Stop Calling Teachers 'Miss' Or 'Sir', Pupils Are Told - Telegraph

[localzuk]

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.

[LosOjos]

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?

[pcstru]

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?

[AMLinington]

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.

[localzuk]

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...

[Garacesh]

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.

But, unfortunately, there are the vocals that 'take it too far' and give the entire movement a bad name.

 

 

 

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..)

 

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.

 

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.."

 

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?"

[AMLinington]

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.

[pcstru]

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.

[Garacesh]

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

[localzuk]

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...

[pcstru]

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.

[X-13]

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.

[localzuk]

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?"

[pcstru]

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.

[Garacesh]

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.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Garacesh

[localzuk]

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.

 

But we're talking about a rapidly changing subject - equality. Meanings of things change quickly, but the dictionary doesn't. The meaning of a word now can be very different to how it is used in a year's time. Especially when you consider "popular usage" which ends up being dictated by the media and their usage.

[SovietRussia]

I WISH I was called Sir or Mr $lastname, but the damm kids know my nickname

[Garacesh]

I WISH I was called Sir or Mr $lastname, but the damm kids know my nickname

 

In Soviet Russia jokes just got a little darker..

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120430002743/dragonball/images/5/50/If-you-know-what-i-mean.png

Edited May 14, 2014 by Garacesh

[SovietRussia]

In Soviet Russia jokes just got a little darker..

 

LMAO - You may refer to me as Dictator

[pcstru]

But we're talking about a rapidly changing subject - equality. Meanings of things change quickly, but the dictionary doesn't. The meaning of a word now can be very different to how it is used in a year's time. Especially when you consider "popular usage" which ends up being dictated by the media and their usage.

The discussion at that point was whether the use of the word Misogyny was appropriate to discrimination. I supported my use by referring to an authoritative source, the Oxford English dictionary. Where do you think I should go for an authoritative source on what words actually mean? You seem to be suggesting that I regard your opinion as more of an authority than the dictionary! I have a lot of respect for you - but that is frankly risible.

[X-13]

The discussion at that point was whether the use of the word Misogyny was appropriate to discrimination. I supported my use by referring to an authoritative source, the Oxford English dictionary. Where do you think I should go for an authoritative source on what words actually mean? You seem to be suggesting that I regard your opinion as more of an authority than the dictionary! I have a lot of respect for you - but that is frankly risible.

 

IIRC, your definition was added to the dictionary in 2012 because of some sort of shenanigans. [CBA to look, too busy]

 

It's newspeak. By calling everything "misogyny", you're trying to shut down any dissent.

 

 

You're part of the problem people have with feminists.

[Bompalompalomp]

Well, I have no idea how this tangent started and I'm slightly disappointed that it didn't end after "positive discrimination is bad and feminists are not those people I see calling guys dudebros".

[CAM]

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.

 

TBH, when it comes to games if you throw a dart at a crowded server you will probably stand more chance of hitting a male gamer then a female one. Simply because there are lots of them, especially in titles like Call of Duty or Battlefield (Because 13yo Chugging Mountain Dew Doritos Bro!). When it comes to titles like WoW where a character has a gender, I usually refer to the character with gender pronouns instead of the player. My old guild leader was always referred to as she because they had a female character, even though I knew this didn't reflect the player behind the avatar who is male.

[abillybob]

Well, I have no idea how this tangent started and I'm slightly disappointed that it didn't end after "positive discrimination is bad and feminists are not those people I see calling guys dudebros".

Conversation changes, it's healthy and gets everyone talking when there is a debate like this! Nothing wrong with it and you shouldn't be disappointed. This is all kind of the same subject the fact that Women can be called Miss, Mrs, Madam, feminists look to far into these things and then cause more havoc than the problem is worth "making a mountain out of molehills as the girlfriend says"

 

TBH, when it comes to games if you throw a dart at a crowded server you will probably stand more chance of hitting a male gamer then a female one. Simply because there are lots of them, especially in titles like Call of Duty or Battlefield (Because 13yo Chugging Mountain Dew Doritos Bro!). When it comes to titles like WoW where a character has a gender, I usually refer to the character with gender pronouns instead of the player. My old guild leader was always referred to as she because they had a female character, even though I knew this didn't reflect the player behind the avatar who is male.

 

You mentioned COD etc... I can't believe noone mentions the legendary games like Rust or CSGO..... You have just made a new enemy [/sarcasm]

 

Edited May 14, 2014 by abillybob

[Garacesh]

Well, I have no idea how this tangent started and I'm slightly disappointed that it didn't end after "positive discrimination is bad and feminists are not those people I see calling guys dudebros".

 

I don't think I see anyone ever calling guys 'dudebros' xD

 

With regard to @pcstru vs @localzuk - I present to you... "Literally."

Case dismissed.