleaned by women; streets,drains and farm animals by men. It is indeed a curious world.

[Pete]

Thanks Groan, yes I will do. Yes it is, and a problematic and difficult one in many ways!
Best wishes