The finance sector is sexist!!!! Attention

There's a reason for this you know, it's because the financial industry is dominated by men, about 70% or more workers are male.

In Engineering that figure is closer to 90%

What does this mean? There is a lack of women in these workplaces so employers want to balance it out and at least try to bring the ratio closer to 50-50

If that means giving women an "unfair advantage" then so be it, at the end of the day it's up to the employer to hire whomever they wish and it's up to us (the applicants) to make the most out of any situation.

Yeah it's absurd, they hate the scientific method because it's "masculinist". These are the people holding governments and the media to ransom to support their idiocy.

btw don't compare schalisticism with feminism, feminism is much worse. Scholasticism did decent work with flawed Aristotelian logical system. Feminists don't use science or logic at all.

btw, are there actually scientists using the "feminist methodology"?

You'd be caught out with background checks

Posted from TSR Mobile

Why would a diversity quota be at 1%? that's like hiring one more black person to look diverse.
If you don't believe there is a 40% quota on select Norway companies, then search it up.
Even the EU has made a gender quota of 40%, but not every country agrees in a way like the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/12034462/Britain-seeks-to-halt-EU-gender-quota-plan.html
and
Glad that our confident in your ability

Not true that women outnumber men in these professions in your generation. The only professions it is true of is law and the civil service. Women are still under represented in graduate programmes - 42% of all graduate programmes, but make up 60% of the graduate population, so technically under represented by at least 8% although could argue that it's 18% of the eligible population.

I'd like to see the statistics that say women are paid more per hour across all jobs. Have you got a link to this?


Posted from TSR Mobile

They're only paid more than men for the same hours, job and education

They actually earn less overall, if you don't account for the above

Trying to read through the mass of that report but as of yet haven't seen anything to suggest what you are saying. Could you direct me to where that is made clear?

I just find this view very interesting when pretty much every graduate recruiter (and the industry as a whole) still has an issue with recruiting women. Pretty much any major graduate recruiter outside of the law and some civil service departments (DoE, CSFS) are struggling to attract and then recruit enough women.

The latest push by the UK government is that companies with over 250 employees should report publically on any wage gaps. This would factor in job grade (so like-for-like jobs to some extent - you wouldn't compare a doctor against a nurse as they would be different grades), contracted hours worked etc. The idea is that it tries to eliminate some of the broader issues of women working less contracted hours or preferring less well paid careers, and would allow a fairer comparison.

Evidence suggests it does it exists, but the current flaws in the current data makes people question the validity of this. If the mandatory reporting did happen, it would clear things up a lot.

Now imagine if there was mandatory reporting of the wage differential in companies between the bosses and the sh*tmunchers and the wage progression of employees, rather than having employees argue over how many crumbs the boys vs girls get rather than acting in solidarity.

Feminism obstructs socialism and that is why the establishment likes it. Instead of examining issues like income inequality it can satisfy the left by just putting out some crap about empowering women. Feminist movement is a proxy for Marxist class struggle but the rank and file fall into the trap of thinking it is actually about women, that they have more common cause with rich well positioned women than similarly poor men.

I don't think that is strictly fair. Many feminists have called for openness and transparency of wages to make things fairer on everyone, not just to allow wages between women and men to be compared.

At any rate, even if they are just demanding to be able to compare women and men, this doesn't fight counter-purpose to those seeking greater transparency of wages.

I don't mind them doing both in theory but in reality if the government can get away with appeasing the political left with identity politics it will, and progress on proper stuff will stagnate. Feminism/identity politics is supposed under the Frankfurt school to be a gateway to socialism but the opinion formers and rank and file are staying in their comfort zone. Feminists should be recognising that their identitarian goals have now largely been achieved and use the platform and political capital they have built up by virtue of focusing on essentialism and identity to push the less immediate, less instinctive class consciousness required for socialism.