Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Quotas for Female Politicians in Ireland

Options
1…7891113

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    Don't bother having refuted your first argument about quotas in the Labour Party and not had you engage in any kind of real or meaningful debate as to how you miscontrued that and also failed to backup that argument factually, I have no interested in dissassembling even more of your flawed logic. Nor am I interested in having you apply your labels of "sister", "radical feminist" "labour supporter" or "colluder" applied to me again.

    Have you anything to say regarding your error about the quotas?

    Of course, labour did set out put women into positions in their party, 73% of them turned out to be feminists. So there was a definitely quota in some shape or form. I remember it myself, there was a publicity campaign to go with it and of course many women (at the time) were going to be swung to vote on the strength of that "labour women" campaign. 33% of seats were designated for women, that is a quota, the vote was for which women were going to fill the quota.

    Can you please tell me how the rest of my sources are incorrect and why you are so doggedly determined to silence criticism of radical extremist policies?

    I've reposted one the previous page for you.


  • Options
    #303
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Reward wrote: »
    Badger badger badger, really this is just harassment in order the protect radical extremists from critsism.

    In order to be attempting to protect radical extremists from criticism, you first have to show us that the accusations you are levelling have at least a toe-hold in the reality we share. As you have thus far failed to link the wild claims you are making with A) reputable sources, B) failed to prove a "glut" of radical feminists exist in the labour party C) that such a glut are acting for and because of radical feminism C) tied together the links and articles you are providing with the specific claims you are appear to be randomly throwing around about females and female politicians in general - there is nothing to protect. A serious, credible and legible argument has yet to be made. You are just plucking unrelated articles, events and people; using little more than deductive fallacy and assumption to lob them together to fit your predetermined desired conclusion then demanding that conclusion be taken as legitimately & unequivocally proven.

    When you are given unarguable refutations, enlightened as to the actual reality of the policies and reports you are making claims about and reasons why your sources and arguments have more holes than swiss cheese, you just change tact, throw in a load of cobbled together copy and paste jobs and claim it's another triumph over the bullies trying to silence your stunning objectivity and sharp repartee - and then top it off with an accusation of other posters being blinded by the prejudices they have - it's just mind-bogglingly bad debating - nothing to do with bullying and harassment. If you come into a forum and make very one-sided claims then expect to have to defend those claims against vigorous opposition. If those claims are weak then you can expect to have to do a lot of back-peddling, sourcing, verification and legitimising, as you are finding out. That is the very nature of debate after-all.

    Think of it like a court room. No jury is ever going to be convinced nor anyone convicted based on sketchy personal testimony or woolly personal opinion loosely wrapped up as balanced rhetoric - there has to be indisputable evidence clearly supporting the points being made, not just alluding to or using quantificational, equivocational and composition fallacies in tandem with circular reasoning and cries of oppression. :cool:


  • Options
    #304
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    In order to be attempting to protect radical extremists from criticism, you first have to show us that the accusations you are levelling have at least a toe-hold in the reality we share. As you have thus far failed to link the wild claims you are making with A) reputable sources, B) failed to prove a "glut" of radical feminists exist in the labour party C) that such a glut are acting for and because of radical feminism C) tied together the links and articles you are providing with the specific claims you are appear to be randomly throwing around about females and female politicians in general - there is nothing to protect. A serious, credible and legible argument has yet to be made. You are just plucking unrelated articles, events and people; using little more than deductive fallacy and assumption to lob them together to fit your predetermined desired conclusion then demanding that conclusion be taken as legitimately & unequivocally proven.

    When you are given unarguable refutations, enlightened as to the actual reality of the policies and reports you are making claims about and reasons why your sources and arguments have more holes than swiss cheese, you just change tact, throw in a load of cobbled together copy and paste jobs and claim it's another triumph over the bullies trying to silence your stunning objectivity and sharp repartee - and then top it off with an accusation of other posters being blinded by the prejudices they have - it's just mind-bogglingly bad debating - nothing to do with bullying and harassment. If you come into a forum and make very one-sided claims then expect to have to defend those claims against vigorous opposition. If those claims are weak then you can expect to have to do a lot of back-peddling, sourcing, verification and legitimising, as you are finding out. That is the very nature of debate after-all.

    Think of it like a court room. No jury is ever going to be convinced nor anyone convicted based on sketchy personal testimony or woolly personal opinion loosely wrapped up as balanced rhetoric - there has to be indisputable evidence clearly supporting the points being made, not just alluding to or using quantificational, equivocational and composition fallacies in tandem with circular reasoning and cries of oppression. :cool:



    I will post my sources again, can you tell me how they are not credible?


  • Options
    #305
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    Of course, labour did set out put women into positions in their party, 73% of them turned out to be feminists. So there was a definitely quota in some shape or form. I remember it myself, there was a publicity campaign to go with it and of course many women (at the time) were going to be swung to vote on the strength of that "labour women" campaign. 33% of seats were designated for women, that is a quota, the vote was for which women were going to fill the quota.

    Can you please tell me how the rest of my sources are incorrect and why you are so doggedly determined to silence criticism of radical extremist policies?

    I've reposted one the previous page for you.

    Again if you see my post in relation to the Labour Partys decision to implement a quota for female representation in the Shadow Cabinet, it should be clear that a. it's nothing to do with ensuring a certain amount of female MP's are elected, and b. the timing of it after the General Election obviously had no impact on the amount of women democratically voted in by their constituencies.

    To save you going back, I'll repost it here.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69657752&postcount=277

    Have you any comments in relation to your original assertion upon reading through this, particularly in regard to the truth of your assertion?

    If you can accept that you possibly misinterpreted that then I may (if I have the time) go through the rest of the links you've posted and argue for or against them depending on their accuracy, though having already gone through one, it had more holes than a Swiss Cheese.
    Reward wrote: »
    I will post my sources again, can you tell me how they are not credible?

    See what I just said above your quoted text.


  • Options
    #306
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    There was some confusion about the first one, a quota is reserved seats, there is a vote for who out of the group that the seats are reserved for, will get a seat, the fact that there is a vote, doesn't make it not a quota


    Here are the rest of the sources

    As requested
    Labour feminists sex trafficking fraud.

    This was based around wild exaggerations about the number of sex slaves in the UK. Jacqui Smith claimed on one radio interview that 80% of prostitutes were under the control of another (sex slaves) and so implied that many men are happy to pay to have sex with miserable women that are kept in captivity (false accusation of wide spread rape), a very misandrist meme.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7024646.stm
    http://www.expatica.com/es/news/span...ng-_47465.html

    The whole thing, like gendered domestic abuse and rape, turned out to be based on lies and was likely a front to criminalise men that use the consensual sex trade.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oc...-enquiry-fails

    "Harman's sex trafficking law is based on feeble, fraudulent evidence.

    Here's the line. Women are being trafficked into Britain and forced to become sex slaves. We know this because the massive Operation Pentameter, involving 55 police forces, six government departments and various NGOs, led to the arrest of 528 sex traffickers. On the basis of this, Harriet Harman is rightly pushing through a bill to make it illegal to pay for sex with a prostitute controlled by someone else.

    Except it's all lies. As Nick Davies reports, the six-month investigation actually failed to find a single sex trafficker. Ten of the 55 police forces arrested nobody at all. Some 122 of the 528 arrests claimed never happened (they were wrongly recorded, or phantom arrests designed to chase targets). Half (230) were women – suggesting that the Operation was a convenient excuse to harass prostitutes and clock up more arrest figures.

    Of the 406 real arrests, 153 had been released weeks before the police announced their 'success', 106 without any charge at all, and 47 being cautioned for minor offences. Of the rest, 73 were charged with immigration breaches, 76 convicted on drugs raps, and others died or disappeared.

    Only 22 people were finally prosecuted for trafficking, including two women. Seven were acquitted. The net haul from this vast operation was 15 successful prosecutions. Of those, just five men were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes (two of whom were already in custody).

    So that's the 'huge success' that allowed Jacqui Smith and now Harriet Harman, to claim that 'thousands' of women were being trafficked, and to push a Bill through Parliament. So much for evidence-based policy: I would feel happier if they just said that they found prostitution disgusting and wanted to outlaw it for our own moral good. At least that would be honest. This is simple deception, a fraud on the public.

    Sex workers are opposing the new legislation. They know that every time governments 'get tough' on prostitution, they are the ones who suffer. The police just have another excuse to go on fishing trips, round up a few girls, and boost their arrest figures so that they get Brownie points and the Chief Constable gets a better bonus. And to prove that they are not 'controlled', girls will start working alone, rather than in flats with a maid to look after them, which will make them more vulnerable to abuse and attack".

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/justic...-liberties/70/

    If anyone wants to declare the above invalid on the basis of it being published on a libertarian blog, click on the Guardian link above it for the same information published in the Guardian.


    on the ideology behind sex trafficking fraud.

    Weitzer, R [2007] The social construction of sex trafficking: Ideology and institutionalization of a moral crusade. Politics & Society 35(3);

    Sophie Day [2009] Renewing the war on prostitution: The spectres of 'trafficking' and 'slavery' Anthropology Today v25n3;

    Doezema. J [1999] Loose women or lost women? The re-emergence of the myth of 'white slavery' in contemporary discourses of 'trafficking in women'. Gender Issues 18(1).


    How are these sources incorrect, is "incorrect" just information that you dont like or is there more to it than that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    There was some confusion about the first one, a quota is reserved seats, there is a vote for who out of the group that the seats are reserved for, will get a seat, the fact that there is a vote, doesn't make it not a quota

    What you originally posted was
    Here is roughly what provoked the inital personal and other attacks.

    I said that I didn't approve of quotas leading to a glut of feminists in gov. and used the example of the UK Labour gov and the frauds, deceptions and bigoted leglislation that came out of it.

    Labour announce 33% female quota for the party.

    http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvo...hadow-cabinet/

    I have clearly pointed out twice now that your post was inaccurate and incorrect, using the actual sources that you provided.

    Therefore can you accept that there are no quotas in relation to the amount of Labour Women MP's that the Party aim to get elected, that seats are not reserved, and that outside of the 31% (NOT 33% quota for representation in the Shadow Cabinet) there is no defined Labour Party quota in respect to women?


  • Options
    #308
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    What you originally posted was


    I have clearly pointed out twice now that your post was inaccurate and incorrect, using the actual sources that you provided.

    Therefore can you accept that there are no quotas in relation to the amount of Labour Women MP's that the Party aim to get elected, that seats are not reserved, and that outside of the 31% (NOT 33% quota for representation in the Shadow Cabinet) there is no defined Labour Party quota in respect to women?

    "that seats are not reserved, and that outside of the 31% (NOT 33% quota for representation in the Shadow Cabinet) there is no defined Labour Party quota in respect to women?"

    Sure, I will accept that outside of the 31% there is no defined quota.

    Everyone remembers Labours public drive to get women (feminists) into the party/gov.

    So we are arguing about the difference between an official clearly defined quota and unofficial not clearly defined quota.


  • Options
    #309
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Reward wrote: »
    I will post my sources again, can you tell me how they are not credible?

    For someone who was earlier claiming feminists were taught in a womb and devoid of peer-review and balanced thought, I wonder that you really have to ask.

    The daily mail is not generally thought of as a credible source of information, that hardly needs saying, earlier in the thread you even apologised in advance for linking to them. Personal opinion given informally and often by unreferenced and unqualified people in blogs is not a credible source and on that note nor are sources that are quite clearly going to be biased and partisan. If I were to link to a blog or feminism today regarding definitions for feminism, would you think of them as credible examples and convincing? Of course not.

    Where sources are credible, they must also directly tie in to the points you are making. Reams of articles suggesting Harriet Harmen is a rabid feminist are pointless if the point you are trying to support is that a glut of labour politicians are fraudulent and passing misogynistic policy. Much as declaring that sects of extreme feminists have suggested culling men is useless in defining why quotas of females in general are a bad idea - it is taking two completely separate issues and deliberately trying to muddy the water and then draw comparison. Constantly aligning women who define themselves as feminists as being anti-male by definition and thus trying to suggest female politicians who define themselves must be anti-male is poor debating. Suggesting a government initiative or party policies must be driven by radical feminists without first proving there are radical feminists and they alone are responsible for initiative and policies is just lazy debating - join the dot stuff.

    Now you seem to have an issue with politicians being against human trafficking - do you deny it goes on? Are you suggesting only radical feminists in the government or indeed in general object to human trafficking or forced prostitution? There seems to be no acknowledgement that a certain amount of policies in every government affect one or other of the sexes and since both male and female politicians exist - it would be ridiculous to surmise that common government policies are driven in isolation by radical feminists or even just by female politicians.

    I applauded when paternity leave was lengthened and legislated for in my country and I was neither married nor a parent at the time. The politician that happened to be in that department at the time was male. Was there cried of misogyny and misandry? Do I think anyone bar a bizarre few assumed there was any more to it than democratically elected representatives fulfilling electoral mandates? No. I think you have to look at politics a little more discernibly and a little less like a dan brown novel.


  • Options
    #310
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    For someone who was earlier claiming feminists were taught in a womb and devoid of peer-review and balanced thought, I wonder that you really have to ask.

    The daily mail is not generally thought of as a credible source of information, that hardly needs saying, earlier in the thread you even apologised in advance for linking to them. Personal opinion given informally and often by unreferenced and unqualified people in blogs is not a credible source and on that note nor are sources that are quite clearly going to be biased and partisan. If I were to link to a blog or feminism today regarding definitions for feminism, would you think of them as credible examples and convincing? Of course not.

    Where sources are credible, they must also directly tie in to the points you are making. Reams of articles suggesting Harriet Harmen is a rabid feminist are pointless if the point you are trying to support is that a glut of labour politicians are fraudulent and passing misogynistic policy. Much as declaring that sects of extreme feminists have suggested culling men is useless in defining why quotas of females in general are a bad idea - it is taking two completely separate issues and deliberately trying to muddy the water and then draw comparison. Constantly aligning women who define themselves as feminists as being anti-male by definition and thus trying to suggest female politicians who define themselves must be anti-male is poor debating. Suggesting a government initiative or party policies must be driven by radical feminists without first proving there are radical feminists and they alone are responsible for initiative and policies is just lazy debating - join the dot stuff.

    Now you seem to have an issue with politicians being against human trafficking - do you deny it goes on? Are you suggesting only radical feminists in the government or indeed in general object to human trafficking or forced prostitution? There seems to be no acknowledgement that a certain amount of policies in every government affect one or other of the sexes and since both male and female politicians exist - it would be ridiculous to surmise that common government policies are driven in isolation by radical feminists or even just by female politicians.

    I applauded when paternity leave was lengthened and legislated for in my country and I was neither married nor a parent at the time. The politician that happened to be in that department at the time was male. Was there cried of misogyny and misandry? Do I think anyone bar a bizarre few assumed there was any more to it than democratically elected representatives fulfilling electoral mandates? No. I think you have to look at politics a little more discernibly and a little less like a dan brown novel.



    Can you point out how these sources are incorrect

    As requested
    Labour feminists sex trafficking fraud.

    This was based around wild exaggerations about the number of sex slaves in the UK. Jacqui Smith claimed on one radio interview that 80% of prostitutes were under the control of another (sex slaves) and so implied that many men are happy to pay to have sex with miserable women that are kept in captivity (false accusation of wide spread rape), a very misandrist meme.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7024646.stm
    http://www.expatica.com/es/news/span...ng-_47465.html

    The whole thing, like gendered domestic abuse and rape, turned out to be based on lies and was likely a front to criminalise men that use the consensual sex trade.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oc...-enquiry-fails

    "Harman's sex trafficking law is based on feeble, fraudulent evidence.

    Here's the line. Women are being trafficked into Britain and forced to become sex slaves. We know this because the massive Operation Pentameter, involving 55 police forces, six government departments and various NGOs, led to the arrest of 528 sex traffickers. On the basis of this, Harriet Harman is rightly pushing through a bill to make it illegal to pay for sex with a prostitute controlled by someone else.

    Except it's all lies. As Nick Davies reports, the six-month investigation actually failed to find a single sex trafficker. Ten of the 55 police forces arrested nobody at all. Some 122 of the 528 arrests claimed never happened (they were wrongly recorded, or phantom arrests designed to chase targets). Half (230) were women – suggesting that the Operation was a convenient excuse to harass prostitutes and clock up more arrest figures.

    Of the 406 real arrests, 153 had been released weeks before the police announced their 'success', 106 without any charge at all, and 47 being cautioned for minor offences. Of the rest, 73 were charged with immigration breaches, 76 convicted on drugs raps, and others died or disappeared.

    Only 22 people were finally prosecuted for trafficking, including two women. Seven were acquitted. The net haul from this vast operation was 15 successful prosecutions. Of those, just five men were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes (two of whom were already in custody).

    So that's the 'huge success' that allowed Jacqui Smith and now Harriet Harman, to claim that 'thousands' of women were being trafficked, and to push a Bill through Parliament. So much for evidence-based policy: I would feel happier if they just said that they found prostitution disgusting and wanted to outlaw it for our own moral good. At least that would be honest. This is simple deception, a fraud on the public.

    Sex workers are opposing the new legislation. They know that every time governments 'get tough' on prostitution, they are the ones who suffer. The police just have another excuse to go on fishing trips, round up a few girls, and boost their arrest figures so that they get Brownie points and the Chief Constable gets a better bonus. And to prove that they are not 'controlled', girls will start working alone, rather than in flats with a maid to look after them, which will make them more vulnerable to abuse and attack".

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/justic...-liberties/70/

    If anyone wants to declare the above invalid on the basis of it being published on a libertarian blog, click on the Guardian link above it for the same information published in the Guardian.


    on the ideology behind sex trafficking fraud.

    Weitzer, R [2007] The social construction of sex trafficking: Ideology and institutionalization of a moral crusade. Politics & Society 35(3);

    Sophie Day [2009] Renewing the war on prostitution: The spectres of 'trafficking' and 'slavery' Anthropology Today v25n3;

    Doezema. J [1999] Loose women or lost women? The re-emergence of the myth of 'white slavery' in contemporary discourses of 'trafficking in women'. Gender Issues 18(1).


  • Options
    #311
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    "that seats are not reserved, and that outside of the 31% (NOT 33% quota for representation in the Shadow Cabinet) there is no defined Labour Party quota in respect to women?"

    Sure, I will accept that outside of the 31% there is no defined quota.

    Everyone remembers Labours public drive to get women (feminists) into the party/gov.

    So we are arguing about the difference between an official clearly defined quota and unofficial not clearly defined quota.

    You've yet again chosen not to confront the fact that your post was factually inaccurate and that your claim was wrong in terms of timely.

    Labour have no official quota to ensure a minimum of women MP's they have a quota for female representation at the Shadow Cabinet level, so we are not arguing about the difference between an official clearly defined quota and unofficial not clearly defined quota.

    You were wrong with the information you have posted, but yet again you have chosen to ignore that fact rather than admit it. The ability to debate well includes the ability to take it on the chin and say "yup, I was wrong" then redirect the argument back to the topic at hand, rather than choosing to label fellow debaters, derail the topic, and manipulate information misleadingly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    For someone who was earlier claiming feminists were taught in a womb and devoid of peer-review and balanced thought, I wonder that you really have to ask.

    The daily mail is not generally thought of as a credible source of information, that hardly needs saying, earlier in the thread you even apologised in advance for linking to them. Personal opinion given informally and often by unreferenced and unqualified people in blogs is not a credible source and on that note nor are sources that are quite clearly going to be biased and partisan. If I were to link to a blog or feminism today regarding definitions for feminism, would you think of them as credible examples and convincing? Of course not.

    Where sources are credible, they must also directly tie in to the points you are making. Reams of articles suggesting Harriet Harmen is a rabid feminist are pointless if the point you are trying to support is that a glut of labour politicians are fraudulent and passing misogynistic policy. Much as declaring that sects of extreme feminists have suggested culling men is useless in defining why quotas of females in general are a bad idea - it is taking two completely separate issues and deliberately trying to muddy the water and then draw comparison. Constantly aligning women who define themselves as feminists as being anti-male by definition and thus trying to suggest female politicians who define themselves must be anti-male is poor debating. Suggesting a government initiative or party policies must be driven by radical feminists without first proving there are radical feminists and they alone are responsible for initiative and policies is just lazy debating - join the dot stuff.

    Now you seem to have an issue with politicians being against human trafficking - do you deny it goes on? Are you suggesting only radical feminists in the government or indeed in general object to human trafficking or forced prostitution? There seems to be no acknowledgement that a certain amount of policies in every government affect one or other of the sexes and since both male and female politicians exist - it would be ridiculous to surmise that common government policies are driven in isolation by radical feminists or even just by female politicians.

    I applauded when paternity leave was lengthened and legislated for in my country and I was neither married nor a parent at the time. The politician that happened to be in that department at the time was male. Was there cried of misogyny and misandry? Do I think anyone bar a bizarre few assumed there was any more to it than democratically elected representatives fulfilling electoral mandates? No. I think you have to look at politics a little more discernibly and a little less like a dan brown novel.



    Can you point out how these sources are incorrect

    As requested
    Labour feminists sex trafficking fraud.

    This was based around wild exaggerations about the number of sex slaves in the UK. Jacqui Smith claimed on one radio interview that 80% of prostitutes were under the control of another (sex slaves) and so implied that many men are happy to pay to have sex with miserable women that are kept in captivity (false accusation of wide spread rape), a very misandrist meme.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7024646.stm
    http://www.expatica.com/es/news/span...ng-_47465.html

    The whole thing, like gendered domestic abuse and rape, turned out to be based on lies and was likely a front to criminalise men that use the consensual sex trade.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oc...-enquiry-fails

    "Harman's sex trafficking law is based on feeble, fraudulent evidence.

    Here's the line. Women are being trafficked into Britain and forced to become sex slaves. We know this because the massive Operation Pentameter, involving 55 police forces, six government departments and various NGOs, led to the arrest of 528 sex traffickers. On the basis of this, Harriet Harman is rightly pushing through a bill to make it illegal to pay for sex with a prostitute controlled by someone else.

    Except it's all lies. As Nick Davies reports, the six-month investigation actually failed to find a single sex trafficker. Ten of the 55 police forces arrested nobody at all. Some 122 of the 528 arrests claimed never happened (they were wrongly recorded, or phantom arrests designed to chase targets). Half (230) were women – suggesting that the Operation was a convenient excuse to harass prostitutes and clock up more arrest figures.

    Of the 406 real arrests, 153 had been released weeks before the police announced their 'success', 106 without any charge at all, and 47 being cautioned for minor offences. Of the rest, 73 were charged with immigration breaches, 76 convicted on drugs raps, and others died or disappeared.

    Only 22 people were finally prosecuted for trafficking, including two women. Seven were acquitted. The net haul from this vast operation was 15 successful prosecutions. Of those, just five men were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes (two of whom were already in custody).

    So that's the 'huge success' that allowed Jacqui Smith and now Harriet Harman, to claim that 'thousands' of women were being trafficked, and to push a Bill through Parliament. So much for evidence-based policy: I would feel happier if they just said that they found prostitution disgusting and wanted to outlaw it for our own moral good. At least that would be honest. This is simple deception, a fraud on the public.

    Sex workers are opposing the new legislation. They know that every time governments 'get tough' on prostitution, they are the ones who suffer. The police just have another excuse to go on fishing trips, round up a few girls, and boost their arrest figures so that they get Brownie points and the Chief Constable gets a better bonus. And to prove that they are not 'controlled', girls will start working alone, rather than in flats with a maid to look after them, which will make them more vulnerable to abuse and attack".

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/justic...-liberties/70/

    If anyone wants to declare the above invalid on the basis of it being published on a libertarian blog, click on the Guardian link above it for the same information published in the Guardian.


    on the ideology behind sex trafficking fraud.

    Weitzer, R [2007] The social construction of sex trafficking: Ideology and institutionalization of a moral crusade. Politics & Society 35(3);

    Sophie Day [2009] Renewing the war on prostitution: The spectres of 'trafficking' and 'slavery' Anthropology Today v25n3;

    Doezema. J [1999] Loose women or lost women? The re-emergence of the myth of 'white slavery' in contemporary discourses of 'trafficking in women'. Gender Issues 18(1).




    Feminism is taught in a womb thats protected from outside peer review.

    Read Daphne Patai
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai

    A recent enlarged edition of this book provided extensive documentation from current feminist writings of the continuation, and indeed exacerbation, of these practices. Routinely challenged by feminists who declare that "all education is political," Patai has responded with the claim that this view is simplistic. She argues that a significant difference exists between the reality that education may have political implications and the intentional use of education to indoctrinate. The latter, she argues, is no more acceptable when done by feminists than when done by fundamentalists.


  • Options
    #313
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    Can you point out how these sources are incorrect

    and to push a Bill through Parliament. So much for evidence-based policy: I would feel happier if they just said that they found prostitution disgusting and wanted to outlaw it for our own moral good. At least that would be honest. This is simple deception, a fraud on the public.

    Sex workers are opposing the new legislation. They know that every time governments 'get tough' on prostitution, they are the ones who suffer. The police just have another excuse to go on fishing trips, round up a few girls, and boost their arrest figures so that they get Brownie points and the Chief Constable gets a better bonus. And to prove that they are not 'controlled', girls will start working alone, rather than in flats with a maid to look after them, which will make them more vulnerable to abuse and attack".

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/justic...-liberties/70/

    If anyone wants to declare the above invalid on the basis of it being published on a libertarian blog, click on the Guardian link above it for the same information published in the Guardian.


    on the ideology behind sex trafficking fraud.

    Weitzer, R [2007] The social construction of sex trafficking: Ideology and institutionalization of a moral crusade. Politics & Society 35(3);

    Sophie Day [2009] Renewing the war on prostitution: The spectres of 'trafficking' and 'slavery' Anthropology Today v25n3;

    Doezema. J [1999] Loose women or lost women? The re-emergence of the myth of 'white slavery' in contemporary discourses of 'trafficking in women'. Gender Issues 18(1).




    Feminism is taught in a womb thats protected from outside peer review.

    Read Daphne Patai
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai

    The bill doesn't appear to have been passed, if it has, can you please give me the name of the Bill and when it was voted into law?


  • Options
    #314
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Reward wrote: »
    Everyone remembers Labours public drive to get women (feminists) into the party/gov.

    Ah, so it's women = feminists ergo (no doubt), women = radical feminists? Thus female labour politicians are all radical feminists? The only glut there is the number of fallacies that "logic" falls under.
    Reward wrote: »
    So we are arguing about the difference between an official clearly defined quota and unofficial not clearly defined quota.

    No, we're disputing your claims - like the one you have spent the past goodness knows how many pages reiterating just to retract it above and the other, what, four or five that you've attempted to distance yourself from or avoided mentioning again.

    Btw - continually posting the same false attributions do not an argument make. Can you show how your links and articles are directly relevant to the specific claims you are making? Are you denying sex trafficking goes on? You disagree with an initiative that followed the advice of various charities and women's groups? What point are you making? And how does such an article legitimise your claims?


  • Options
    #315
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    You've yet again chosen not to confront the fact that your post was factually inaccurate and that your claim was wrong in terms of timely.

    Labour have no official quota to ensure a minimum of women MP's they have a quota for female representation at the Shadow Cabinet level, so we are not arguing about the difference between an official clearly defined quota and unofficial not clearly defined quota.

    You were wrong with the information you have posted, but yet again you have chosen to ignore that fact rather than admit it. The ability to debate well includes the ability to take it on the chin and say "yup, I was wrong" then redirect the argument back to the topic at hand, rather than choosing to label fellow debaters, derail the topic, and manipulate information misleadingly.

    I just did admit that I was wrong, I see that I am talking about a labour drive to get women(see feminists) into the party/gov and that there was no official quota but rather an unofficial one.


  • Options
    #316
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    I just did admit that I was wrong, I see that I am talking about a labour drive to get women(see feminists) into the party/gov and that there was no official quota but rather an unofficial one.

    Ah so that's one claim of yours that radical feminists are promoting the creation of quotas to enlarge their numbers in the Labour Party and Parliament proved WRONG. Instead it's Labour trying to improve the amount of women who are elected to the Parliament.

    Now onto the bill you claim the false statistics about human trafficking were used to push through Parliament, can you please tell me the name of the Bill and the dates of it passing?


  • Options
    #317
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    The bill doesn't appear to have been passed, if it has, can you please give me the name of the Bill and when it was voted into law?

    No, can you explain how the BBC and the Guardian are not credible sources.


    "Ah so that's one claim of yours that radical feminists are promoting the creation of quotas to enlarge their numbers in the Labour Party and Parliament proved WRONG. Instead it's Labour trying to improve the amount of women who are elected to the Parliament."


    No I didnt say that at all.


  • Options
    #318
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    No, can you explain how the BBC and the Guardian are not credible sources.

    There is nothing on either the BBC or Guardian websites, substantiating that the bill has been passed, rather a lot of opinion about it.

    Has the bill been passed? Yes or No?


  • Options
    #319
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    There is nothing on either the BBC or Guardian websites, substantiating that the bill has been passed, rather a lot of opinion about it.

    Has the bill been passed? Yes or No?


    Irrevelant, can you demonstrate how these sources are not a valid representation of a fraud perpetuated by labour gov. feminists?


    I take that as a no and that you are not honest enough to say so.


  • Options
    #320
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    No, can you explain how the BBC and the Guardian are not credible sources.


    "Ah so that's one claim of yours that radical feminists are promoting the creation of quotas to enlarge their numbers in the Labour Party and Parliament proved WRONG. Instead it's Labour trying to improve the amount of women who are elected to the Parliament."


    No I didnt say that at all.

    Stop telling lies, you admitted that you were wrong about quotas in the Labour Party when you said:

    I just did admit that I was wrong, I see that I am talking about a labour drive to get women(see feminists) into the party/gov and that there was no official quota but rather an unofficial one.

    You confused an attempt to increase female participation with the introduction of quotas, ergo you were wrong.


  • Options
    #321
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    Irrevelant, can you tell demonstrate how these sources are not a valid representation of a fraud perpetuated by labour gov. feminists?


    I take that as a no and that you are not honest enough to say so,

    The Bill hasn't been passed afaik as there has been a change of Government and as recently as September 2010 Harman was pushing Cameron to enact EU level directives regarding human trafficking.

    Ergo your statement that erroneous statistics were used to push a bill on trafficking through Parliament is incorrect.

    Again if you wish to post up details of the Bill and the date of it's passing do so.

    And accusing me of dishonesty is puerile in the extreme, given that it's now been shown that at least two of your claims have been shown to be inaccurate and incorrect, and unless pushed you fail to acknowledge that.
    But again that's a sign of someone with no substantive belief in their arguments, trying to turn the table on someone with quantifiable fact to back up theirs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    Stop telling lies, you admitted that you were wrong about quotas in the Labour Party when you said:




    You confused an attempt to increase female participation with the introduction of quotas, ergo you were wrong.


    Nope, I maintain that 73% of those women were feminists and so not representative of women in general. I also believe that it was partially publicity stunt to manipulate the transient vote, women.


  • Options
    #323
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    Nope, I maintain that 73% of those women were feminists and so not representative of women in general. I also believe that it was partially publicity stunt to manipulate the transient vote, women.

    73% were identified as having feminist leanings, but how many as being extreme feminists? Not many having read the study you posted?

    Your belief is your belief, not a great source in an argument.


  • Options
    #324
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Even credible sources need to be relevant to the point it's supporting. Using the old ergo propositional fallacies don't bolster the specific claims you have made.

    As I have already mentioned above; a male politician bringing in legislated minimal paid paternity leave does not equate to abuse of position and pushing an extreme personal agenda unless you can prove those things happened and acknowledge the legislation being passed which happens to affect a department run by a male politician is not evidence in and of itself.

    I've already asked twice for sources on your claims regarding the percentages you keep throwing around - and do you think it would be possible to have this discussion without every single post being retrospectively edited even after they have been quoted and responded to?


  • Options
    #325
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    73% were identified as having feminist leanings, but how many as being extreme feminists? Not many having read the study you posted?

    Your belief is your belief, not a great source in an argument.



    What you are describing is an unofficial quota, 2/3 if the women turned out to be feminists and that is not a representation of average women. Im happy to agree that is what we are talking about here and that I was mistaken to define this unofficial quota as an official quota.

    I maintain that quotas are extremist feminism.


  • Options
    #326
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    What you are describing is an unofficial quota, 2/3 if the women turned out to be feminists. Im happy to agree that is what we are talking about here and that I was mistaken to define this unofficial quota as an official quota.

    I maintain that quotas are extremist feminism.

    I think you are confused, firstly this is an official quota in the Labour Party that 31% of those in the Shadow Cabinet will be female, so that's your first error/confusion. Now as I've no idea who is in the Shadow Cabinet I've no idea how many of the 73% that are feministically inclined are in it as opposed to the 2/3 you now claim are feminists, so that's your second error.

    Thirdly, that quota was voted in by a Party that is 69% male so there is no way that extreme feminists could have gotten a majority without having the support of at least some of the male members of the Party, are you implying by your last point that men in the Labour Party are extreme feminists, and ergo based on some of your previous points essentially voting themselves out of existence?


  • Options
    #327
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Can someone point out how this source is not a valid description of a fraud carried out by labour feminists?

    As requested
    Labour feminists sex trafficking fraud.

    This was based around wild exaggerations about the number of sex slaves in the UK. Jacqui Smith claimed on one radio interview that 80% of prostitutes were under the control of another (sex slaves) and so implied that many men are happy to pay to have sex with miserable women that are kept in captivity (false accusation of wide spread rape), a very misandrist meme.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7024646.stm
    http://www.expatica.com/es/news/span...ng-_47465.html

    The whole thing, like gendered domestic abuse and rape, turned out to be based on lies and was likely a front to criminalise men that use the consensual sex trade.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oc...-enquiry-fails

    "Harman's sex trafficking law is based on feeble, fraudulent evidence.

    Here's the line. Women are being trafficked into Britain and forced to become sex slaves. We know this because the massive Operation Pentameter, involving 55 police forces, six government departments and various NGOs, led to the arrest of 528 sex traffickers. On the basis of this, Harriet Harman is rightly pushing through a bill to make it illegal to pay for sex with a prostitute controlled by someone else.

    Except it's all lies. As Nick Davies reports, the six-month investigation actually failed to find a single sex trafficker. Ten of the 55 police forces arrested nobody at all. Some 122 of the 528 arrests claimed never happened (they were wrongly recorded, or phantom arrests designed to chase targets). Half (230) were women – suggesting that the Operation was a convenient excuse to harass prostitutes and clock up more arrest figures.

    Of the 406 real arrests, 153 had been released weeks before the police announced their 'success', 106 without any charge at all, and 47 being cautioned for minor offences. Of the rest, 73 were charged with immigration breaches, 76 convicted on drugs raps, and others died or disappeared.

    Only 22 people were finally prosecuted for trafficking, including two women. Seven were acquitted. The net haul from this vast operation was 15 successful prosecutions. Of those, just five men were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes (two of whom were already in custody).

    So that's the 'huge success' that allowed Jacqui Smith and now Harriet Harman, to claim that 'thousands' of women were being trafficked, and to push a Bill through Parliament. So much for evidence-based policy: I would feel happier if they just said that they found prostitution disgusting and wanted to outlaw it for our own moral good. At least that would be honest. This is simple deception, a fraud on the public.

    Sex workers are opposing the new legislation. They know that every time governments 'get tough' on prostitution, they are the ones who suffer. The police just have another excuse to go on fishing trips, round up a few girls, and boost their arrest figures so that they get Brownie points and the Chief Constable gets a better bonus. And to prove that they are not 'controlled', girls will start working alone, rather than in flats with a maid to look after them, which will make them more vulnerable to abuse and attack".

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/justic...-liberties/70/

    If anyone wants to declare the above invalid on the basis of it being published on a libertarian blog, click on the Guardian link above it for the same information published in the Guardian.


    on the ideology behind sex trafficking fraud.

    Weitzer, R [2007] The social construction of sex trafficking: Ideology and institutionalization of a moral crusade. Politics & Society 35(3);

    Sophie Day [2009] Renewing the war on prostitution: The spectres of 'trafficking' and 'slavery' Anthropology Today v25n3;

    Doezema. J [1999] Loose women or lost women? The re-emergence of the myth of 'white slavery' in contemporary discourses of 'trafficking in women'. Gender Issues 18(1).


  • Options
    #328
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    Can someone point out how this source is not a valid description of a fraud carried out by labour feminists?

    As requested
    Labour feminists sex trafficking fraud.

    This was based around wild exaggerations about the number of sex slaves in the UK. Jacqui Smith claimed on one radio interview that 80% of prostitutes were under the control of another (sex slaves) and so implied that many men are happy to pay to have sex with miserable women that are kept in captivity (false accusation of wide spread rape), a very misandrist meme.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7024646.stm
    http://www.expatica.com/es/news/span...ng-_47465.html

    The whole thing, like gendered domestic abuse and rape, turned out to be based on lies and was likely a front to criminalise men that use the consensual sex trade.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oc...-enquiry-fails

    "Harman's sex trafficking law is based on feeble, fraudulent evidence.

    Here's the line. Women are being trafficked into Britain and forced to become sex slaves. We know this because the massive Operation Pentameter, involving 55 police forces, six government departments and various NGOs, led to the arrest of 528 sex traffickers. On the basis of this, Harriet Harman is rightly pushing through a bill to make it illegal to pay for sex with a prostitute controlled by someone else.

    Except it's all lies. As Nick Davies reports, the six-month investigation actually failed to find a single sex trafficker. Ten of the 55 police forces arrested nobody at all. Some 122 of the 528 arrests claimed never happened (they were wrongly recorded, or phantom arrests designed to chase targets). Half (230) were women – suggesting that the Operation was a convenient excuse to harass prostitutes and clock up more arrest figures.

    Of the 406 real arrests, 153 had been released weeks before the police announced their 'success', 106 without any charge at all, and 47 being cautioned for minor offences. Of the rest, 73 were charged with immigration breaches, 76 convicted on drugs raps, and others died or disappeared.

    Only 22 people were finally prosecuted for trafficking, including two women. Seven were acquitted. The net haul from this vast operation was 15 successful prosecutions. Of those, just five men were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes (two of whom were already in custody).

    So that's the 'huge success' that allowed Jacqui Smith and now Harriet Harman, to claim that 'thousands' of women were being trafficked, and to push a Bill through Parliament. So much for evidence-based policy: I would feel happier if they just said that they found prostitution disgusting and wanted to outlaw it for our own moral good. At least that would be honest. This is simple deception, a fraud on the public.

    Sex workers are opposing the new legislation. They know that every time governments 'get tough' on prostitution, they are the ones who suffer. The police just have another excuse to go on fishing trips, round up a few girls, and boost their arrest figures so that they get Brownie points and the Chief Constable gets a better bonus. And to prove that they are not 'controlled', girls will start working alone, rather than in flats with a maid to look after them, which will make them more vulnerable to abuse and attack".

    http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/justic...-liberties/70/

    If anyone wants to declare the above invalid on the basis of it being published on a libertarian blog, click on the Guardian link above it for the same information published in the Guardian.


    on the ideology behind sex trafficking fraud.

    Weitzer, R [2007] The social construction of sex trafficking: Ideology and institutionalization of a moral crusade. Politics & Society 35(3);

    Sophie Day [2009] Renewing the war on prostitution: The spectres of 'trafficking' and 'slavery' Anthropology Today v25n3;

    Doezema. J [1999] Loose women or lost women? The re-emergence of the myth of 'white slavery' in contemporary discourses of 'trafficking in women'. Gender Issues 18(1).
    Yes, as I've already repeatedly posted, you've used this particular claim as evidence that a Bill relating to your points had been pushed through Parliament by radical feminists.

    Yet when asked to provide any detail of the Bill or it's date of passing you refused to do so, saying it was irrelevant, and when I pointed out that it doesn't appear to have passed, you ignored it.

    Now, yet again, can you give us the detail of the Bill that Female Labour Radical Feminist MP's used false trafficking statistics to push through Parliament?


  • Options
    #329
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    I think you are confused, firstly this is an official quota in the Labour Party that 31% of those in the Shadow Cabinet will be female, so that's your first error/confusion. Now as I've no idea who is in the Shadow Cabinet I've no idea how many of the 73% that are feministically inclined are in it as opposed to the 2/3 you now claim are feminists, so that's your second error.

    Thirdly, that quota was voted in by a Party that is 69% male so there is no way that extreme feminists could have gotten a majority without having the support of at least some of the male members of the Party, are you implying by your last point that men in the Labour Party are extreme feminists, and ergo based on some of your previous points essentially voting themselves out of existence?



    The sex of the voters is irrelevant and anyway men don't automatically vote against women, whats more the game as you describe it was rigged, the votes have to be given to someone out of a hand picked group.


  • Options
    #330
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Reward wrote: »
    The sex of the voters is irrelevant and anyway men don't automatically vote against women, whats more the game as you describe it was rigged, the votes have to be given to someone out of a hand picked group.

    Now you are completely into conspiracy theory land, you've pretty much rendered any argument you make useless.

    Have you even a shred of evidence for this, given that the one source you had has been pointed out to be wrong? Or have you decided that some of the 69% of male members of Labour MP's are extreme feminists?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Reward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭Reward


    Stheno wrote: »
    Now you are completely into conspiracy theory land, you've pretty much rendered any argument you make useless.

    Have you even a shred of evidence for this, given that the one source you had has been pointed out to be wrong?

    Its fairly obvious that the women that were up for votes were hand picked. You cant just wander in off the street.

    How is this not an accurate discription of a fraud carried out by labour gov feminists?

    As requested

    Labour feminists wage gap fraud

    Very basic explanation of how it works. Wage gap fraud is international. The family wage is counted as the main workers wage alone and when the other adult in the family choses not to work, their share of the family wage is recorded as zero. In the case of the secondary adult chosing part time work, their part time wage is counted as their only income and the main workers is counted as theirs alone. Men and women make different choices and men are mich more likely to be the main taxpayers and women the non taxpayer and part time worker. (it would be interesting to see how much the gap works in favour of women if we counted the family wage as what it really is).

    The other gaps are explained by different work/lifestype choices (women have more flexibility) and the glass ceiling meme is debunked by the fact that women women do make choices that are similar to men, they often out earn them for the same work.

    The difference is then presented to the public as proof of a conspiracy against women, politicians can swing votes, certain political organisations can recruit, fund raise, fear monger and legislate against men on the strength of this deception by promising to fix this conspiracy to oppress by an unseen hand.

    More here..

    "Radio 4’s flagship, the Today programme, has fallen for a common misrepresentation of the gap in pay between men and women.
    Or is it a misrepresentation? It depends on who you are talking to, as various bodies interpret this key statistic in various ways.

    Introducing an item on Today on July 29, Sarah Montague accepted at face value the assertion by the Women and Work Commission that women are paid, on average, 23 per cent less than men. But the Office of National Statistics quotes a figure of 12.8 per cent, just over half as much.

    And if that isn’t confusing enough, the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes the gap is 17.1 per cent.

    These differences matter, so it would be nice to achieve a common basis for estimating them. Until we do, journalists should beware of accepting whatever figure is thrown at them. Government bodies with different objectives can easily come up with different figures – and may honestly believe they are right.

    Earnings comparisons are best made on the basis of median, rather than mean, earnings. This is because the salaries at the top of the scale are often high enough to distort the mean. On measures of “average” salaries, most people earn less than average.

    Both the ONS and the Women and Work Commission, which is part of the Government Equalities Office, do use the median. (The EHRC, just to be awkward, uses the mean – of which more later.)

    So why the difference between the ONS and the GEO? The ONS only counts full-time work, whereas the GEO includes part-time work, three quarters of which is done by women. This increases the apparent gap in pay between the sexes.

    Which is right? The Statistics Authority cogitated over this in a report published in June. Neither measure is satisfactory, it admits, but it does come down in favour of not combining the two, as the GEO does. Its recommendation is to present the two estimates, for full-time and part-time employees, separately.

    It publishes rather a striking table (Table 2 in the UKSA’s note) that actually shows that women working part-time earn 3.4 per cent more than men in median hourly earnings. This isn’t a figure you’ll find the GEO or the Women and Work Commission quoting very often.



    Where does all that leave us? Of those in full-time work, women earn 12.8 per cent less than men. Women in part-time work earn fractionally more than men, but less than full-time men or full-time women. When full- and part-time work are combined, the preponderance of women in part-time work produces the 22.6 per cent gap headlined by the GEO and accepted without question by Today.

    So what about the rogue figure of 17.1 per cent quoted by the EHRC? It uses mean earnings rather than median, justifying it by saying that women are over-represented at one extreme of the distribution and men at the other, which results (it says) in gaps calculated from the median understating the size of the problem.

    It then goes on to claim, remarkably, that for women working part time, the gap is 35.6 per cent. This dizzying figure is achieved by comparing part-time women with full-time men – a comparison hard to justify on any rational basis. As the Statistics Authority remarks, this estimate “needs particularly careful explanation and justification if it is not to mislead”. (Translation: it’s misleading.)

    The gender pay gap is a jungle, where journalists should not venture without careful preparation and a trusty guide. Discussions are going on between ONS and GEO to determine how the results should be presented in future, and we may see some results when the 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings is published in November.

    But somehow I think it’s going to take a lot of persuasion to get the equality-wallahs to abandon the high estimates to which they are so attached. 35.6 per cent? Whew!"
    http://www.straightstatistics.org/ar...ngle-out-there

    Labour feminist Harriet Harman has been engaging in wage gap fraud, and has been asked by the Office of National Statistics not to use their research to mislead the public.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8096761.stm


Advertisement