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
The Statistics of Penis Wielding Oppressors
Options
-
09-02-2010 5:49pm#1This article was in the Irish Times today, based upon this CSO report.
What struck me was that issues such men being nearly twice as likely to leave school early as women were barely touched on, and really only to highlight the usual topic of how women earn less than men, even though the report readily admits that "In interpreting [comparative incomes], it should be borne in mind that no account has been taken of the number of hours being worked or of the occupations being performed by men and women".
Indeed, if you actually look at the figures men work on average 23% longer hours than women, and when you look at age as a factor, the hours of both sexes drops after age 40, but this is particularly pronounced in women - 44.8% drop (if single) up to 72.1% drop (if married).
Given pay scales tend to increase with age, had anyone thought of seeing if this might affect the figures somewhat? There's a thought.
Other trends that were completely ignored, such as men being far more likely to be either unemployed or even long term unemployed, were ignored. Or that the overpaid men are presumably the only breadwinners for the 531,800 Irish households where a woman is "looking after home/family", as opposed to the 6,700 where a man is "looking after home/family".
(Here's another fun statistic: Women make up 91.2% of loan parents, by age of the youngest child, yet are also 97.9% of the recipients of one-parent family payments, which seemingly points to men being several times less likely to be recipients of one-parent family payments when they are single parents.)
Is it just me or are other men kind of fed up that these reports are continually being trotted out with simplistic "Women are Paid Less Than Men" mantras, with the assumption that it is down to discrimination or oppression when it would appear that this has not been the case for a very long time? Or for that matter that statistics that point to men being disadvantaged in society are simply ignored or trivialized?
You see these statistics and claims being trotted out by groups every day, but why does no one seem to want to question their validity?Tagged:8
Comments
-
Nice how when statistics are really analysed the gender income gap doesn't really seem as great. Though womens wages are only 69% of mens and they only work 23% less hours0
-
Agreed,0
-
Nice how when statistics are really analysed the gender income gap doesn't really seem as great. Though womens wages are only 69% of mens and they only work 23% less hours
What did Mrs Disraeli say about statistics?
Lies, Damn Lies and articles like these?
Corinthian is right to point out glaring anomalies that are ignored in the article such as the ignoring of the fact that males are more likely to leave school without qualifications, are more likely to be unemployed or long term unemployed. Or that fact suggesting that men are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to one parent family payments.
How about the amount of money put into campaigns against breast cancer compared to prostate cancer? I'm not suggesting it's a zero sum game and that funding one campaign should mean that another is starved of funds. But it does point to the health of one sector being rated higher than the health of another sector. Or the appallingly high male suicide rate which is being ignored. If there was a similar suicide rate among women I am sure that we wouldn't hear the end of it ever . . . and rightly so. But it barely gets a mention. In fact the only commentator I have heard mention it consistently since the mid 90's is John Waters. I'm far from being a fan of his but he should get kudos for his efforts. But despite his championing this cause nothing has happened.
It could almost lead one to suggest that the prevailing attitide is "they're men, f**k 'em."0 -
LostinBlanch wrote: »It could almost lead one to suggest that the prevailing attitide is "they're men, f**k 'em."
Pretty much.0 -
I did not want to suggest that simply because women work fewer hours on average and in general that this would explain the disparaty alone. What is equally, if not even more important, is that women appear to work significantly fewer hours later in their careers when salaries will be significantly higher, which in turn would affect the average.Nice how when statistics are really analysed the gender income gap doesn't really seem as great. Though womens wages are only 69% of mens and they only work 23% less hours
Ultimately, I am not attempting to explain such statistical anomalies, only to point out that it is not as simple as we have been led to believe and that we have at this stage been fed a pack of dubious facts - if not out-and-out lies - so as to justify a specific political agenda.
For example, check this misandrist rant out. Some of the points raised are arguably valid, however many are purely speculative, and some are actually untrue (in the case of #8, it is regrettably the case that men are fare more likely to be attacked late at night than women, for example). Why is it acceptable to come out with such sexist propaganda - but only when the target is a man?
Personally, I've had enough of this BS.0 -
Advertisement
-
I wonder how many of those women working 23% less hours in the career are the main carer on call for a dependent be it a child or an elderly parent.
And how many of those boys who leave school early ie before the leaving cert are doing so to take up apprenticeships.0 -
AFAIK the majority of apprecticeships nowadays require a pass leaving cert.0
-
Given the aforementioned disparity between male and female who are "looking after home/family" - of which 98.8% are female - I would think this is a strong hypothesis.I wonder how many of those women working 23% less hours in the career are the main carer on call for a dependent be it a child or an elderly parent.
The problem is that this is not how such surveys are presented. Typically, the inference is that lower salaries are down to discrimination in the workplace. If on the other hand it is down to the attitude that only a woman can care for the home and children, then realistically we cannot put the blame on men for this.
Instead, practically no attempt at analysis is made before conclusions are inferred.
I noticed that "after adjusting for the longer hours worked by men, the report showed, women’s hourly earnings remained only about 87 per cent of men’s" has appeared in the article. I'm pretty certain that was not there yesterday - can anyone confirm if this was present in the print copy of yesterday's IT?
It's possible. I certainly believe that women are still discriminated in many of the trades (explaining in part, why they now outnumber men in the professions).And how many of those boys who leave school early ie before the leaving cert are doing so to take up apprenticeships.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Not sure but it was always in the online one - I read it soon after it was published.The Corinthian wrote: »I noticed that "after adjusting for the longer hours worked by men, the report showed, women’s hourly earnings remained only about 87 per cent of men’s" has appeared in the article. I'm pretty certain that was not there yesterday - can anyone confirm if this was present in the print copy of yesterday's IT?
I read somewhere that Ireland has a very gendered workforce, as in men and women both tend to stick to the traditional jobs for their gender. Of course this can work against both genders.The Corinthian wrote: »It's possible. I certainly believe that women are still discriminated in many of the trades (explaining in part, why they now outnumber men in the professions).0 -
And how many of those boys who leave school early ie before the leaving cert are doing so to take up apprenticeships.
yep but sure all 16 young men want are cars women and money and lack the ability to forcasting ability to see past there noise's which to a degree is why we have so many out of work trades men thats why the industry should be caped to protect againist things like the curent problems...
I left school but didnt do an apenticeship....0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »The problem is that this is not how such surveys are presented. Typically, the inference is that lower salaries are down to discrimination in the workplace. If on the other hand it is down to the attitude that only a woman can care for the home and children, then realistically we cannot put the blame on men for this.
No one is blaming men for anything though.0 -
And how many of those boys who leave school early ie before the leaving cert are doing so to take up apprenticeships.
Far less then would have been the case 15 yeas ago. Working as unskileld labour on a building site is not taking up an apprentice. Of all the lads in my brothers year who left early for "a trade" he was the only one to complete a full apprenticeship.0 -
No and Yes.
No as in it's not all mens fault but Yes as in it's societies fault and men are a part of that and upholding the status quo and more so often in the world of business and work.0 -
But so are women.0
-
The above article, as with numerous articles, discussions and sound-bytes that permeate society do blame men - more correctly, they either infer or often claim that the reason women earn less is because of discrimination in the workplace.No one is blaming men for anything though.
For example, in the above article took a bunch of statistics, made no objective attempt at analysing them, and then led the reader (through soundbytes from the National Women’s Council of Ireland) that it's all down to discrimination, presumably in the workplace:
Who exactly is supposed to be treating women as "second-class citizens" then if no one is to blame? The tooth fairy?The Irish Times wrote:Susan McKay, director of the National Women’s Council of Ireland, said the report puts Ireland to shame.
“Today’s figures are a sharp reminder that strategies to bring about equality for women cannot be treated as luxuries - we are half the population and the Government must recognise that we cannot continue to be treated as second-class citizens,” she said.
I used to work with a woman who used to bitch and moan how she was underpaid for her job. And for her experience and qualifications, she was underpaid at 35k p.a. - or would have been if she did five and not two days per week. For two days, she was overpaid.
It really is time that people look at this and other myths of the Eternal Patriarchy and show them up for the BS they are.0 -
But the point is that it has nothing to do with the World of business and work.No as in it's not all mens fault but Yes as in it's societies fault and men are a part of that and upholding the status quo and more so often in the world of business and work.
The role of home-maker/child-carer remains one that belongs to women. The stigma against men taking up this role is significantly greater than that against women who try to do so and keep a full-time career.
Unless this changes, women will end up in the home and sacrificing their careers and salaries, because men who do are stigmatized and thus cannot. This change cannot take place in the World of business and work but in society as a whole.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Using your own logic, it not only because men are stigmatised but also because of the attitude towards working mothers. And there is an attitude among employers with research in the UK showing many recruitment agencies being asked not to hire women of child-bearing age. Paternity leave (or rather a lack of it) is largely to blame for this, IMO.The Corinthian wrote: »Unless this changes, women will end up in the home and sacrificing their careers and salaries, because men who do are stigmatized and thus cannot. This change cannot take place in the World of business and work but in society as a whole.
I'd well believe the stigma against men working in the home is a significant deterrent. I have found that generally men attempting to engage in so-perceived female activities (even down to wearing a skirt) are derided and their masculinity is questioned. While we don't seem to have quite as strong an attitude towards women attempting male activities, because of course they're superior and who could blame them?
I heard a few interviews on Moncrief and the poor guys felt really excluded by the other mothers.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Who exactly is supposed to be treating women as "second-class citizens" then if no one is to blame? The tooth fairy?
Perhaps it is an overall attitude in Irish society. Maybe it is the same attitude that percieves a womans work to be less than a mans therefore if a man were to take on a role that is traditionally a womans, he feels stigmatised.0 -
It's a factor, no doubt, but I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that a working mother is anywhere near as stigmatized as a stay-at-home man is.Using your own logic, it not only because men are stigmatised but also because of the attitude towards working mothers.
If that is the case, why do feminist groups routinely oppose fathers rights groups, for example?Perhaps it is an overall attitude in Irish society. Maybe it is the same attitude that percieves a womans work to be less than a mans therefore if a man were to take on a role that is traditionally a womans, he feels stigmatised.
I would contend that it comes largely down to cake-and-eat Feminism. Women want the choice, want the quality, but still want to maintain a monopoly on those advantages that came with the inequality. For example, in countries where there is obligatory military service for men, women will campaign to have the right to serve in the military, but not to be included in the obligatory military service.
So if you want both, you have to pay a price somewhere.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
No, I'd agree with you there. And then I'm sure the mother gets "but surely you're not leaving them alone with him...are you?" as if he will set the kids on fire or something.The Corinthian wrote: »It's a factor, no doubt, but I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that a working mother is anywhere near as stigmatized as a stay-at-home man is.
Do they? I think equal father rights are fundamental to women's working rights. But even if it wasn't, I'd still consider it incredibly important.The Corinthian wrote: »If that is the case, why do feminist groups routinely oppose fathers rights groups, for example?0 -
Advertisement
-
You would think so, however many oppose father rights as some sort of misogynistic plot against women's rights:Do they? I think equal father rights are fundamental to women's working rights.
http://feministblogs.org/tag/fathers-rights/
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/3/4/2/3/p234233_index.html
http://www.ecn.net.au/~mra/page24e.htm
As such the official line is that "women are paid less than men (for the same job)" due to discrimination in the workplace.
Even if it's ultimately not.0 -
I saw a report that men die 5 years younger than women -but you never hear campaigns for lowering the retirement ages for men.
A point that is often missed is experience and that if a woman takes time off bringing up children she needs to re-skill and and get up to date to reach the poiint she was at when she left.
Some women I know wont hire women managers simply because of the disruption caused by maternity leave etc.
I imagine that if you compare like with like you still get a skewed result and analysis probably because women enter the job market doing what they percieve as being jobs allowing time outs such as those in the public service etc.
Some jobs like teaching and nursing are now almost exclusively women. My daughter is in 5th year and I prefer her teachers to be men or women who already have their children as its least disruptive.
For women to compete with men they have to put the same hours and effort in. You cant be a part time entrepeneur or crisis manager or take time off cos your child is sick.
My GP is a woman in her 40s and she is great. I have recommended her to women friends ,however, I would be tempted to move practice if she was off constantly and I had to see a locum.
Now I am against barriers to women but analysis of statistics viewed and biased by gender goggles does no one any good and misses the point.My partner is a manager where she works -phonecalls on weekends and emails on holidays like senior guys get. Equality means equality of effort and taking a huge disruption to your personal life.0 -
No, I'd agree with you there. And then I'm sure the mother gets "but surely you're not leaving them alone with him...are you?" as if he will set the kids on fire or something.
Do they? I think equal father rights are fundamental to women's working rights. But even if it wasn't, I'd still consider it incredibly important.
You might think that but Irish law is structured to benefit women at the expense of men at family law.
So while you may be sympathetic you are probably not sympatheic enough to support change.0 -
And yet it was Arch-Priestess of the Feminist Gynocracy Harriet Harman who spearheaded last week's significant increase in paternity leave in the UK.If that is the case, why do feminist groups routinely oppose fathers rights groups, for example?
I would contend that it comes largely down to cake-and-eat Feminism. Women want the choice, want the quality, but still want to maintain a monopoly on those advantages that came with the inequality.
Now, this is still less than what women are entitled to. But I don't think one can really say that that's what's holding back parental equality, when one also considers this from the same article:Dads will be able to take up to six months' paternity leave while their child's mother returns to work, under government plans announced today.
Fathers will have a legal right to take the place of the mother at home for the last three months of her nine-month maternity leave.
During that time, they would be eligible for statutory government pay of £123 a week. [This is the same rate of pay as statutory maternity leave] They would then be allowed to take an additional unpaid three months off[This is the same as the final 3 months of maternity leave], which would effectively allow couples to have a total of 12 months' parental leave between them.
And that's not politicians eager to wriggle away from accusations that the economy can't sustain paternity leave. Because a couple of years ago when they introduced paternity leave to begin with, they said there would be 80% take-up. In actuality, 50% of new fathers don't take the mere two weeks they are currently entitled to.Ministers estimate that between 4% and 8% of those eligible for the new leave will take it
I'm not saying this to demonise anyone. There's nothing wrong with being the working parent. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to be a stay at home parent. And I think that Harman's proposals don't go far enough. I think paternity and maternity leave should be entirely equal and paid at 90% of the parent's salary, not the statutory rate.
I am a big hippie liberal and nothing would make me happier than a world like the socialist Scandinavia of my dreams, where all parents share household and childrearing duties 50-50 and there is no stigma to being a woman builder or CEO or a male Montessori teacher or nurse. (And in all fairness I think in terms of the CEO and nurse that stigma is definitely disappearing and the other two jobs probably are as well).
But it doesn't matter what I or Harriet Harman think people's home lives should look like. People don't want to live like that. Introduce all the paternity leave you want but parents won't use it because it's not what they want for their families.
Nowadays, definitely not. But when mothers first started to enter the workplace, there certainly was a stigma the equal of that which a stay-at-home-dad faces now. But women wanted to work, so they did. That's how social change happens - engineering can support it but you have to have people/families actually wanting to do it.I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that a working mother is anywhere near as stigmatized as a stay-at-home man is.
So yes there's a stigma but the only way to overcome it is the same way working mothers did - by just getting on with it.0 -
This would be the same Harriet Harman who refused to speak with father's rights groups, then denied that she had done so.And yet it was Arch-Priestess of the Feminist Gynocracy Harriet Harman who spearheaded last week's significant increase in paternity leave in the UK.
Nonetheless, you really cannot deny that many feminists are openly hostile to father's rights - I supplied a few links above and a quick Google will return dozens more.
Even where there is some support on the part of feminists for fathers, it tends to be limited to those areas that would allow fathers to better share responsibility, such as paternity leave. Once one mentions rights, that support evaporates rapidly.
I would broadly agree with this, although the attitudes that society has at present would echo your "people don't want to live like that" - women just as much as men want to retain the traditional status quo where it comes to home maker and child carer roles. Problem is that career-wise, there is a price to this for women.Nowadays, definitely not. But when mothers first started to enter the workplace, there certainly was a stigma the equal of that which a stay-at-home-dad faces now. But women wanted to work, so they did. That's how social change happens - engineering can support it but you have to have people/families actually wanting to do it.
So yes there's a stigma but the only way to overcome it is the same way working mothers did - by just getting on with it.
One of the first steps in "getting on with it" is finding the cause of a problem. Articles such as the Irish Times one I cited do not do this. They perpetuate a myth through inference that the salary gap is down to simple discrimination in the workplace, when even a small amount of analysis would show otherwise.
"Getting on with it" is going to mean changing victim culture of feminism, as well as the male culture that we cannot be victims. And ultimately, if it is equality that we are looking for, then some of those sexist privileges that women retain will have to be sacrificed.0 -
Lots of guys -me included naturally support equality and while there are different types of feminism its the more extreme elements that grab the headlines and unfortunately government funding.
My view is that if you are going to campaign for equality you cant cherrypick and you should embrace it as a culture and that means equality in all its forms.
The campaign for more women on death row or women demanding to be binmen or for frontline duties in the fighting in Afghanistan should be equally prominent with other campaigns.0 -
It was there on 10 Feb 2010 06:36:25 GMT according to Google cache.The Corinthian wrote: »I noticed that "after adjusting for the longer hours worked by men, the report showed, women’s hourly earnings remained only about 87 per cent of men’s" has appeared in the article. I'm pretty certain that was not there yesterday - can anyone confirm if this was present in the print copy of yesterday's IT?
IMO, there are three sides. Mens rights, womens rights, and equality rights. Feminists march for women rights. Women who are feminists can march for mens rights as well. Men march for equality can be seen as a good thing, as marching for more rights for men is seen as a bad thing.The Corinthian wrote: »If that is the case, why do feminist groups routinely oppose fathers rights groups, for example?
Although I don't have a link for it, I've read that some prodiment feminist activists from the 70's and 80's have swung around to supporting mens rights as the pendulum has swung too far back.
There are a lot of men in combat that suffer from the amount that they must carry. If a weapon is made lighter, they're given more stuff to carry. Has always been that way. Also, men, for the most part, are genetically more able to lift heavier loads. Thus, the amount of women who apply for service AND can carry a heavy load will ensure this number stays low, IMO.for frontline duties in the fighting in Afghanistan should be equally prominent with other campaigns.0 -
IMO, there are three sides. Mens rights, womens rights, and equality rights. Feminists march for women rights. Women who are feminists can march for mens rights as well. Men march for equality can be seen as a good thing, as marching for more rights for men is seen as a bad thing.
Although I don't have a link for it, I've read that some prodiment feminist activists from the 70's and 80's have swung around to supporting mens rights as the pendulum has swung too far back.
Its a political thing.
However, you have to ask yourself if knowing its ideology if you would send a young lad who was abused by a woman to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre for Help.
They may advertise it to secure funding from government but it would be wholly inappropriate and you would want to be stark raving bonkers to let him anywhere near them knowing their reputation.
This is something that worries me greatly.There are a lot of men in combat that suffer from the amount that they must carry. If a weapon is made lighter, they're given more stuff to carry. Has always been that way. Also, men, for the most part, are genetically more able to lift heavier loads. Thus, the amount of women who apply for service AND can carry a heavy load will ensure this number stays low, IMO.
My girlfriend can lift me and if you saw the amount of small guys in the US infantry etc you would change your point of view on that.
I would not want to go to afganistan either.
My point is though women should be equal to men before the lawv on matters of crime , murder and family law and have the same responsibilities and suffer the same punishments.
On the CSO figures -does it also make any adjustment for years of service. Probably not and does it take into account pension benefits that women disproportionately benefit from as they live 5 years longer than men.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Indeed, but they are in the minority. The third link comes across as very anti-feminist. I don't think that sort of us/them rhetoric helps anyone.The Corinthian wrote: »You would think so, however many oppose father rights as some sort of misogynistic plot against women's rights:
You have yet to prove that it is not.The Corinthian wrote: »As such the official line is that "women are paid less than men (for the same job)" due to discrimination in the workplace.
Even if it's ultimately not.
There are many small subtle ways for a woman to experience discrimination in the work place. For example, I am a policy intern and in my office I answer the phones, buzz people in, make coffee for my boss and for meetings, file papers, act as receptionist, deal with couriers and am often asked to type up hand-written documents. My male counterpart is never asked to do any of these things and so can devote more time and effort to research and producing impressive papers. Moreover, at meetings and conferences the vast majority assume that I am my boss's PA. But I'm not going to kick up a fuss because a) I'm lucky to have the job and b) I don't think it comes across well.
Having said all that, I don't think discrimination against women in the workforce is the major discrimination issue of our day - class is a much bigger factor in earning power.
In some ways yes, in other ways no.You might think that but Irish law is structured to benefit women at the expense of men at family law.
CDfm, you are very much mistaken. I'm a feminist but that doesn't mean I don't care about men's issues.So while you may be sympathetic you are probably not sympatheic enough to support change.
What nonsense. Should we also be campaigning for men to be equally persecuted for their appearance? Should we be campaigning for men to have more eating disorders?The campaign for more women on death row or women demanding to be binmen or for frontline duties in the fighting in Afghanistan should be equally prominent with other campaigns.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its a political thing.
However, you have to ask yourself if knowing its ideology if you would send a young lad who was abused by a woman to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre for Help.
They may advertise it to secure funding from government but it would be wholly inappropriate and you would want to be stark raving bonkers to let him anywhere near them knowing their reputation.
This is something that worries me greatly.
I have done several times and two men I know personally got treatment there and it made a huge difference to them in dealing with what happened to them so that they could get on with their lives.
I also know of a man who has volunteered on the rape crisses help line.
There is also 1 in 4 if you don't wish to refer people to the rape crises center.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement