The girls who cried sexism

Lord Bafford

I've noticed -- on this site and in general -- that there is an obsession to highlight sexism in modern society.

This has progressed into a paranoiac and unhealthy addiction that has resulted in the term descending into farce.

The worst part -- and the reason I'm starting this thread here -- is that men have become agents in this nonsense.

They feel the need to 'stick up' and 'fight' for womens' rights, despite the obvious irony and contradiction.

Your thoughts, gentlemen?

Daftendirekt

Lord Bafford wrote: »

I've noticed -- on this site and in general -- that there is an obsession to highlight sexism in modern society.

This has progressed into a paranoiac and unhealthy addiction that has resulted in the term descending into farce.

The worst part -- and the reason I'm starting this thread here -- is that men have become agents in this nonsense.

They feel the need to 'stick up' and 'fight' for womens' rights, despite the obvious irony and contradiction.

Your thoughts, gentlemen?

Where's the irony and contradiction?

Can you give any examples of what you're talking about?

And what exactly is wrong with trying to highlight sexism in society?

I think you're going to have to be a bit more specific if you want any meaningful discussion on this.

Fenian Army

There's a lot of white knightery on the net

Woodward

I fully support womens rights but not at the expense of mens rights. Equal rights means equal opportunity, not equal outcome. It also does not mean special laws to give women extra advantages or to prevent women from being offended

sharper

Lord Bafford wrote: »

They feel the need to 'stick up' and 'fight' for womens' rights, despite the obvious irony and contradiction.

Is it also ironic and contradictory for white Irish Catholics to "stick up" and "fight" against racism or religious intolerance against other races and other religions?

Lord Bafford

sharper wrote: »

Is it also ironic and contradictory for white Irish Catholics to "stick up" and "fight" against racism or religious intolerance against other races and other religions?

But men and women are precisely equal in every single way.

By rallying behind one gender you are unfairly aiding their agenda.

I recommend you champion the rights of both genders equally.

Princess Peach

Lord Bafford wrote: »

But men and women are precisely equal in every single way.

By rallying behind one gender you are unfairly aiding their agenda.

I recommend you champion the rights of both genders equally.

Here's the problem, women are not treated equal. I am not a radical feminist or a women's right's activist at all, but historically women have not been men's equals and although things are better today (in Western society) there's still ways to go.

When talking about men's and women's rights, they are two separate things, and can easily both be supported.

What is this "agenda"?

ahnowbrowncow

Princess Peach wrote: »

Here's the problem, women are not treated equal. I am not a radical feminist or a women's right's activist at all, but historically women have not been men's equals and although things are better today (in Western society) there's still ways to go.

When talking about men's and women's rights, they are two separate things, and can easily both be supported.

What is this "agenda"?

Can you give examples of where there isn't equal opportunity for women in the western world?

leggo

There's a case here, but you also have to be careful with it.

On one hand, I feel that women are smart to look out for their rights and opportunities, as up to very recently in history there was a massive disparity between them and men. It's the same reason that we should always be vigilant of racism, you can't dismiss it because there's a black president in the USA.

And, as a result, there will always be those looking to undermine any concerns for their own benefit. It's for this reason that I hate the term 'white knight'. It suggests that men shouldn't get involved in women's rights discussions. If white, heterosexual men with power and influence, at the time, didn't take a stand in racial and gay rights issues, then we'd still be living in the past.

At the same time, there are those on the other side who try and use the cause to get women a foothold in certain areas. I agree with the notion that women should get equal rights, not more rights. They shouldn't, therefore, be given easier opportunities in career fields to create an illusion of gender equality. That is sexism going the other direction, putting a male at a disadvantage because of a need to look 'diverse'.

So it's a tricky issue that can, and often is, manipulated to suit the agenda of either side. For that reason, we most definitely shouldn't write it off as a non-issue, undermine it or put it off the table altogether.

Princess Peach

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Can you give examples of where there isn't equal opportunity for women in the western world?

Very quick search, here's a few

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0302/breaking15.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/women-better-educated-but-still-earn-less-than-men-143938.html

The second one has statistics on women in senior positions.

spoonbadger

leggo wrote: »

There's a case here, but you also have to be careful with it.

On one hand, I feel that women are smart to look out for their rights and opportunities, as up to very recently in history there was a massive disparity between them and men. It's the same reason that we should always be vigilant of racism, you can't dismiss it because there's a black president in the USA.

And, as a result, there will always be those looking to undermine any concerns for their own benefit. It's for this reason that I hate the term 'white knight'. It suggests that men shouldn't get involved in women's rights discussions. If white, heterosexual men with power and influence, at the time, didn't take a stand in racial and gay rights issues, then we'd still be living in the past.

At the same time, there are those on the other side who try and use the cause to get women a foothold in certain areas. I agree with the notion that women should get equal rights, not more rights. They shouldn't, therefore, be given easier opportunities in career fields to create an illusion of gender equality. That is sexism going the other direction, putting a male at a disadvantage because of a need to look 'diverse'.

So it's a tricky issue that can, and often is, manipulated to suit the agenda of either side. For that reason, we most definitely shouldn't write it off as a non-issue, undermine it or put it off the table altogether.

I think its great when men (and women, and however anyone wishes to identify) get involved in any matters of discrimination. A truly equal society is the dream and definitely something worth working and fighting for.

I don't like when people put on their "feminist" name tags and insist on making every issue a sexism issue. I know guys who go to great efforts to make sure everyone is aware of their feminist leanings and what wonderful emphatic people they are. The majority of them are shallow sleazy assholes. Likewise, I don't care much for people who insist on taking sexist offence at every possible juncture, just so they can stand on their soapbox and feel superior for the length of a conversation.

This is an unfortunate issue with all serious debates. Abortion, gender equality, gay rights, politics etc. etc. All are marred by the self-important blowhards who care more about the debate and the image than the issue itself. The abortion debate is ruined by the likes of Youth Defence, negative gay stereotypes are propagated by that guy at the party who insists on affecting the camp mannerisms and bending the ears of all around about the difficulties of living a discretionary gay life. The issue of gender equality is likewise muddied by the self-righteous with more intent than sense.

</rant>

sharper

Lord Bafford wrote: »

But men and women are precisely equal in every single way.

So are people of different races and religions.

The problem is that people are not always treated as individuals but according to inaccurate stereotypes relating to unchosen or irrelevant attributes.

Princess Peach

Princess Peach wrote: »

Very quick search, here's a few

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0302/breaking15.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/women-better-educated-but-still-earn-less-than-men-143938.html

The second one has statistics on women in senior positions.

I could find hundreds of links about how more girls are in third level than boys, is that an indicator of inherent sexism or unequal opportunities?

iptba

Princess Peach wrote: »

ahnowbrowncow wrote:

Can you give examples of where there isn't equal opportunity for women in the western world?

Very quick search, here's a few

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0302/breaking15.html

An average difference in wage doesn't prove discrimination, nor does it prove there isn't equal opportunity. Different jobs have different pay *and* conditions; it's very selective to focus on one measure.

Men are much more likely to die or get seriously injured at work, for example.

Some people may be willing to sacrifice wage for other aspects of a job e.g. they want enjoy working with children.

ahnowbrowncow

Princess Peach wrote: »

Very quick search, here's a few

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0302/breaking15.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/women-better-educated-but-still-earn-less-than-men-143938.html

The second one has statistics on women in senior positions.

They aren't examples of unequal opportunities, show me where women get paid less for doing the same job as men and not these apples vs oranges statistics

Bigtoe107

The fact is while there are more men at the top of the pay scale, you are also proportionately more likely to be homeless, poor, worked under poor conditions for longer hours if you are a man. Therefore the average woman has an easier life than the average man. Its not fair to compare the top with the top if you don't consider the lower ends of the scale.

leggo

Deleted User wrote: »

I could find hundreds of links about how more girls are in third level than boys, is that an indicator of inherent sexism or unequal opportunities?

How does that makes sense, though? Colleges don't admit based on gender and candidate selection, they admit based on Leaving Cert points and/or ability to pay fees for private colleges for the most part. Yes, you've got PLC courses, mature students etc but the stats would be so low there that they'd ultimately be negligible in the grand scheme.

The story there is that females are being better educated but not as likely to be selected for the top jobs. Now whether that is directly attributable to sexism is another argument, I would suggest myself that it is more indicative to sexism of yesteryear than in 2012, and that the stats will start balancing out as said educated females grow older and get to a position to be considered for the top jobs. The earliest beneficiaries of free education, after all, would only be in their early 30s now so would largely only be at a level to earn that level of pay now (and that's before you take the recession and lack of jobs into account).

But your own argument actually adds strength to the argument that women are being discriminated against. If they are better educated, why are they being paid less?

christmas2012

No i dont think men and women are equal and there should be a fight for total non sex discrimination as it still does happen in the workplace,for example a woman who is pregnant being pushed out of her job..

and i wouldnt agree that more men have it harder either..

Pawwed Rig

There is definitely a bias towards womens rights than mens. Even broaching the subject of ways men are discriminated against is verging on taboo.

Sure there are still areas where women are behind men but there are also many areas where men are behind women.

I have an issue with a man standing up for a womans rights. People should stand up for peoples rights.

christmas2012

are women not people too?

ahnowbrowncow

leggo wrote: »

How does that makes sense, though? Colleges don't admit based on gender and candidate selection, they admit based on Leaving Cert points and/or ability to pay fees for private colleges for the most part. Yes, you've got PLC courses, mature students etc but the stats would be so low there that they'd ultimately be negligible in the grand scheme.

The story there is that females are being better educated but not as likely to be selected for the top jobs. Now whether that is directly attributable to sexism is another argument, I would suggest myself that it is more indicative to sexism of yesteryear than in 2012, and that the stats will start balancing out as said educated females grow older and get to a position to be considered for the top jobs. The earliest beneficiaries of free education, after all, would only be in their early 30s now so would largely only be at a level to earn that level of pay now (and that's before you take the recession and lack of jobs into account).

But your own argument actually adds strength to the argument that women are being discriminated against. If they are better educated, why are they being paid less?

Can you tell me where are they getting paid less than men for the same job? If they were getting paid less their employer would be in court.

As you said these stats will start balancing out in years to come, imo.

Bigtoe107

leggo wrote: »

How does that makes sense, though? Colleges don't admit based on gender and candidate selection, they admit based on Leaving Cert points and/or ability to pay fees for private colleges for the most part. Yes, you've got PLC courses, mature students etc but the stats would be so low there that they'd ultimately be negligible in the grand scheme.

The story there is that females are being better educated but not as likely to be selected for the top jobs. Now whether that is directly attributable to sexism is another argument, I would suggest myself that it is more indicative to sexism of yesteryear than in 2012, and that the stats will start balancing out as said educated females grow older and get to a position to be considered for the top jobs. The earliest beneficiaries of free education, after all, would only be in their early 30s now so would largely only be at a level to earn that level of pay now (and that's before you take the recession and lack of jobs into account).

But your own argument actually adds strength to the argument that women are being discriminated against. If they are better educated, why are they being paid less?

They are not paid less on average women are paid more per hour than men the fact is women don't get senior positions as much because some of them choose to be stay at home mums and are thus not willing to work the long unsociable hours. Well at least this is the perception and I agree this can be viewed as sexism but it is not near as bad or widespread as people make out.

christmas2012

A lot of sex discrimination has to do with a womans gestation,is she pregnant was she pregnant is she about to get pregnant?Its always running through the mind of an interviewer but of course it is illegal to ask those questions.So if she does get pregnant on the job,she invariably gets pushed out for a single male with no commitments or a non pregnant male..

Princess Peach

iptba wrote: »

An average difference in wage doesn't prove discrimination, nor does it prove there isn't equal opportunity. Different jobs have different pay *and* conditions; it's very selective to focus on one measure.

Men are much more likely to die or get seriously injured at work, for example.

Some people may be willing to sacrifice wage for other aspects of a job e.g. they want enjoy working with children.

Such discrepancies in different jobs with different pay scales wouldn't account for such large gaps in the average wages. What really makes the difference in the statistics is the number of women who are in senior positions and on high incomes versus the number of men.

It is mentioned in one of the articles that younger women are earning on average 90% of that of men, so the trend is improving.

iptba

leggo wrote: »

How does that makes sense, though? Colleges don't admit based on gender and candidate selection, they admit based on Leaving Cert points and/or ability to pay fees for private colleges for the most part.

There can be discrimination at that level. Girls on average are a bit better at languages, while boys do a little better at mathematics. But for university, most people will have had to sit three languages: English, Irish & a foreign language, but only one maths subject. And one doesn't need to count all subjects.

The type of education given, given that teachers are predominantly female, could in theory also be more female-friendly, or less male-friendly.

Princess Peach

christmas2012 wrote: »

A lot of sex discrimination has to do with a womans gestation,is she pregnant was she pregnant is she about to get pregnant?Its always running through the mind of an interviewer but of course it is illegal to ask those questions.So if she does get pregnant on the job,she invariably gets pushed out for a single male with no commitments or a non pregnant male..

This was an issue I read about a couple of years ago regarding the screening process for medicine courses in Ireland. As girls generally get higher marks in the Leaving Cert, there is more women studying medicine, and then there is a concern that you have a majority of female doctors in the workplace, many of which will require maternity leaves, leaving shortages.

I can understand it being a concern in the medical industry, but there have been cases where women aren't chosen for senior level positions because a company doesn't want to take the risk of possibly losing an important staff member for months.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Princess Peach wrote: »

I can understand it being a concern in the medical industry, but there have been cases where women aren't chosen for senior level positions because a company doesn't want to take the risk of possibly losing an important staff member for months.

and that's not a legit concern in your eyes?

christmas2012

A woman can work up to 8 months in an office,i know a girl who is only taking 2 weeks off (after the actual birth to heal) from work not months! she would lose her job then! and she knows it too !

iptba

Princess Peach wrote: »

iptba wrote:

An average difference in wage doesn't prove discrimination, nor does it prove there isn't equal opportunity. Different jobs have different pay *and* conditions; it's very selective to focus on one measure.

Men are much more likely to die or get seriously injured at work, for example.

Some people may be willing to sacrifice wage for other aspects of a job e.g. they want enjoy working with children.

Such discrepancies in different jobs with different pay scales wouldn't account for such large gaps in the average wages. What really makes the difference in the statistics is the number of women who are in senior positions and on high incomes versus the number of men.

Who says they can't explain the difference?

Also, men being exposed to more danger in the workplace can be seen as a form of discrimination in itself if we are going to count a difference in average wage: wage is not the only relevant measure.

There is greater pressure on men to not just have a job but have a well paid job, including looking for higher positions.

christmas2012

''Men are much more likely to die or get seriously injured at work, for example.''

There are jobs that men are more likely to pick such as being a taxi etc,it is their choice of job ,not discrimination itself..

PucaMama

iptba wrote: »

leggo wrote: »

How does that makes sense, though? Colleges don't admit based on gender and candidate selection, they admit based on Leaving Cert points and/or ability to pay fees for private colleges for the most part.

There can be discrimination at that level. Girls on average are a bit better at languages, while boys do a little better at mathematics. But for university, most people will have had to sit three languages: English, Irish & a foreign language, but only one maths subject. And one doesn't need to count all subjects.

The type of education given, given that teachers are predominantly female, could in theory also be more female-friendly, or less male-friendly.

If one person is better at something than another person, its talent not discrimination.

Saw another discussion where life expectency was mentioned. Men have a lower age of dieing. Thats a fact of life not discrimination.

And I realy dont see how male students learn less because the teacher is female.

Princess Peach

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

and that's not a legit concern in your eyes?

Regarding women at senior positions in most industries? No its not a real concern, there is no life or death outcome from a woman taking maternity leave in that case. Someone can be trained to fill her position for a few months. A company who expects some kind of substantial loss from the absence of a senior manager for a few months has bigger issues.

Princess Peach

iptba wrote: »

Who says they can't explain the difference?

Also, men being exposed to more danger in the workplace can be seen as a form of discrimination in itself if we are going to count a difference in average wage: wage is not the only relevant measure.

There is greater pressure on men to not just have a job but have a well paid job, including looking for higher positions.

And where is this pressure coming from? If it is true then you've stated a case of discrimination right there.

iptba

PucaMama wrote: »

iptba wrote:

There can be discrimination at that level. Girls on average are a bit better at languages, while boys do a little better at mathematics. But for university, most people will have had to sit three languages: English, Irish & a foreign language, but only one maths subject. And one doesn't need to count all subjects.

The type of education given, given that teachers are predominantly female, could in theory also be more female-friendly, or less male-friendly.

If one person is better at something than another person, its talent not discrimination.

To illustrate the point: imagine college entry was determined by football skills. By that logic, that wouldn't be discrimination because it was determined by talent.

Woodward

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is definitely a bias towards womens rights than mens. Even broaching the subject of ways men are discriminated against is verging on taboo.

Very true. Read through the mens rights thread. Its mostly people opposing them because they view it as a male supremacist movement or complaining that women have it worse

PucaMama

iptba wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

iptba wrote:

There can be discrimination at that level. Girls on average are a bit better at languages, while boys do a little better at mathematics. But for university, most people will have had to sit three languages: English, Irish & a foreign language, but only one maths subject. And one doesn't need to count all subjects.

The type of education given, given that teachers are predominantly female, could in theory also be more female-friendly, or less male-friendly.

If one person is better at something than another person, its talent not discrimination.

To illustrate the point: imagine college entry was determined by football skills. By that logic, that wouldn't be discrimination because it was determined by talent.

And I would just have to improve my football skills. Thats just it. The subjects mentioned before, maths and english, are basic. Everyone needs them. Thats just how it is.

iptba

christmas2012 wrote: »

''Men are much more likely to die or get seriously injured at work, for example.''

There are jobs that men are more likely to pick such as being a taxi etc,it is their choice of job ,not discrimination itself..

But this leads to average differences, with men earning on average more, but being exposed to more danger. Somebody else said that an average difference in wage was evidence of discrimination; by that logic, one can say that average difference in exposure to serious injury or death is also evidence of discrimination.

the_syco

Princess Peach wrote: »

The second one has statistics on women in senior positions.

And the reason is

It also noted the fact that women continued to have the primary responsibility for care in our society which undermined their ability to earn as much as men.

If Jack and Joe worked in the same job, same attributes, and Jack went on holidays for 9 months, when he came back to the job he'd find Joe would, in most cases, be 9 months further up career ladder.

Deleted User wrote: »

I could find hundreds of links about how more girls are in third level than boys, is that an indicator of inherent sexism or unequal opportunities?

Maybe if you found links to when women girls went to 3rd level as opposed to boys and compared them to the way that girls and boys were taught differently, and the way they're taught now.

leggo wrote: »

If they are better educated, why are they being paid less?

They don't do the overtime needed to get paid more, and to get into highr positions?

=-=

If you want sexism, look at politics. If 30% of the candidates are not women, the party will loose €2m in funding. Thus, the women that make up that 30% will be there, not on their own merit, but because they are women.

iptba

PucaMama wrote: »

iptba wrote:

PucaMama wrote:

iptba wrote:

There can be discrimination at that level. Girls on average are a bit better at languages, while boys do a little better at mathematics. But for university, most people will have had to sit three languages: English, Irish & a foreign language, but only one maths subject. And one doesn't need to count all subjects.

The type of education given, given that teachers are predominantly female, could in theory also be more female-friendly, or less male-friendly.
If one person is better at something than another person, its talent not discrimination.

To illustrate the point: imagine college entry was determined by football skills. By that logic, that wouldn't be discrimination because it was determined by talent.

And I would just have to improve my football skills.

I would think such a system would benefit males myself.

Maybe another example: imagine one of the measures for college entry was speed to run 400m. Again, that would be based on talent so based on the argument, that wouldn't be discrimination. However, males are naturally faster than females so, on average, I think one could argue there would be discrimination.

PucaMama wrote: »

Thats just it. The subjects mentioned before, maths and english, are basic. Everyone needs them. Thats just how it is.

Except that with students generally doing 7 subjects, and generally doing three languages (English, Irish & a foreign language) if they are on the university track, they have to count at least two languages, but not count maths. By your logic, maths is basic. But under the system, people don't even have to count maths. So somebody could get 600 points, but actually be pretty poor at maths/not got a good result in maths (e.g. a C in ordinary): are they necessarily a better student than somebody with say 560 points who didn't get 600 points because although very intelligent, they didn't quite have a flair for languages to get A1s in them.

If students were rated on a similar amount of mathematical and language subjects, that could be argued as being fairer.

Just because a system is the way it is, doesn't mean it can't be unfair and give one group an advantage.

iptba

the_syco wrote: »

If you want sexism, look at politics. If 30% of the candidates are not women, the party will loose €2m in funding. Thus, the women that make up that 30% will be there, not on their own merit, but because they are women.

And 30% is only the lead in figure. After 7 years, it is going to 40%.

PucaMama

iptba wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

iptba wrote:

PucaMama wrote:

iptba wrote:

There can be discrimination at that level. Girls on average are a bit better at languages, while boys do a little better at mathematics. But for university, most people will have had to sit three languages: English, Irish & a foreign language, but only one maths subject. And one doesn't need to count all subjects.

The type of education given, given that teachers are predominantly female, could in theory also be more female-friendly, or less male-friendly.
If one person is better at something than another person, its talent not discrimination.

To illustrate the point: imagine college entry was determined by football skills. By that logic, that wouldn't be discrimination because it was determined by talent.

And I would just have to improve my football skills.

I would think such a system would benefit males myself.

Maybe another example: imagine one of the measures for college entry was speed to run 400m. Again, that would be based on talent so based on the argument, that wouldn't be discrimination. However, males are naturally faster than females so, on average, I think one could argue there would be discrimination.

PucaMama wrote: »

Thats just it. The subjects mentioned before, maths and english, are basic. Everyone needs them. Thats just how it is.

Except that with students generally doing 7 subjects, and generally doing three languages (English, Irish & a foreign language) if they are on the university track, they have to count at least two languages, but not count maths. By your logic, maths is basic. But under the system, people don't even have to count maths.

If students were rated on a similar amount of mathematical and language subjects, that could be argued as being fairer.

Just because a system is the way it is, doesn't mean it can't be unfair and give one group an advantage.

But maths is one subject!!! Why change subjects instead of men just improving on the existing ones???

leggo

the_syco wrote: »

If you want sexism, look at politics. If 30% of the candidates are not women, the party will loose €2m in funding. Thus, the women that make up that 30% will be there, not on their own merit, but because they are women.

This is one area that I agree is ridiculously biased towards women. It's a democracy, candidates are elected fairly and squarely, if a candidate was strong enough to be elected...their party would put them up for election, regardless of gender, or face the consequences.

I think politics is one area that women simply don't enter into as much as men (perhaps because they're better educated, so have more sense :pac:). The fact that we insist people put candidates ahead of others on the basis of gender is, in effect, reverse sexism.

I agree strongly that there are a lot of disadvantages put in front of a white, heterosexual male these days, mainly because we're expected to pay for the sins of our fathers. But that's another subject. You can't write off discrimination against women because men are discriminated against in other ways. Both are worthy of their own discussions.

iptba

PucaMama wrote: »

But maths is one subject!!! Why change subjects instead of men just improving on the existing ones???

I was saying that just because girls do a bit better in the leaving cert, doesn't mean they necessarily are better overall students. For the same input, a girl might on average get a better result, just because of natural talent in the subjects tested, just as if one used the 400m race as a measure (to use a more clear cut example), if males and females put the same input, one would find the males would on average do better.

jesus_thats_gre

Princess Peach wrote: »

When talking about men's and women's rights, they are two separate things, and can easily both be supported.

Generally do absolutely everything that I can to avoid these discussions as it is such a loaded topic - impartial discussion is virtually impossible really.

But could you elaborate on why they are two separate things? Struggling to understand how that it the case.

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Can you give examples of where there isn't equal opportunity for women in the western world?

In fairness, I like nothing more than a little bit of jostling in arguments like this but it is blatantly obvious that women are not treated equally.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that it is as black as white as some here would argue though.

The stats on wages etc are far too simplistic as they don't factor in life choices. It has also gone too far in the opposite direction in the positive sexism has become prevalent in the workplace.

jesus_thats_gre

Princess Peach wrote: »

Regarding women at senior positions in most industries? No its not a real concern, there is no life or death outcome from a woman taking maternity leave in that case. Someone can be trained to fill her position for a few months. A company who expects some kind of substantial loss from the absence of a senior manager for a few months has bigger issues.

Out of curiosity, and this isn't an attempt to dismiss your argument in a childish manner, what experience do you have in order to make such claims? Have you operated at a senior position in any or multiple in industries?

You seem to imply that it replacing someone of importance, male or female, for 9 to 12 months is a pretty straight forward task?

christmas2012

''I agree strongly that there are a lot of disadvantages put in front of a white, heterosexual male these days''

Im detecting racism aswell as sexism hardly suprising,this is more of a woman bashing thread,note its in the gentelmans club lol and the title says girls who cry sexism..lol

If anyone has a report on pay differences rather than an article I wouldn't mind seeing it. Most of the pay difference is down to men working more hours and another thing not taken into account is working more hours means getting paid more per hour whether because it's fulltime rather than parttime or there's overtime being done.

As for quotas in politics it's pathetic. Women candidates are as likely as men to get elected so there's nothing "wrong" with the electorate. Also there are proportionately far less women candidates as independents so there's nothing to suggest political parties are discriminating against women candidates.

iptba

christmas2012 wrote: »

''I agree strongly that there are a lot of disadvantages put in front of a white, heterosexual male these days''

Im detecting racism aswell as sexism hardly suprising,this is more of a woman bashing thread,note its in the gentelmans club lol and the title says girls who cry sexism..lol

Or maybe your use of the word sexism is the sort of thing the OP, or some other people, might not be happy with.

Mr. Incognito

Women of ability don't cry sexism imo

KiethM89

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Women of ability don't cry sexism imo

One of the best responses in this thread

leggo

christmas2012 wrote: »

''I agree strongly that there are a lot of disadvantages put in front of a white, heterosexual male these days''

Im detecting racism aswell as sexism hardly suprising,this is more of a woman bashing thread,note its in the gentelmans club lol and the title says girls who cry sexism..lol

Your spidey senses appear to be broken, Christmas, since most of my posts have been defending women in this very thread.

But, by all means, continue to make baseless accusations that can be disproved by just...reading before you comment, lol.