Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-27-Speech-4-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070927.4.4-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, colleagues, the report before us today is largely an exercise in stating the obvious. In it we find the same familiar statistics concerning employment rates, wage gaps and types of job. We also find never-ending descriptions of the persistence of gender-based stereotypes and the resulting discrimination reflected in women’s absence from certain sectors of the labour market. I am thinking in particular of advanced technology, the sciences, research and engineering.
Yet the report contains an apparent contradiction. How can we welcome globalisation in paragraph 17 – hailing its positive effects on women’s access to education, care, health and employment, whether at home, in sub-contracting or in micro-enterprises – and at the same time, in paragraph 18, highlight the negative impact of globalisation with the feminisation of poverty? Which paragraph are we to take seriously?
Elsewhere the report recommends pan-European measures to increase awareness of zero tolerance for sexist insults. But what constitutes a sexist insult? Was Ségolène Royal, who contested the last French presidential election, the victim of a sexist insult when one of her former Socialist comrades said she was not the best candidate for the highest office in the land? Or was that no more than a criticism, or simply an opinion?
It is dangerous to base legislation on a notion like this that has no legal definition and cannot have one. Moreover, we are dealing here with an area that is essentially subjective and non-rational."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples