+ Post New Thread
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 155
General Chat Thread, Stop Calling Teachers 'Miss' Or 'Sir', Pupils Are Told - Telegraph in General; Originally Posted by pcstru The facts speak for themselves. Pay for women is less. Women make up only 15% of ...
  1. #76

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,684
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,453 Times in 1,899 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    The facts speak for themselves. Pay for women is less. Women make up only 15% of board members in FTSE100 companies. Only 22% of MP are female and in the house of lords, we have representatives of organisations who are allowed to vote on policy but who's churches ban women from holding high office within those organisations.

    So yes, you could have "equalism" and object to "feminism" but until these facts and others change, then we are living in a misogynistic society which does not value equality for women, and in that society I hope I remain a feminist.
    No, we are not living in a misogynistic society. Misogyny is the hatred/dislike of women. That's a very strong thing to say. We live in an unequal society, still.

    However, at the same time, there are questions to ask about board members and MPs/lords etc... There is definitely a problem in these situations - there aren't enough women in those roles, however some analysts have stated that the numbers should be the same as the gender split in society, but others disagree, saying that many women simply don't want to be in those roles as they want to be with their children. Who is right will obviously be somewhere in the middle no doubt.

  2. #77

    LosOjos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    5,452
    Thank Post
    1,439
    Thanked 1,170 Times in 798 Posts
    Rep Power
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    However, at the same time, there are questions to ask about board members and MPs/lords etc... There is definitely a problem in these situations - there aren't enough women in those roles, however some analysts have stated that the numbers should be the same as the gender split in society, but others disagree, saying that many women simply don't want to be in those roles as they want to be with their children. Who is right will obviously be somewhere in the middle no doubt.
    The danger in these situations is that rather than getting the best person for the job, we get the one who ticks the most political boxes. For a long time in Sandwell (ended within the last 10 years), every LA job bulletin had as a footnote "we are particularly seeking black, disabled women as we are under-represented in this area."

    Can't we just employ people because they're good at the job and ignore [within reason] everything else?

  3. #78


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,018
    Thank Post
    268
    Thanked 800 Times in 605 Posts
    Rep Power
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    No, we are not living in a misogynistic society. Misogyny is the hatred/dislike of women. That's a very strong thing to say. We live in an unequal society, still.
    Misogyny - Wikipedia

    "Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination"

    Misogyny - Oxford

    "Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women"

    So I'm quite happy that it is an appropriate word. Discrimination is a fact, and Discrimination against women is Mysogyny by definition.

    However, at the same time, there are questions to ask about board members and MPs/lords etc... There is definitely a problem in these situations - there aren't enough women in those roles, however some analysts have stated that the numbers should be the same as the gender split in society, but others disagree, saying that many women simply don't want to be in those roles as they want to be with their children. Who is right will obviously be somewhere in the middle no doubt.
    This issue is often cited but why should having a baby be a bar to achieving equality? Why is the choice for women either/or -why can't they have both?

  4. #79


    AMLightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    2,169
    Thank Post
    372
    Thanked 626 Times in 398 Posts
    Rep Power
    252
    As a woman I am annoyed by feminism. *gasp* I'm sure I shall be tarred and feathered by the broadsheet brigade shortly. The roots of feminism and the feminist movement from the suffragettes through to equality in the workplace are not what I'm referring to (although it also annoys me that it was even needed in the first place). What gets me riled up though is the way people hide behind labels like 'Feminist' to justify their vilification of a group or thing. I don't understand why 'Equalist' even needs to be a thing. How did our society get so screwed up that we went from interdependent cave people to complete and utter subjugation of the female gender to the point where women have to FIGHT for their right to do the same things as males?

    As a female gamer I find myself generically irritated by the 'he' reference when gaming. People automatically assume that because I'm playing WoW I must be male. I make a point of never assuming gender when I game. Instead of saying 'He needs to XYZ' I'll say '$AVATAR/$ROLE needs to do XYZ' so 'He needs to CC the mobs' becomes 'The mage needs to polymorph that mob' or 'Pewpewmachine needs to tank the boss facing away from the raid'. I don't see why others can't adjust their thinking to do this.

  5. #80

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,684
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,453 Times in 1,899 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    Misogyny - Wikipedia

    "Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination"

    Misogyny - Oxford

    "Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women"

    So I'm quite happy that it is an appropriate word. Discrimination is a fact, and Discrimination against women is Mysogyny by definition.
    It isn't a definition I'd use, as it is one that is pretty much only used by the media to scream "woman hater" at men (kinda like how feminism is becoming female chauvinism, the definitions are changing...)

    This issue is often cited but why should having a baby be a bar to achieving equality? Why is the choice for women either/or -why can't they have both?
    It is physically impossible to give birth whilst working... But on a slightly less sarcastic note, this isn't about stopping anyone from doing anything, it is about choice as you say. A lot of women *choose* to leave and be with their child rather than work, and because of that the number of women in boardrooms etc... is never going to reach gender parity. That is, unless the idea of best person for the job is scrapped and quotas enforced, which technically would then discriminate against men instead. However, there is an extension to this argument of why men don't want to spend that time with their children too...

  6. #81


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,615
    Thank Post
    934
    Thanked 350 Times in 266 Posts
    Rep Power
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by Bompalompalomp View Post
    a couple of glorified blog writers for a tabloid disguised as a newspaper are not a spokesperson for the equality movement. It seems like a good idea to sway the thread from this endless argument over semantics.
    Completely agree. Unfortunately it's these glorified blog writers that often get shared and copied and reappropriated and as much as they don't represent the majority, they 'become' the majority voice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Garacesh View Post
    But, unfortunately, there are the vocals that 'take it too far' and give the entire movement a bad name.


    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    Only 22% of MP are female and in the house of lords, we have representatives of organisations who are allowed to vote on policy but who's churches ban women from holding high office within those organisations.
    See, this is the issue with 'Equal Opportunities'. Why should more than 22% of women be MP's? You just cannot say that. People who are able to do the job properly should be MP's. Not x% male and x% female.
    I'd rather employ a man who knew what he was doing than a woman who didn't, same as I'd rather employ a woman that knew what she was doing rather than a man a man who didn't. Diversity quotas are B.S..
    (Also, I'm aware of the example of using MP's and 'knowing what they're doing'.. But my point still stands..)

    Quote Originally Posted by abillybob View Post
    I think a lot of the time women can be manipulative more so towards men nowadays then the other way around, a lot of women use sex as a weapon to get something they want
    Then the men (or women, let's not assume any sexuality of hypothetical persons) are idiots and shouldn't let their lust/libido dictate their decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by LosOjos View Post
    The danger in these situations is that rather than getting the best person for the job, we get the one who ticks the most political boxes. For a long time in Sandwell (ended within the last 10 years), every LA job bulletin had as a footnote "we are particularly seeking black, disabled women as we are under-represented in this area."

    Can't we just employ people because they're good at the job and ignore [within reason] everything else?
    We should do, in my opinion. "You don't have any female employees! Why is this?" "Because the ones that applied all had terrible CV's and no experience. Here, take a look.."

    Quote Originally Posted by AMLightfoot View Post
    As a female gamer I find myself generically irritated by the 'he' reference when gaming. People automatically assume that because I'm playing WoW I must be male. I make a point of never assuming gender when I game. Instead of saying 'He needs to XYZ' I'll say '$AVATAR/$ROLE needs to do XYZ' so 'He needs to CC the mobs' becomes 'The mage needs to polymorph that mob' or 'Pewpewmachine needs to tank the boss facing away from the raid'. I don't see why others can't adjust their thinking to do this.
    I make a habit of always referring to people by real name, gaming handle or class/character depending on how well I know them "Jamie, head to top lane and push that tower." "Cherry, three of them are dead, now would be a good time to Rosh." "Witchdoctor, could you get some more wards when they restock?"

  7. #82


    AMLightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    2,169
    Thank Post
    372
    Thanked 626 Times in 398 Posts
    Rep Power
    252
    When you all vote me in as dictator I'm going to make it mandatory that every organisation of more than 20 staff has an onsite or nearby corporately funded childcare facility to encourage stay at home parents of both genders (LeBoyfriends brother is a stay at home dad) to return to the workplace. If all workplaces have to have them, there is no excuse for gender bias in hiring.

  8. #83


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,018
    Thank Post
    268
    Thanked 800 Times in 605 Posts
    Rep Power
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    It isn't a definition I'd use, as it is one that is pretty much only used by the media to scream "woman hater" at men (kinda like how feminism is becoming female chauvinism, the definitions are changing...)
    Well, there is not much basis for discussion if you deny the dictionary definition of words.
    It is physically impossible to give birth whilst working... But on a slightly less sarcastic note, this isn't about stopping anyone from doing anything, it is about choice as you say. A lot of women *choose* to leave and be with their child rather than work, and because of that the number of women in boardrooms etc... is never going to reach gender parity. That is, unless the idea of best person for the job is scrapped and quotas enforced, which technically would then discriminate against men instead. However, there is an extension to this argument of why men don't want to spend that time with their children too...
    Sure. But then why aren't companies accommodating and supportive of women who do that so that they don't fall behind? Why do companies think their 'needs' should be put above the needs of society in achieving true equality? Perhaps companies who think it''s OK to treat women in that way, should only be allowed to recruit from the pool of people not born of women. Companies NEED babies as much as anyone but they don't want to be accommodating in their production.

  9. #84


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,615
    Thank Post
    934
    Thanked 350 Times in 266 Posts
    Rep Power
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    Companies NEED babies as much as anyone but they don't want to be accommodating in their production.
    Now that's an entirely different career path

  10. #85

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,684
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,453 Times in 1,899 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    Well, there is not much basis for discussion if you deny the dictionary definition of words.
    Wait, so words are fixed and never change meaning? They don't get used predominantly to mean one thing over other older meanings? I find your answer somewhat queer...

    Sure. But then why aren't companies accommodating and supportive of women who do that so that they don't fall behind? Why do companies think their 'needs' should be put above the needs of society in achieving true equality? Perhaps companies who think it''s OK to treat women in that way, should only be allowed to recruit from the pool of people not born of women. Companies NEED babies as much as anyone but they don't want to be accommodating in their production.
    You're assuming that companies aren't accommodating and supportive, yet evidence shows that many are and those that aren't are changing in accordance with the law (note, this does not mean *all* companies have it right yet, as there are still plenty where women are not welcome). For example, the CEO of Yahoo! is a woman and to accommodate her having a new child, she has a room next to her office decked out as a nursery... Do all companies have to publicise every aspect of every scheme they have in place to appease this need for accommodating women? Maybe they should anyway, much like Google promotes its free snacks, game rooms and the like...

  11. #86


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,018
    Thank Post
    268
    Thanked 800 Times in 605 Posts
    Rep Power
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Garacesh View Post
    See, this is the issue with 'Equal Opportunities'. Why should more than 22% of women be MP's? You just cannot say that. People who are able to do the job properly should be MP's. Not x% male and x% female.
    It is not just MP's, that is just one example of many hundreds which are evidence of discrimination against women operating at a very embedded level of society.

    And sorry, but among 640 MP's, the ratio should be more women. I'd not expect 50/50 at any one time, but in an equal society I would expect the numbers to approach that over time.

  12. #87

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,094
    Thank Post
    592
    Thanked 1,953 Times in 1,351 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    And sorry, but among 640 MP's, the ratio should be more women. I'd not expect 50/50 at any one time, but in an equal society I would expect the numbers to approach that over time.
    How many are actually applying?

    You can't claim gender discrimination if there are hardly any women going for those jobs.

    Nobody should get a free pass because of gender.

  13. #88

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,684
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,453 Times in 1,899 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    How many are actually applying?

    You can't claim gender discrimination if there are hardly any women going for those jobs.

    Nobody should get a free pass because of gender.
    Its more of a complex problem than "how many are applying?" as the question then becomes "why aren't more women applying?".

    Much like the question that the DfE wants answers to which is "why aren't more girls sticking with science after GCSE?"

  14. #89


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,018
    Thank Post
    268
    Thanked 800 Times in 605 Posts
    Rep Power
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Wait, so words are fixed and never change meaning? They don't get used predominantly to mean one thing over other older meanings? I find your answer somewhat queer...
    When there is dispute over the meaning of a word, the dictionary is usually credited an authoritative source by sensible folks. If you don't regard the dictionary as an authority then there is no possibility of discussion because you will use words as you want - they will mean what you want them to mean and how can anyone have a meaningful discussion with such a person? It simply won't be possible to even know what they are talking about - ask Ludwig Wittgenstein.

  15. #90


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,615
    Thank Post
    934
    Thanked 350 Times in 266 Posts
    Rep Power
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    It is not just MP's, that is just one example of many hundreds which are evidence of discrimination against women operating at a very embedded level of society.

    And sorry, but among 640 MP's, the ratio should be more women. I'd not expect 50/50 at any one time, but in an equal society I would expect the numbers to approach that over time.
    You assume it's discrimination. But why should it be?

    Hypothetically, I run a business. I want to hire 4 people. Let's say I get 20 applicants. Of those, I browse over the CV's and find only 6 have previous experience, which I decide is important. I interview those 6. Of those 6, only 1 is male. Immediately the odds are skewed. Even if I do hire him, that's only a 25% male-to-female ratio. You've also got to consider the amount of each gender actively applying for that role. Say all 20 applicants are male - It's statistically impossible for me to hire a woman with the potential staff I'm presented with.

    Just because the numbers are skewed, doesn't mean they're skewed purposely. I'd much rather have skewed ratios and decent employees than even ratios and sub-optimal employees, and to be honest I personally think that's exactly what you should be demanding from our government, not wanting them to employ more women just because there aren't that many of them.
    Last edited by Garacesh; 14th May 2014 at 12:59 PM.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Moodle - Stop Editing Teachers Changing Blocks On Front Page
    By FN-GM in forum Virtual Learning Platforms
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 6th November 2013, 07:20 AM
  2. Missing or Corrupt <Windows root>\system32\ntoskrnl.exe on Wise S90 Thin Client
    By networkdemon in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 3rd September 2008, 08:54 AM
  3. Ntoskrnl.exe Is Missing Or Corrupt
    By flashsnaps in forum Windows
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 5th February 2008, 12:20 PM
  4. Calling all Leicester or Leicestershire people
    By russdev in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2nd July 2007, 05:39 PM
  5. Microsoft, Cisco or Comptia - What are the Pros and Cons?
    By eddiebaby in forum Courses and Training
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 3rd May 2007, 06:22 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •