Gender equality debate

[ttaskmaster]

Then again this is OcUK, full of grumpy old men that seem to hate strong, opinionated women so...

We hate anyone who is opinionated.

Remind me, how many Prime Ministers have there been since the start of the 20th Century?
How many male and female Prime Ministers between Thatcher and May?

Remind me, how many women stepped forward wanting that leadership role in the first place?

Black lives matter is just like feminism in that it isn't about the rights of black people, it's about taking power and wealth for their supporters.

Then why is it called BLACK lives? Are they the only ones without power and wealth? Are Hispanics, Orientals, Arabs, South Americans and so on all part of the White Privilege thing?

We're very much in the era of, "You cis white males have had your chance, move over and let someone else have a go."

If they want power, they'll have to take it and be strong enough to hold onto it, like everyone else. That's how power works.
They already have equal opportunities. They just have to be as much of a **** as the men.
People like Deborah Meadon and half the other women on Dragons Den have proven this, as have the 6 females out of the 13 winners on The Apprentice... not that I particularly care about that show, but I find it pretty reasonable as far as how much of a ***** you need to be to succeed.

But just for ***** and giggles, lets give them what they want. Let them have it.
Let everyone have everything they're demanding.
Just let it happen.
Want to be a CEO just because you've got ****? Sure, here ya go - Best of luck with the ulcer, suicide pills and pistols are available from the concierge.

In that sense it's not about equality at all, it's about "removing the patriarchy" and suchlike, which is a rallying cry you often hear.

I apparently have rich white male privilege, granted me by this patriarchy.... Told to me by a white woman who earns more than me.
Well, I'm white and male, but I ain't ever been rich.... Where's all this money I'm supposed to have? How come my doctor, dentist, solicitor and accountant all earn more than me, as non-white, females?

 

[Thekwango]

We are talking about a debate on sexual equality. Men are excluded from it. So in the specific context of the event that this thread is about men are utterly excluded from "equality" and in the more general context of the whole idea of sexual equality, men are almost completely excluded from "equality", to the extent that people can (and often do) publically use "equality for women" and "sexual equality" as if they were synonyms and have it pass unmentioned rather that getting the ridicule and contempt that such behaviour should attract.

word it all you want. a bunch of women getting together to have a moan and gripe has no bearing on you, me the op or pretty much anyone else not directly involved. in fact even those directly involved it will have next to no bearing on. it's a bunch of 'biddies having a natter'

as I've said repeatedly in this thread, folk need to stop getting so concerned about something that doesn't concern them. this event is of no concern to most everyone, male or female.

 

[Drizmod]

There does exist a tiny wage gap when all known factors are taken into consideration. The problem with this tiny percentage of wage gap is that its almost impossible to pin it down to one thing. All of it could be due to discrimination or a tiny percentage of the already tiny percentage of the wage gap could be due to discrimination. We will probably never find out. The best thing that could be done is to remove all barriers (if any exist) when it comes to equality of opportunity.

 

[Sliver]

There does exist a tiny wage gap when all known factors are taken into consideration. The problem with this tiny percentage of wage gap is that its almost impossible to pin it down to one thing. All of it could be due to discrimination or a tiny percentage of the already tiny percentage of the wage gap could be due to discrimination. We will probably never find out. The best thing that could be done is to remove all barriers (if any exist) when it comes to equality of opportunity.

There is no wage gap based on gender. As I've said already in this thread, both men and women get paid the same for doing the same job. Every job I've had, women get paid the same as men for doing the same job. If there are companies out there paying women less just because they are women then they should take them to an industrial tribunal.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

I think you're partly correct. Historical data would be used by such advocacy groups to justify a greater selection chance for female candidates.

We're very much in the era of, "You cis white males have had your chance, move over and let someone else have a go."

Even if it wasn't exclusively women for the next 300 years, having 3 female PMs to every one man would be seen as "justice" because of the historical male domination.

In that sense it's not about equality at all, it's about "removing the patriarchy" and suchlike, which is a rallying cry you often hear.

Indeed.

I might come across as abit of a sexist bigot in my post but I do want to see more women in politics but if I'm honest I rather see far more of the working class in politics no matter the sex/color/creed

 

[FoxEye]

...but I do want to see more women in politics but if I'm honest I rather see far more of the working class in politics no matter the sex/color/creed

I don't think anyone would complain if women/men were a 50/50 makeup in most spheres.

It's the way that (some) people are going about it that irks. The idea that to get more women involved you must continually demonise men. Esp white men, who it is becoming socially acceptable to berate for no other reason than being white men.

As others have said, if half the things that were being said about white men were said about Jews, for instance, it would be absolutely unacceptable. "Oh look another company dominated by Jews, disgusting." "Your lecturers are all Jews, why don't you drop some of them for non-Jews." "I can't progress because all the Jews have an unfair advantage." "Down with the Semitarchy".

Then to cap it all off, white men are now expected to have some degree of self-loathing. Seriously, I can't stand that.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

I don't think anyone would complain if women/men were a 50/50 makeup in most spheres.

It's the way that (some) people are going about it that irks. The idea that to get more women involved you must continually demonise men. Esp white men, who it is becoming socially acceptable to berate for no other reason than being white men.

As others have said, if half the things that were being said about white men were said about Jews, for instance, it would be absolutely unacceptable. "Oh look another company dominated by Jews, disgusting." "Your lecturers are all Jews, why don't you drop some of them for non-Jews." "I can't progress because all the Jews have an unfair advantage." "Down with the Semitarchy".

Then to cap it all off, white men are now expected to have some degree of self-loathing. Seriously, I can't stand that.

Some of this I have talked about with my 1 month new GF who is a black feminist immigrant (I'm a pasty white guy), maybe not the smartest move but she more willing to debate and discuss than most

 

[Drizmod]

There is no wage gap based on gender. As I've said already in this thread, both men and women get paid the same for doing the same job. Every job I've had, women get paid the same as men for doing the same job. If there are companies out there paying women less just because they are women then they should take them to an industrial tribunal.

I looked for it but I cant find the study anymore but it stated the wage gap to be around 2%. It also hypothesised that this could be due to discrimination OR due to the fact that in general women are more agreeable than men so you end up in a situation where a lot more men ask for pay rises than women.

 

[Sliver]

I looked for it but I cant find the study anymore .

Maybe because there isn't one. Do me a favour and stop trolling me. I've told you more than once that women get paid the same as men for doing the same job. Provide evidence to the contrary and I'll respect that, till then just stop posting.

 

[D.P.]

On the one hand you say a large part of the gender pay gap is unexplained, in the next sentence you say it must be "to a large extent" discrimination by men against women.

Surely it's either explained/understood or it isn't. Saying that it isn't understood therefore it must be discrimination by men seems to me anything but scientific.

How about it could be discrimination (and discrimination must play some role), but equally it could be other factors, some of which may be within the women's own control. Like lack of assertiveness, maybe.

The term 'unexplained' is probably misleading here. It doesn't mean there is no knowledge or evidence Gender discrimination is a known component if the unexplained gap, just the exact degree is less well known due to the complexity of the analysis. Personality traits like assertiveness are included in the explained gap where there are statistically significant contributions.

There is signifiigant evidence of genuine gender discrimination, which is why there are so many court cases. It is the more subtle discrimination that is harder to quantify

 

[VincentHanna]

Maybe because there isn't one. Do me a favour and stop trolling me. I've told you more than once that women get paid the same as men for doing the same job. Provide evidence to the contrary and I'll respect that, till then just stop posting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43077465

• The top earning male consultant in England earned £739,460 in 2016-17
• The best paid woman got £281,616 by comparison
• On average, full-time men in England earned £127,683, nearly £14,000 more than full-time women
• When you strip out overtime and bonuses and just look at basic pay there was nearly £1,500 difference

 

[FoxEye]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43077465

So basically it's equality of outcome that really matters...?

And we'll just assume that opportunity is inequitable until the outcomes are the same, at which point we'll conclude that the opportunity must now be the same also.

Or maybe we'll conclude that women need more opportunity that men, because they are less inclined to make use of opportunities given them? Therefore only equality of outcome matters at all?

 

[VincentHanna]

I don't know why you are quoting me, I was replying to Silver for evidence that men are getting paid more than women when all other things are equal.

 

[D.P.]

I looked for it but I cant find the study anymore but it stated the wage gap to be around 2%. It also hypothesised that this could be due to discrimination OR due to the fact that in general women are more agreeable than men so you end up in a situation where a lot more men ask for pay rises than women.

There is evidence that women are less concerned about salary but if employers are exploiting that fact, even indirectly, then discrimination is still occurring. Gender discrimination doesn't have to be overt. Failures of a companies review, promotion and pay-rise procedures can lead to discrimination.

 

[Hellsmk2]

There's not enough female CEO's in the world...

... there's also a great disparity in manual labour, mining, the armed forces, landscaping, waste disposal, construction, <insert low level job here>... but you won't hear feminists talking about that.

 

[FoxEye]

There is evidence that women are less concerned about salary but if employers are exploiting that fact, even indirectly, then discrimination is still occurring. Gender discrimination doesn't have to be overt. Failures of a companies review, promotion and pay-rise procedures can lead to discrimination.

So if a company promotes those who aggressively push themselves for promotion, that's discrimination against women, if those promoted are men?

So it's the company's obligation to make sure that women are promoted whether they fight for it or not?

Again, equality of outcome is the only way to avoid discrimination, and equality of opportunity promotes discrimination? Because women need better presented opportunities than men? A more friendly environment than men?

 

[stockhausen]

There's not enough female CEO's in the world...

... there's also a great disparity in manual labour, mining, the armed forces, landscaping, waste disposal, construction, <insert low level job here>... but you won't hear feminists talking about that.

Maybe, just maybe, females are more suited to being CEOs than manual labourers?

 

[Sliver]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43077465

I've added you to my ignore list.

 

[VincentHanna]

I've added you to my ignore list.

For...providing evidence you requested?

 

[FoxEye]

Maybe, just maybe, females are more suited to being CEOs than manual labourers?

That's discrimination against men, surely? Women more suited to being CEOs than men? Men more suited to being manual labourers than women?

Where's the equality if you're now assigning jobs based on gender... Oh wait, equality doesn't matter at the lower end of the pay spectrum, does it?

So basically women must be advantaged in the jobs women want to take up, in the jobs women don't want to take up the men can fill those... Nice.