Gender Equality

Bipolar Joe

dr.bollocko wrote: »

If the two candidates are equal then the man gets an advantage because he's not having a baby. Particularly in a small business. We'll have to accept this. Small businesses, in general, this is more likely to happen.

He has an advantage because of his gender in an age where most young families rely on two incomes.

He (the hypothetical man hired above a woman because of his lack of popping out a sprog) has taken advantage of what is a discriminatory hiring policy.

That's not OK. You could use the same argument to suggest that a man deserves to be paid more for the same work. Which is also sexist.

You are effectively damning all men who get a job that a woman also applied for. I'm meant to feel guilty just by virtue of being a guy? Do I not seek employment because I run the risk of accidentally being sexist by proxy? What do you suggest?

Haelium

dr.bollocko wrote: »

http://www.ictu.ie/equality/gender/csostatisticson.html

How does that show that young women are at a disadvantage?

Women's annual income was around 70% of that earned by men in 2008, though after adjusting for time worked, women's hourly earnings were around 90% of men's.

Men worked an average of 39.4 hours a week in 2010 compared with 30.9 for women.

If you don't put the hours in, you don't get promoted to higher positions. The wage gap is simply a product of different priorities. Women don't want money as much as men do, there is less social pressure for women to have money than there is for men.

How is this difficult to understand? Somebody please explain where this becomes an issue of discrimination.

RDM_83 again

And in all of my posts I have specifically stated that I am referring the younger age group,

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm sure sexism exists against woman at older ages

RDM_83 again wrote: »

younger Irish females

RDM_83 again wrote: »

that shows younger men in a significantly better position than younger woman

So for each of those measures that show disadvantage is higher among females the only two that are in anyway relevant are

"Women's income in 2006 was around two-thirds of men's income. After adjusting for differences in hours worked, women's hourly earnings were around 86% of men's."

and

"The proportion of men at risk of poverty in 2006, after pensions and social transfers, was 17% compared to 19% of women."

In relation to the 2nd I would hazard that this difference is due to single parent families, I would also hazard if the figures were from 2009/2010 rather than 2006 this situation would be reversed due to decimation of the construction industry.

In relation to the 1st statement for younger woman I do not believe this would be the case, in much of these differences in earnings can be attributed to the carrier breaks carried out by females in late to mid 30's for child rearing

IvySlayer

Gender quotas are stupid, end of story.

Here's another example of sexism that no-one cares about, many countries in Europe have mandatory military service, but it only applies to men. Funny how women aren't screaming for equality there?

dr.bollocko

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Why is this so hilarious? Why is it to merely suggest that men are being disadvantaged in some area's met with derision?

It's like there's a "winner takes all" towards sexual discrimination, and that if you not on the most oppressed team, then you need to sit down and shut up.

Well I think there are certainly imbalances in gender. Do you think I was not angry when those tossers at the RSA ran the "He drives, she dies" campaign? And similar disgusting crap?

Now it's important that we represent both genders and that the rights of both are championed. However the balance historically has been males are better off, females worse off. I still think that the imbalance in terms of gender equality is still much worse for women than it is for men. However I do accept that men require representation too.

We're discussing this in an online discussion forum where the majority of posters are male. I'm not trying to antagonise here. Just trying to raise some counterpoints.

JRant

dr.bollocko wrote: »

To quote chris rock. If we're losing then who is winning?



http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/maternity_leave.html
Employers are not obliged to pay women on maternity leave.
Try again.


You're misunderstanding gender equality. Men, in general, can lift more. Gender equality refers to equal rights and opportunities. Not some erosion of gender identity so that a man or woman cannot be treated differently in any scenario.



On the one hand you're saying, oh, employers can not hire women because they pop out the babbies and the poor employer has to look at the bottom line and that is fine.

However on the other hand when statistics show that a young male is more likely to crash than the equivalent young female this is not ok and is sexism?

Your logic is flawed there.

That Chris Rock is one funny individual alright.

Try re-reading what i actually wrote. I said it was unfortunate that this situation should come about.
New employees, who need to trained up, cost an employer money for the first 3-6 months of their employment. This is accounted for in any budgeting for the company. Losing one member of staff from a small team can have a serious knockon effect to any small business.

I'm fully aware of what gender equality means and I stand by what I said. Equal rights and opportunities should be applied to both equally or not at all. Is the females back more important than a males?

There is no flaw in my logic.
Statistics can prove that 0% of men will have a baby so are not likely to spend the best part of a year on maternity leave. So why can't this be applied in the workplace if stats proving male drivers are more dangerous on the road and are fleeced accordingly?

dr.bollocko

Haelium wrote: »

How does that show that young women are at a disadvantage?



If you don't put the hours in, you don't get promoted to higher positions. The wage gap is simply a product of different priorities. Women don't want money as much as men do, there is less social pressure for women to have money than there is for men.

How is this difficult to understand? Somebody please explain where this becomes an issue of discrimination.

So you're saying that the two stats are directly related?
That a man and woman working the same job, the man works 9 hours more than the woman every week?

The 30.9 hours is an average meant to highlight a difference. Not a justification that states that all women work less anyway.

How is that difficult to understand?

dr.bollocko

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

You are effectively damning all men who get a job that a woman also applied for. I'm meant to feel guilty just by virtue of being a guy? Do I not seek employment because I run the risk of accidentally being sexist by proxy? What do you suggest?

I certainly didn't say anywhere that we should have a gender associated guilt over applying for a job. That's an appeal to emotion which makes little sense to me. I'm simply stating that I think there's an inequality there.

OK. Men don't go on maternity leave. What if the woman is incapable of having a baby?

Should she state this in an interview to make it more equal for her?

Shenshen

IvySlayer wrote: »

Gender quotas are stupid, end of story.

Here's another example of sexism that no-one cares about, many countries in Europe have mandatory military service, but it only applies to men. Funny how women aren't screaming for equality there?

Well, while that still was in place in Germany, women's groups actually were campaigning for "same rights, same duties".

Haelium

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So you're saying that the two stats are directly related?
That a man and woman working the same job, the man works 9 hours more than the woman every week?

The 30.9 hours is an average meant to highlight a difference. Not a justification that states that all women work less anyway.

How is that difficult to understand?

It doesn't take a professional sociologist to see the link between the two statistics.

Directly related? No.
Highly related? Yes.

RDM_83 again

Madam_X wrote: »

If there were just comments like "Men face discrimination and sexism in some areas and aren't being heard" it would be a reasonable way to broach things (and it is a true statement) but "White males are the most discriminated group in western society" is caricature territory and less likely to be taken seriously. Just think about it for a second like: no senior businessmen/political leaders are white men?
/QUOTE]

You see my problem with Dr.B's post is that he specifically mentioned that its ridiculous to consider young men as the most discriminated group, which I have issue with as by almost any measure younger males are at a worse position than younger females.

dr.bollocko

JRant wrote: »

That Chris Rock is one funny individual alright.

Try re-reading what i actually wrote. I said it was unfortunate that this situation should come about.
New employees, who need to trained up, cost an employer money for the first 3-6 months of their employment. This is accounted for in any budgeting for the company. Losing one member of staff from a small team can have a serious knockon effect to any small business.

I'm fully aware of what gender equality means and I stand by what I said. Equal rights and opportunities should be applied to both equally or not at all. Is the females back more important than a males?

There is no flaw in my logic.
Statistics can prove that 0% of men will have a baby so are not likely to spend the best part of a year on maternity leave. So why can't this be applied in the workplace if stats proving male drivers are more dangerous on the road and are fleeced accordingly?

Do you think that I agree with either argument? I am saying that you are saying on the one hand, discrimination based on the bambinos is OK but that discrimination based on the young male drivers stat is not.

dr.bollocko

Haelium wrote: »

It doesn't take a professional sociologist to see the link between the two statistics.

Directly related? No.
Highly related? Yes.

In what way are they highly related and applicable to a specific situation where women and men are working the same job with the same contracted hours and the man earns more?

Scanlas The 2nd

dr.bollocko wrote: »

In what way are they highly related and applicable to a specific situation where women and men are working the same job with the same contracted hours and the man earns more?

It's too simplistic, I'd bet men are far more likely to ask for a pay rise or threaten to quit otherwise.

IvySlayer

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, while that still was in place in Germany, women's groups actually were campaigning for "same rights, same duties".

Is that the same in Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland? Why not.

Also in the US every male 18-25 has to by law place his name on the register in case of conscription.

Shenshen

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Do you think that I agree with either argument? I am saying that you are saying on the one hand, discrimination based on the bambinos is OK but that discrimination based on the young male drivers stat is not.

I thought there had been a court ruling against that sometime last year or so, and that insurers can no longer offer cheaper rates to women based on those stats?

Shenshen

IvySlayer wrote: »

Is that the same in Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland? Why not.

Also in the US every male 18-25 has to by law place his name on the register in case of conscription.

I've never lived in Austria, Sweden, Denmark or Finland, so I suggest you research the subject yourself.

I grew up in Germany, which still had susbcription back then, and I can say that there were several campaigns to extend the subscription to women as well.
Those campaigns achieved that women can join the military in functions other than the medical corps, and as conscription has ceased in Germany, inequality is no longer an issue in that particular area.

IvySlayer

Shenshen wrote: »

I've never lived in Austria, Sweden, Denmark or Finland, so I suggest you research the subject yourself.

I grew up in Germany, which still had susbcription back then, and I can say that there were several campaigns to extend the subscription to women as well.
Those campaigns achieved that women can join the military in functions other than the medical corps, and as conscription has ceased in Germany, inequality is no longer an issue in that particular area.

I don't think they were at all. They were campainging for women to be allowed to serve into the military, not to extend the conscription. The ECJ ruled that women were allowed to serve but nothing was done as for conscription.

hurpederp

The problem here is that when whenever a pro-female approach, either to do with politics, employment, pay etc is mooted, it is done so under the auspices of gender equality. However, there are fundamental differences between men and women, in their economic, social and personal outlooks that are strong argument against quotas.

"Men earn more than women. Men occupy more positions of power. Therefore introduce quotas."

"But women have a higher academic average in school. Women get higher points in the leaving cert. Therefore introduce gender quotas on the amount of A grades. "

The logic is exactly the same in the above examples. In fact, as an environment analogous to work school is pretty much the best example to use. If you advocate quotas in one it follows logically that you follow quotas in the other.

But, then if you say, "Well girls work harder in school than boys. Boys mess and drink and fight and kick leather bladders instead". That would be true. But in confirming that as true you recognise that there exists a fundamental difference in outlook between both genders, a difference in outlook that you cannot then dismiss when confronted with the work situation.

dr.bollocko

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's too simplistic, I'd bet men are far more likely to ask for a pay rise or threaten to quit otherwise.

It is possible however again, the stats on either side are very very open to interpretation. But this is only because people have used initiatives to attempt to improve what was a huge huge imbalance only a few decades ago.

In this case I think the fairest route to take is to allow a couple to decide for themselves how much parental leave each parent should get, regardless of gender. So, you can take X months off between the two of you now split it up yourselves.

This would be a more equal solution to my mind.

However the law states that even during the recruitment process women should get a fair shake when it comes to being hired.

Her gender, and as a result of this her likelihood to have babies is not a fair reason to refuse them a job if they are the best candidate.

And I wholeheartedly agree with that.

dr.bollocko

Shenshen wrote: »

I thought there had been a court ruling against that sometime last year or so, and that insurers can no longer offer cheaper rates to women based on those stats?

Yep. That's true. And I am still awaiting a reduction in the cost of my car insurance.

Shenshen

IvySlayer wrote: »

I don't think they were at all. They were campainging for women to be allowed to serve into the military, not to extend the conscription. The ECJ ruled that women were allowed to serve but nothing was done as for conscription.

Editorials from Alice Schwarzer (essentially the mother of feminism in Germany), in two separate journals :

http://www.aliceschwarzer.de/publikationen/aliceschwarzer-artikel-essays/cicero-gleiche-rechte-gleiche-pflichten/

http://www.emma.de/hefte/ausgaben-2002/maijuni-2002/editorial/

She elaborates that she is for the abolishion of conscription, but if conscription has to continue she very clearly states that it should be equal for men and women. Same rights, same duties.

Shenshen

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Yep. That's true. And I am still awaiting a reduction in the cost of my car insurance.

You don't want to be holding your breath there.
Mine went up quite a bit, though, this year.

kowloon

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, while that still was in place in Germany, women's groups actually were campaigning for "same rights, same duties".

I believe mandatory service in Germany was done away with last year, don't quote me on that though.

I'm very against social engineering, I don't think positive discrimination works. It might solve the problem of under-representation but it only worsens the underlying condition. Hiring one group over another to fill a quota never leads to harmony and the person who's been passed over being happy about it. This applies to racial and gender equality.
I'm not sure it would be fun for someone to know they're in the company as the token quota hire either.

I have no problem voting for a woman or working for one. One strange thing I've come across though is that female bosses tended to treat the male employees better. Maybe it's just the bosses I've had, has anyone else noticed this?

Shenshen

kowloon wrote: »

I believe mandatory service in Germany was done away with last year, don't quote me on that though.

I won't, because I've said that myself in that very post. "While it was still in place", feminists were campaigning for equal duties.

I'm very against social engineering, I don't think positive discrimination works. It might solve the problem of under-representation but it only worsens the underlying condition. Hiring one group over another to fill a quota never leads to harmony and the person who's been passed over being happy about it. This applies to racial and gender equality.
I'm not sure it would be fun for someone to know they're in the company as the token quota hire either.

I have no problem voting for a woman or working for one. One strange thing I've come across though is that female bosses tended to treat the male employees better. Maybe it's just the bosses I've had, has anyone else noticed this?

I do agree with it to some degree, but only in certain circumstances.
I think that without positive discrimination, prejudices will take much, much longer to disappear. So in the initial phases of any large social change, some positive discrimination can actually be a very positive and effective force.

However, at this point in the history of gender equality in this country, I don't think it would be the right tool at all. It's been pointed out time and again throughout the thread that what's holding women back is not so much a glass ceiling or an old boys club, although I've no doubt that those might still exist in some areas, but the simple practicalities and laws in Ireland. No legal right to joint parental leave and no affordable childcare being the most pressing of them.

So rather than introducing a new law putting pressure on employers, how about changing laws to take pressures off families and free up valuable human resources?

Edit : Whoops, overlooked your last sentence there.
I've seen that, yes. And I've seen make bosses treating their female staff better. I've never seen it to an extend that would worry me, though, overall it was always very subtle. I blame biology for that one.

kowloon

Shenshen wrote: »

I won't, because I've said that myself in that very post. "While it was still in place", feminists were campaigning for equal duties.

Sorry!

geetar

dr.bollocko wrote: »

So you're saying that the two stats are directly related?
That a man and woman working the same job, the man works 9 hours more than the woman every week?

The 30.9 hours is an average meant to highlight a difference. Not a justification that states that all women work less anyway.

How is that difficult to understand?

the statistic explains why there is a gap, not just simply showing the gap.


if women want more women working in science, engineering etc. they need to apply for these courses, not complain.

if women want to earn as much as men, they need to work the same hours.

there are equal opportunities for both sexes. im highly against any pay discrimination between sexes, however im also against the misuse and manipulation of statistics to blame "men" for the discrepancies caused by women themselves.

all quotas do is ensure the workplace, whether its the Dáil or a chinese takeaway, becomes diluted by inferior staff in order to balance the gender books. the inferiority is not inherently gender based, but a by product of the amount of women who choose to pursue demanding 3rd level education in comparison to men.

the women who do pursue careers feel outnumbered and at a disadvantage, but thats not at the fault of men. its at the fault of the women who chose not to pursue a 3rd level education. by making men the dominating presence in 3rd level education, they will statistically remain the majority in the workplace too.


at one point, yes women were discriminated against, and in some cases they still are. however, the playing fields have been levelled a while now, and its up to women to pick up their own slack and stop playing the blame game.

maggy_thatcher

A good video explaining the reasons for the pay gap is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

It's US-centric, but most of the reasons still apply here.

dr.bollocko

geetar wrote: »

the statistic explains why there is a gap, not just simply showing the gap.


if women want more women working in science, engineering etc. they need to apply for these courses, not complain.

if women want to earn as much as men, they need to work the same hours.

there are equal opportunities for both sexes. im highly against any pay discrimination between sexes, however im also against the misuse and manipulation of statistics to blame "men" for the discrepancies caused by women themselves.

all quotas do is ensure the workplace, whether its the Dáil or a chinese takeaway, becomes diluted by inferior staff in order to balance the gender books. the inferiority is not inherently gender based, but a by product of the amount of women who choose to pursue demanding 3rd level education in comparison to men.

the women who do pursue careers feel outnumbered and at a disadvantage, but thats not at the fault of men. its at the fault of the women who chose not to pursue a 3rd level education. by making men the dominating presence in 3rd level education, they will statistically remain the majority in the workplace too.


at one point, yes women were discriminated against, and in some cases they still are. however, the playing fields have been levelled a while now, and its up to women to pick up their own slack and stop playing the blame game.

I am all for discussion. Even hearty discussion.

But the above is a bullshit diatribe that cheapens the arguments of others by association with such crap.

geetar

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I am all for discussion. Even hearty discussion.

But the above is a bullshit diatribe that cheapens the arguments of others by association with such crap.

care to explain and reference to what is "crap"?

all of my points are valid, and have been made numerous times before.

if you want to discuss things and have "hearty" discussions, you have to give rebuttal, and not dismissive vague cop-out statements