Total nonsense. Women have the benefit of positive discrimination in every area of work in today's society, invariably at the expense of meritocracy and, proportionate to how many of each gender are involved, at the expense of men. All-female shortlists in Parliament have barred half the population from standing for parties in a growing number of constituencies on account of their gender, on the stupid Harman reasoning that because there are fewer women than men in Parliament, there must be some 'old boy's' club prejudice against their selection and we should therefore socially engineer there to be more, completely overlooking the fact that far, far fewer women put themselves forward for selection in the first place. In short, women occupy fewer senior positions in spite of sexism, not because of it.
The reason there are fewer women in senior positions is a combination of far fewer women applying for such jobs and biological differences between most men and most women which give most men a natural advantage in positions of leadership and risk-taking.
The reason there are fewer women in senior positions is a combination of far fewer women applying for such jobs and biological differences between most men and most women which give most men a natural advantage in positions of leadership and risk-taking.
Sexism is not the reason for this.
This is just a typical example of feminism affirming the consequent of their ideas and ignoring all other explanations for the raw data, no matter how much more sense they make. in other words, they think that because fewer women in parliament WOULD BE a consequence of sexism, it THEREFORE IS the consequence of sexism. Clearly this is epistemologically flawed.
Feminist logic: A then B. B, therefore A.
Real logic: A then B. A, therefore B.
Feminist logic: A then B. B, therefore A.
Real logic: A then B. A, therefore B.
I am not sure it is all due to sexism although it probably still has a significant part to play, at the end of the day despite what they say and their stated policies, employers are not child friendly; having children disrupts staff continuity and more women than men vary their work patterns post having a child.
If, over time, more men were to take on child rearing responsibility and women returned fully to the same role I suspect the imbalance later in careers would lessen. There do appear to be some signs of more fathers taking on the child nurturing role, but it is still very early days and it is not yet 50%, or nowhere near.
Whilst a fair time ago, I know from the experience of my wife that when we had our first child and she only returned to work for three days a week her career stalled re promotion, staff who in earlier years she had trained ended up being promoted over her.
I do not work in a large enough organisation to really know what happens these days, however some positions with some employers no doubt still come with a presumption that your job comes first and once you have the main caring responsibility for your children that can be difficult.
Science needs to advance so that either both men and women can bear children or neither is required to give birth and society still has to advance to fully recognise that men can be the primary carers for children.
Whilst the latter of these will come to pass I am not convinced the former will any time soon.
If, over time, more men were to take on child rearing responsibility and women returned fully to the same role I suspect the imbalance later in careers would lessen. There do appear to be some signs of more fathers taking on the child nurturing role, but it is still very early days and it is not yet 50%, or nowhere near.
Whilst a fair time ago, I know from the experience of my wife that when we had our first child and she only returned to work for three days a week her career stalled re promotion, staff who in earlier years she had trained ended up being promoted over her.
I do not work in a large enough organisation to really know what happens these days, however some positions with some employers no doubt still come with a presumption that your job comes first and once you have the main caring responsibility for your children that can be difficult.
Science needs to advance so that either both men and women can bear children or neither is required to give birth and society still has to advance to fully recognise that men can be the primary carers for children.
Whilst the latter of these will come to pass I am not convinced the former will any time soon.
Original post by Hariex
...and an 'Old boy" mentality.
Discuss!
Discuss!
It's partly this. Partly other factors.
There is some sexism present in higher positions but the honest truth is more women than men choose to settle down and have children.
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
There is some sexism present in higher positions but the honest truth is more women than men choose to settle down and have children.
Bingo. It's evident in the fact that there's almost no wage gap at all for unmarried women.
Original post by Hariex
...and an 'Old boy" mentality.
Discuss!
Discuss!
No women have less senior positions because there is a greater percentage of women in business who are more detail focused as opposed to wider picture focused.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Hariex
...and an 'Old boy" mentality.
Discuss!
Discuss!
You may be right, but the people currently in these senior positions started their careers 30-40 years ago. It is a possibility that the disparities are partly a hangover from historical sexism.
It will take some time to evaluate whether and to what extent current efforts are working.
In addition, women's biological role in reproduction puts them at a disadvantage. More work needs to be done to mitigate this.
(edited 9 years ago)
total bull****. it's not due to sexism, maybe men are more qualified for that job....
It's ingrained in more men than women to try harder and seek promotion to follow the money.
All men know that if they get married, when kids come along they will be expected to make up the slack in the family finances if his wife, like many women do, choose to go part time or even pack in work while the kids are little.This is pretty much the norm in our society. Men going part time or packing work in are looked down on in a way women aren't.
Generally speaking,(but not always) blue collar do this by going for more overtime while white collar do this by going for more promotion.
Teaching is a trade dominated by women yet the majority of heads are men. This is frequently held up as proof of bias in the system. Yet is it?
A few years ago there was a study conducted where newly qualified teachers were asked if they planned to go for promotion at some time. While 56% of men said yes only 18% of women said so. The fact is you can't make women do so.
On a personal point my partner is a teacher and I have met hundreds over the years. I have met loads of women that have chosen to go part time, probably several dozens, but never a man that chose to. Not one An example of the pressure put on men to succeed and provide in a way that isn't put on women.
So no, the OPs proposition is the usual feminist bull.
All men know that if they get married, when kids come along they will be expected to make up the slack in the family finances if his wife, like many women do, choose to go part time or even pack in work while the kids are little.This is pretty much the norm in our society. Men going part time or packing work in are looked down on in a way women aren't.
Generally speaking,(but not always) blue collar do this by going for more overtime while white collar do this by going for more promotion.
Teaching is a trade dominated by women yet the majority of heads are men. This is frequently held up as proof of bias in the system. Yet is it?
A few years ago there was a study conducted where newly qualified teachers were asked if they planned to go for promotion at some time. While 56% of men said yes only 18% of women said so. The fact is you can't make women do so.
On a personal point my partner is a teacher and I have met hundreds over the years. I have met loads of women that have chosen to go part time, probably several dozens, but never a man that chose to. Not one An example of the pressure put on men to succeed and provide in a way that isn't put on women.
So no, the OPs proposition is the usual feminist bull.
(edited 9 years ago)
Oh and one more thing.
Hypergamy, as discussed on here recently and practised by many women in this country. A big incentive for men that want to attract a partner, to chase the money/promotion that isn't there in the same way for women as men rarely, if ever, practice hypergamy.
Hypergamy, as discussed on here recently and practised by many women in this country. A big incentive for men that want to attract a partner, to chase the money/promotion that isn't there in the same way for women as men rarely, if ever, practice hypergamy.
(edited 9 years ago)
I am confident that there are some poor attitude towards having women of authority in the workplace. I remember at school, boys would constantly test the patients of female teachers even when shown consequences time and time again, yet more than often they respect the authority of the male teachers, and are rarely need a 2nd command.
Makes you wonder, do boys actually outgrow their sexism as they get older or does it become internalised in a less overt manner?
Also prompts the question, if millennials who were raised in the alleged age of equality and tolerance, with female power icons like Katniss Everdene.... still harbour sexist attitudes. How much worse of a bias could those 40/50 year olds have, those in senior positions in the work place.
Just a little food for thought.
Makes you wonder, do boys actually outgrow their sexism as they get older or does it become internalised in a less overt manner?
Also prompts the question, if millennials who were raised in the alleged age of equality and tolerance, with female power icons like Katniss Everdene.... still harbour sexist attitudes. How much worse of a bias could those 40/50 year olds have, those in senior positions in the work place.
Just a little food for thought.
Original post by Truths
I am confident that there are some poor attitude towards having women of authority in the workplace. I remember at school, boys would constantly test the patients of female teachers even when shown consequences time and time again, yet more than often they respect the authority of the male teachers, and are rarely need a 2nd command.
Makes you wonder, do boys actually outgrow their sexism as they get older or does it become internalised in a less overt manner?
Also prompts the question, if millennials who were raised in the alleged age of equality and tolerance, with female power icons like Katniss Everdene.... still harbour sexist attitudes. How much worse of a bias could those 40/50 year olds have, those in senior positions in the work place.
Just a little food for thought.
Makes you wonder, do boys actually outgrow their sexism as they get older or does it become internalised in a less overt manner?
Also prompts the question, if millennials who were raised in the alleged age of equality and tolerance, with female power icons like Katniss Everdene.... still harbour sexist attitudes. How much worse of a bias could those 40/50 year olds have, those in senior positions in the work place.
Just a little food for thought.
Maybe the female teachers were not as good at controlling the class than the male teachers?
Original post by Truths
I am confident that there are some poor attitude towards having women of authority in the workplace. I remember at school, boys would constantly test the patients of female teachers even when shown consequences time and time again, yet more than often they respect the authority of the male teachers, and are rarely need a 2nd command.
Makes you wonder, do boys actually outgrow their sexism as they get older or does it become internalised in a less overt manner?
Also prompts the question, if millennials who were raised in the alleged age of equality and tolerance, with female power icons like Katniss Everdene.... still harbour sexist attitudes. How much worse of a bias could those 40/50 year olds have, those in senior positions in the work place.
Just a little food for thought.
Makes you wonder, do boys actually outgrow their sexism as they get older or does it become internalised in a less overt manner?
Also prompts the question, if millennials who were raised in the alleged age of equality and tolerance, with female power icons like Katniss Everdene.... still harbour sexist attitudes. How much worse of a bias could those 40/50 year olds have, those in senior positions in the work place.
Just a little food for thought.
Those women weren't scary and dominant enough to control the kids. Many men aren't, and many women are, but men are more likely to have the attributes needed to be that teacher everybody's scared of. Namely, huge self confidence in the class room, deep voice, and just an aura that exodes authority. A few women in my school are very good like that, perhaps the best in the school, but more male teachers are.
Original post by Birkenhead
Total nonsense. Women have the benefit of positive discrimination in every area of work in today's society, invariably at the expense of meritocracy and, proportionate to how many of each gender are involved, at the expense of men. All-female shortlists in Parliament have barred half the population from standing for parties in a growing number of constituencies on account of their gender, on the stupid Harman reasoning that because there are fewer women than men in Parliament, there must be some 'old boy's' club prejudice against their selection and we should therefore socially engineer there to be more, completely overlooking the fact that far, far fewer women put themselves forward for selection in the first place. In short, women occupy fewer senior positions in spite of sexism, not because of it.
The reason there are fewer women in senior positions is a combination of far fewer women applying for such jobs and biological differences between most men and most women which give most men a natural advantage in positions of leadership and risk-taking.
The reason there are fewer women in senior positions is a combination of far fewer women applying for such jobs and biological differences between most men and most women which give most men a natural advantage in positions of leadership and risk-taking.
Was agreeing with you until the underlined part.
I think it's mostly to do with socialisation meaning more women do either part time, caring or maternal roles. Which while resulting in generally lower pay and less high up positions, actually results in higher personal happiness and a longer lifespan.
Trust Harman and feminist's to purely base life success on the position and money earned.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Can someone please mark this out of 30(all my teachers refused)Last reply 2 minutes ago
LSE Undergraduate Politics and IR 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
Haven't heard back from LSELast reply 4 minutes ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Posted 5 minutes ago
How to choose unis in UCAS application for CS undergraduate course?Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official University of Bath Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 6 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Social Security Scotland - Client ManagerLast reply 9 minutes ago
SIP civil service 2024 threadLast reply 10 minutes ago
NICS Staff Officer and Deputy Principal recruitment 2022 2023Last reply 17 minutes ago
Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challengeTrending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
