The girls who cried sexism

Princess Peach · 24-06-2012 03:58PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:03PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:04PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:08PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:08PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:11PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:13PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:21PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:23PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:25PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:32PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:33PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:36PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:39PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:39PM

''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

24-06-2012 04:44PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:55PM

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 · 24-06-2012 04:59PM

Women of ability don't cry sexism imo

KiethM89 · 24-06-2012 05:05PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Women of ability don't cry sexism imo

One of the best responses in this thread

leggo · 24-06-2012 05:21PM

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.

iptba · 24-06-2012 10:37PM

Princess Peach wrote: »

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.

It's an interesting question where that pressure might come from.

I suppose it could be seen as discrimination like you say, although my point was that it can to a large extent explain the difference in wages and the different numbers at board level.

JackerT · 24-06-2012 11:49PM

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Women of ability don't cry sexism imo

why is it always said that women "cry" sexism. why would we need to? happens every day!!

PucaMama · 24-06-2012 11:54PM

iptba wrote: »

It's an interesting question where that pressure might come from.

I suppose it could be seen as discrimination like you say, although my point was that it can to a large extent explain the difference in wages and the different numbers at board level.

maybe the "pressure" comes from men trying to compete with eachother. pretty obvious that one.

Piliger · 25-06-2012 12:10AM

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

Unfortunately this is what happens any time men stand up for themselves and push back against the feminist politically correct onslaught.

iptba · 25-06-2012 12:15AM

PucaMama wrote: »

iptba wrote:

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

maybe the "pressure" comes from men trying to compete with eachother. pretty obvious that one.

I think it's more complicated than that.

For example, I think women judge men's attractiveness by their salary much more than a woman's attractiveness is judged by her salary.

Also, if a man's wife/female partner is not working, or not earning that much, that again puts pressure on the husband/male partner to "earn well". In normal times*, this happens much more than the reverse (a husband/male partner not working, or not earning much, putting pressure on a wive/female partner to choose a well-paid job and look for promotions).

* excluding this part point of time in Ireland post-construction boon, although I think it may still be the majority scenario at the moment.

PucaMama · 25-06-2012 12:56AM

iptba wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

iptba wrote:

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

maybe the "pressure" comes from men trying to compete with eachother. pretty obvious that one.

I think it's more complicated than that.

For example, I think women judge men's attractiveness by their salary much more than a woman's attractiveness is judged by her salary.

Also, if a man's wife/female partner is not working, or not earning that much, that again puts pressure on the husband/male partner to "earn well". In normal times*, this happens much more than the reverse (a husband/male partner not working, or not earning much, putting pressure on a wive/female partner to choose a well-paid job and look for promotions).

* excluding this part point of time in Ireland post-construction boon, although I think it may still be the majority scenario at the moment.

Are you serious? When I met my boyfriend I didnt ask to see his paycheck before id go out with him. Do you realy think women are that shallow?

A_Sober_Paddy · 25-06-2012 02:07AM

I know of a very good example of sexism in today's society...

A lad I know works in a pub and he has to change the kegs and move them, because the women won't/refuse to because they are too heavy...

But get paid the same as the fella's in there despite not doing the same job, sexism towards men there. You don't hear those feminists talk about this.

I've heard its very common in the pub sector that women never even go near the kegs

iptba · 25-06-2012 02:44AM

PucaMama wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I think women judge men's attractiveness by their salary much more than a woman's attractiveness is judged by her salary.

Are you serious? When I met my boyfriend I didnt ask to see his paycheck before id go out with him. Do you realy think women are that shallow?

Remember this is a comparison: the correlation of somebody's attractiveness to their salary (and earning potential). I think it is larger for men (i.e. their attractiveness to women) than it is for women (i.e. their attractiveness to men). Similarly, I think physical attractiveness is more important for women (i.e. their attractiveness to men) than for men (their attractiveness to women): to put it in plainer language, looks are more important for men (when they are mentally rating women), than vice versa. So if one wants to put the label "shallow" on it, I think men are more "shallow" in that regard. However, I dislike such language.

Some points I can make can be a bit leftfield/novel: I don't think this one is, I think it's a pretty mainstream view, both in popular culture and psychology.

Woodward · 25-06-2012 10:06AM

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

I know of a very good example of sexism in today's society...

A lad I know works in a pub and he has to change the kegs and move them, because the women won't/refuse to because they are too heavy...

But get paid the same as the fella's in there despite not doing the same job, sexism towards men there. You don't hear those feminists talk about this.

I've heard its very common in the pub sector that women never even go near the kegs

I had the same experience except it wasnt just kegs, it was most boxes and cases. I was also expected to act as a bouncer when customers got rowdy

Lord Bafford · 25-06-2012 10:07AM

iptba wrote: »

Remember this is a comparison: the correlation of somebody's attractiveness to their salary (and earning potential). I think it is larger for men (i.e. their attractiveness to women) than it is for women (i.e. their attractiveness to men). Similarly, I think physical attractiveness is more important for women (i.e. their attractiveness to men) than for men (their attractiveness to women): to put it in plainer language, looks are more important for men (when they are mentally rating women), than vice versa. So if one wants to put the label "shallow" on it, I think men are more "shallow" in that regard. However, I dislike such language.

Some points I can make can be a bit leftfield/novel: I don't think this one is, I think it's a pretty mainstream view, both in popular culture and psychology.

I think this is a very interesting point.

You see very few ugly women working in high end positions; the contrariwise is the case for cleaners, supermarket check out assistants and fast food workers.
I've always noticed that these positions are mainly populated by frumpy 40 somethings.

But feminists are wrong to point the finger at men here.

It's no coincidence that the beautiful girls in school tend to group together.

The girls who cried sexism

Comments