Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why is gender equality still not a reality in 2016? Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Because you would always go for invalid evidence to "prove" that they're not equal even though they are. Such as the fact that you seriously thought you had a point by including part-time employment - so you think women who work 2 hours per week should be paid the same as men who work 40 hours per week simply due to their gender?Using the "wage gap" itself is problematic to begin with. You're comparing the salaries of a doctor and a cleaner. There is no "rape culture" and most of the rape-related statistics are flatout lies (eg the 1-in-4 figure even the researchers themselves said was invalid). And ever if there was, are you suggesting that men don't get raped? Women don't rape?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Because you would always go for invalid evidence to "prove" that they're not equal even though they are. Such as the fact that you seriously thought you had a point by including part-time employment - so you think women who work 2 hours per week should be paid the same as men who work 40 hours per week simply due to their gender?Using the "wage gap" itself is problematic to begin with. You're comparing the salaries of a doctor and a cleaner. There is no "rape culture" and most of the rape-related statistics are flatout lies (eg the 1-in-4 figure even the researchers themselves said was invalid). And ever if there was, are you suggesting that men don't get raped? Women don't rape?
    Well legally speaking they can't be raped, but I get your point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Sapphire321 Can you please explain how you think the wage gap is actually real? It confuses me that people believe it but I will continue to try and see their side of the story.

    You only have to look at something as random as football managers - 99% male and they're paid incredibly high amounts. Used towards "wage gap" statistics, but has nothing to do with equality. Anyone can be a manager, getting the qualifications has no gender restriction.
    I'm glad you have an open mind on it; I'll try and explain it the best I can. It is more accurately described as a pay or earnings gap. There is a 9.4% earnings gap between men and women working full-time and a 19.2% earnings gap when you include part-time employment. This is from the Office for National Statistics from 2015. In the private sector specifically the pay gap for even for full-time employees is 17.2%. It is widely acknowledged that the public sector has better gender equality than the private sector.

    The earnings gap is NOT the gap between men and women doing the same job. It is the gap between the overall earnings of men and women working either full-time or full-time and part-time combined no matter what job they are in.

    The earnings gap is affected by:
    1. How there are less women working in better paid career paths such as science, technology, politics etc.
    2. How women are more likely to be in lower paid/lower level jobs than men within the same career path/company.

    My point is that more women should be encouraged to go into careers in science, business etc. and the women who do or already are should be treated as equal to the men rather than being disadvantaged by their gender. It also shouldn't be so much easier for men to get promoted to top level jobs.

    This would be helped if there wasn't discrimination against women particularly to do with having children. In a study, approximately 40% of managers admitted they are less inclined to hire young women who may have children or women who already have children even though this is actually illegal discrimination. This is why women are so often asked about relationships/marriage and children in job interviews. Women are also often not treated fairly if they do work at a company and then go on maternity leave. In UK society, women are generally expected to have children and if they don't they are often told they are "unnatural" or always asked why they don't. If women do have children then they are almost always expected to do the majority of the childcare and housework even when working full-time or to take part-time jobs in order to do that or even not work at all. If they don't they are often told they are bad mothers. This all prevents women from getting to top level jobs and focusing on their careers in the same way that men can. In my opinion, there should be more and better paid paternity leave so that the responsibility for a new baby can be shared between a couple. The man and the woman should do equal amounts of childcare and housework as the child grows up unless one or other of them wants to do more of course. If a women wants to do the majority of the childcare/work part-time/be a stay at home mother then that's fine; it's about having the choice rather than being expected to do it.

    Yes, it is probably unlikely that there will be many female managers of male football teams. This is partly to do with equality though because male football players are paid much more and held in much higher regard around the world than female football players and it would definitely make sense to have female manager of a female football team. As far as I can see, there is no reason why women's football should be any less interesting to watch etc. Also, it's not just confined to football. There are much less women than men in top level jobs in science, technology, engineering, business, law, politics, academia, financial services/banking... The list is endless.

    Sorry for the essay haha! I hope it's been helpful.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    I am a 21 year old woman and I would describe myself as a feminist going by the actual definition of feminism which is: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes. I am a feminist because I believe that men and women should be equal in society and that neither men nor women should be forced to conform to traditional gender roles NOT because I think that women should be superior to or have more privileges or better rights than men or because I think all men are sexist. I would also say, before people stereotype me, that I am straight, I do not hate men, I do take care of my appearance and I am not in any way the type of radical, extreme feminist that so many people now seem to think that all women who want equal rights are.

    Anyway, to get to why I started this thread, I used to believe that men and women were fairly equal in modern society in the UK. However, as I’ve got older I’ve realised more and more that this is just not the case. In the workplace, there is still a 9.4% pay gap on average between men and women for full-time employment and when part-time employment is also included the gap extends to 19.2%. In the private sector specifically the pay gap for even for full-time employees was 17.2%! The TUC analysis of the ONS statistics showed that looking at the highest earners that gap widens even more reaching 54.9% for the top 2% of earners. The “glass ceiling” is even now nowhere near broken. There are many more men than women in top level jobs in politics, law, science, technology, engineering, academia, business… Just looking at politics alone, there is currently a lot in the media about how the next Prime Minister now has to be either Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom therefore it has to be (how shocking!) a woman. I know it’s only the second time in history so that’s a point of interest and it’s obviously great that there was no gender discrimination in this case that prevented us from getting another female Prime Minister but it still shouldn’t be portrayed by the media as such a novel and unusual idea. Even after the 2015 General Election, only 29% of MPs and a third of cabinet ministers are women. Women in politics seem to be judged by the media and society in general as much for how they look as for their policies and often face sexism from both the media and male colleagues. So, if we can’t get proper gender equality in politics which is both very public and obviously instrumental in trying to create equal rights then what hope is there for other professions.

    It’s not just in the workplace that women aren’t treated equally either. Everyday sexism is present in schools, universities and in wider society. Worryingly, there is evidence that our generation, if anything, is getting worse. The rise of “Lad Culture” and “Rape Culture” which are particularly prevalent at universities is becoming a serious problem. Women are routinely objectified. Some men (I am definitely not saying all men) and even some women make sexist jokes and comments on a regular basis including joking about rape. Sexist posts and memes (again including jokes about rape) are often shared on social media… Why is it still seen as acceptable to joke that women should “get back to the kitchen” or worse?

    As I said, I used to believe that men and women were now equal in the UK when I was still at school but scarily, knowing what I know now looking back on things that happened when I was at school, sexism was obvious there too. I had one male teacher in sixth form who used to patronisingly call all the girls “young lady” but never the boys “young man”. I had a female teacher who said women who worked and had children were irresponsible because they couldn’t be fully committed to their careers. Boys in my class joked that “all women should be prostitutes” but “*name of girl* wouldn’t get any customers”. In my year, boys and even occasionally girls made jokes that were either sexist or involved rape or both. Also, seeing some of the threads on TSR where (some) guys make sexist and misogynistic comments and then call girls “feminazis” if they dispute what’s been said makes me think that sexism certainly hasn’t gone, it hasn’t even decreased by all that much in some ways, it has just adapted into a modern version.

    So, why is it that in 2016 women are still not treated as equal to men? And why do people say that feminism is now irrelevant when there is still so much inequality? In a country where women got the vote almost a century ago shouldn’t we have better equality in modern society than this?

    Feminism only has a definition defined by the groups actions. It is how it represents itself. It doesn't have a 'holy text' or any fixed rules by which to be held accountable and is therefore a fluid movement defined by its actions. There are no tenets and equality is a vague term, does it mean of opportunity or of outcome and how is it defined? Is exactly 50/50 equality if it ignores meritocracy, how is that in any way fair? Also how are men and women forced to adhere to gender roles, any pressure to do so is self enforced based off - generally - efficacy of self image, there is every opportunity just to do whatever you want but people choose not to. For whatever reasons these choices are made they are still fundamentally a choice.

    Is the gap for the same job? The equal pay act would suggest not. A disparity by choice - the only remaining factor - is irrelevant. If women were cheaper for the same jobs with the same experience and ability then they would make up the majority of the work force for economic reasons. Women are outperforming men in academia and in the jobs market ages 18-22 however this is a result of one causing the other (although it should be noted when it was the other way around it was sexism now it isnt because reasons)

    Lad culture is a dismissive term for boys behaving as boys are biologically conditioned to do so and 'rape culture' is patently false. If rape was accepted then why does it carry massively harsh punishments, is universally condemned as a horrific crime in the western world (often considered worse than murder) - if it was a culturally accepted action why would said culture condemn it and punish it? That's not how acceptance works.

    Presumed offence by 'young lady' and jokes that involve shock value for humour are not examples of sexism. Most humour is dark because laughing about that which shouldnt be said, the taboo, is a common social construct - comedy pushed boundaries and this is a reflection of that as people say what they know shouldn't be said which is why its funny. Also girls are misogynist or sexist for making these jokes, as in women hate women or discriminate against women? Sounds a bit off key when examined, why on earth would a group hate their own group. Men face the exact same thing, when that woman cut off her mans penis because he cheated it was laughed about on national TV, fat men get fat jokes all the time, skinny men get skinny jokes, posh people get posh jokes, poor people get poor jokes etc etc. Everything that makes a person individual is also free to be mocked by those not possessing the same characteristic, in order to laugh in general you need to be able to laugh at yourself and this is the root of such comments. I fail to see how comments directed indiscriminately form a basis for sexism or arguments thereof or why dark humour inherently is opposed to women.

    What equality would you advocate? Equality of choice has been granted, equality of opportunity is there. Its nobody's responsibility but your own to create the outcome.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    I'm glad you have an open mind on it; I'll try and explain it the best I can. It is more accurately described as a pay or earnings gap. There is a 9.4% earnings gap between men and women working full-time and a 19.2% earnings gap when you include part-time employment. This is from the Office for National Statistics from 2015. In the private sector specifically the pay gap for even for full-time employees is 17.2%. It is widely acknowledged that the public sector has better gender equality than the private sector.

    The earnings gap is NOT the gap between men and women doing the same job. It is the gap between the overall earnings of men and women working either full-time or full-time and part-time combined no matter what job they are in.

    The earnings gap is affected by:
    1. How there are less women working in better paid career paths such as science, technology, politics etc.
    2. How women are more likely to be in lower paid/lower level jobs than men within the same career path/company.

    My point is that more women should be encouraged to go into careers in science, business etc. and the women who do or already are should be treated as equal to the men rather than being disadvantaged by their gender. It also shouldn't be so much easier for men to get promoted to top level jobs.

    This would be helped if there wasn't discrimination against women particularly to do with having children. In a study, approximately 40% of manager admitted they are less inclined to hire young women who may have children or women who already have children even though this is actually illegal discrimination. This is why women are so often asked about relationships/marriage and children in job interviews. Women are also often not treated fairly if they do work at a company and then go on maternity leave. In UK society, women are generally expected to have children and if they don't they are often told they are "unnatural" or always asked why they don't. If women do have children then they are almost always expected to do the majority of the childcare and housework even when working full-time or to take part-time jobs in order to do that or even not work at all. If they don't they are often told they are bad mothers. This all prevents women from getting to top level jobs and focusing on their careers in the same way that men can. In my opinion, there should be more and better paid paternity leave so that the responsibility for a new baby can be shared between a couple. The man and the woman should do equal amounts of childcare and housework as the child grows up unless one or other of them wants to do more of course. If a women wants to do the majority of the childcare/work part-time/be a stay at home mother then that's fine; it's about having the choice rather than being expected to do it.

    Yes, it is probably unlikely that there will be many female managers of male football teams. This is partly to do with equality though because male football players are paid much more and held in much higher regard around the world than female football players and it would definitely make sense to have female manager of a female football team. As far as I can see, there is no reason why women's football should be any less interesting to watch etc. Also, it's not just confined to football. There are much less women than men in top level jobs in science, technology, engineering, business, law, politics, academia, financial services/banking... The list is endless.

    Sorry for the essay haha! I hope it's been helpful.
    Thank you for that, I see your point. My response (I like to challenge ideas before mindlessly accepting them):

    Men footballers have a lot more flair and skill than women footballers - this is widely accepted by all true football fans.
    Additionally, in the past, I'm assuming due to natural interests (boys liking football more than girls, would be silly to pretend this isn't true) and maybe even the sexism that used to be around, mens football would have gotten a ton more funding, due to basic supply and demand. Therefore mens football is far beyond women's in terms of funding anyway. It would take an unjust injection of cash into women's football to increase their wages.

    Also I don't get the idea of forcing women into STEM fields. Every single person I have spoken to, has had lots of thought about what cources they wanted to do, and told me about their passions. At no point was a certain gender stopped from studying a certain course. In fact, if you did some research on the Cambridge admission statistics, a much much higher percentage of females that apply get into STEM courses, then males. This, I believe, is an act of anti-equality - choosing someone based on their gender not their credentials.

    No, women take more time of, this is a fact. Therefore from a business point of view, it is optimal to choose someone who will give you more for your money.

    I'm guessing you've never studied economics - nothing hee is gender driven, it's all explained by basic economics. I was hoping you'd be able to persuade me otherwise, I've always wondered that it can't just be a coincidence that so many people fall for the wage gap myth.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    In fact, if you did some research on the Cambridge admission statistics, a much much higher percentage of females that apply get into STEM courses, then males.

    This is not true.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forecast)
    This is not true.
    Men are also more likely to be raped if prison is included

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MildredMalone)
    It's because of the same reason males are better at chess. In IQ tests, women often get average-ish results, while men get the highs and the lows. Skills associated with higher IQs (when judged by the tests) are the same skills that are used in maths and science, and chess!
    IQ tests have been discredited. ( 1950s I believe - Prof. Brian Simon et al ). IQ doesn't govern your ability to be educated. Education increases your IQ.

    Loads of women do sciences - medicine counts doesn't it? It is very difficult to break into areas where there are few women - study areas where you are for ever being told that your brain isn't suitable/ good enough. Can't imagine what they were doing giving Marie Curie 2 Nobel Prizes.

    Think Ms Fawcett . She couldn't officially study maths at Cambridge because there was no provision for women to study Maths because everyone knew women weren't good at Maths ( as you say.) After she had nevertheless unofficially studied Maths at Cambridge and come top of the year by a large margin, they decided she couldn't be called the Wrangler because she was a woman and there was no provision for a woman being a wrangler because women weren't/ couldn't be very very good at Maths ( as you say).

    ( Male) interviewers tend to want to recruit people in their image. This is why applications are increasingly anonymous. We had the same problem with men choosing people to play in orchestras. As you say , men have a range of ability which is just better than women's at the top end. So, of course when auditioning for places in top orchestras it was inevitable that men were chosen over women. They were just plain better. Until some bright spark decided to test the theory by making the selectors listen to the people playing behind a screen and amazingly they chose lots of women! They were stunned. The women were as good or better than the men.

    Oh and women's bodies are just not able to run marathons so they weren't allowed to run them until recently. No one told Paula Radcliffe.

    Oh and women are so lacking in seriousness because of their wombs that they couldn't be allowed to bring up male children, own property, borrow money, have mortgages - except Catherine of Aragon ran the country when Henry was away, Isabella of Spain her mother rode into battle soon after giving birth etc. etc.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sapphire321)

    3. Yes, it is illegal but unfortunately it still can happen. Employers can get round it and discrimination is difficult to prove.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jwebb/20.../#154a6afd16ee
    Approximately 40% of managers admit that they are less inclined to hire women who are of child bearing age or who already have children although that is also technically illegal. I don't accept that women are just less hard working and always leave earlier; that must just be down to the specific people that work at your parents' accounting firm. Although, this again could be down to how women most often have the primary responsibility for childcare.
    It's one of the most ridiculous laws we have, it's completely reasonable to not want to hire someone who could be off work for a year in the not too distant future.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    IQ tests have been discredited. ( 1950s I believe - Prof. Brian Simon et al ). IQ doesn't govern your ability to be educated. Education increases your IQ.
    I know not many people set much store by IQ tests. What I meant was, the same skills used to get high scores on those tests are the same skills that are applied to STEM type subjects.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forecast)
    This is not true.
    Yes it is. You don't even need to do the research to show it too - it's obvious. Course numbers tend towards 50:50 female male, with slightly more males where necessary, yet around 90% of applications are males. Sexism - choosing females to fill a quota purely based on their gender.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by perspectives)
    A teacher at my school called the girls "princess" , "love" , "sweetie" he commented on one girls clothes size saying she'd be a good model. He never did to the boys.
    My dad's colleague is a working mother who is set to be really high up in the company. The amount of s*** she's faced for being a woman, it's taken her many more years than it should've done to get her to this stage. Men have many sexist jokes to her throughout her career and she's missed out on promotions because of it. Don't tell me women don't try to get good careers and that it's their own fault that there's a pay gap.
    Growing up the girls were encouraged to do art or dance and the boys were encouraged to love science and maths. Girls who were good at maths were told they are good, "for a girl."
    A boy in my year would say women are only good for two things, cooking and babies. The teacher would laugh.
    At the age of 11 my friends and I would walk down the street and be told "show us your t*** " we were 11, we barely had any and yet we were already being sexualised.
    It's so sad to see the comments on this post blatantly refuse to believe there is inequality. Of course there is inequality, it's just more subtle that you think.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    right...
    so women get called "dear", "love", etc
    boys/men are subjected to common claims of paedophilia if they're anywhere around children (hence the recent andrea leadsom comments), criminality/aggression (and hence a much higher likelihood of a prison sentence for a crime), they are expected to do dangerous jobs, they're made to conform to strict body images by the media (encouraged by women) i.e. muscles, height, etc or income, they're expected to physically fight for their female partners, they're expected to pay for their female partners, they're expected to be the bread winners, *by women*, yet when they actually ****ing fulfill this role, women complain about them...I mean, do you really think there's as much pressure upon women to earn maximal amounts like there is upon men with romantic/sexual relationships in mind? women care a lot if a man is poor, or "poor" in the woman's eyes, but men never care - there are studies that confirm this.

    the hypocrisy is endless

    also, the wage gap: if it's discrimination against women that women don't typically "earn" as much as men, then it's surely discrimination that 95% of the prison population is male? what's the difference? you discount personal life choices in the former, so why not the latter? I mean, do you understand how ridiculous feminism is today given these facts? "feminism" might be one thing in the dictionary, but in practice, it's merely women slamming men for basically nothing, or blaming men for their own personal issues. "page 3"? what about ****ing male infant non-medical circumcision practised in your own country!

    PS: I get called "dear" and "love" and I'm a 22 year old man, with a beard. is it sexist? or is it an insult?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Feminism is just first world terrorism. Making up lies, to make young people feel like victims, so that they cause harm to others.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Feminism only has a definition defined by the groups actions. It is how it represents itself. It doesn't have a 'holy text' or any fixed rules by which to be held accountable and is therefore a fluid movement defined by its actions. There are no tenets and equality is a vague term, does it mean of opportunity or of outcome and how is it defined? Is exactly 50/50 equality if it ignores meritocracy, how is that in any way fair? Also how are men and women forced to adhere to gender roles, any pressure to do so is self enforced based off - generally - efficacy of self image, there is every opportunity just to do whatever you want but people choose not to. For whatever reasons these choices are made they are still fundamentally a choice.

    Is the gap for the same job? The equal pay act would suggest not. A disparity by choice - the only remaining factor - is irrelevant. If women were cheaper for the same jobs with the same experience and ability then they would make up the majority of the work force for economic reasons. Women are outperforming men in academia and in the jobs market ages 18-22 however this is a result of one causing the other (although it should be noted when it was the other way around it was sexism now it isnt because reasons)

    Lad culture is a dismissive term for boys behaving as boys are biologically conditioned to do so and 'rape culture' is patently false. If rape was accepted then why does it carry massively harsh punishments, is universally condemned as a horrific crime in the western world (often considered worse than murder) - if it was a culturally accepted action why would said culture condemn it and punish it? That's not how acceptance works.

    Presumed offence by 'young lady' and jokes that involve shock value for humour are not examples of sexism. Most humour is dark because laughing about that which shouldnt be said, the taboo, is a common social construct - comedy pushed boundaries and this is a reflection of that as people say what they know shouldn't be said which is why its funny. Also girls are misogynist or sexist for making these jokes, as in women hate women or discriminate against women? Sounds a bit off key when examined, why on earth would a group hate their own group. Men face the exact same thing, when that woman cut off her mans penis because he cheated it was laughed about on national TV, fat men get fat jokes all the time, skinny men get skinny jokes, posh people get posh jokes, poor people get poor jokes etc etc. Everything that makes a person individual is also free to be mocked by those not possessing the same characteristic, in order to laugh in general you need to be able to laugh at yourself and this is the root of such comments. I fail to see how comments directed indiscriminately form a basis for sexism or arguments thereof or why dark humour inherently is opposed to women.

    What equality would you advocate? Equality of choice has been granted, equality of opportunity is there. Its nobody's responsibility but your own to create the outcome.
    What I quoted was the literal dictionary definition of feminism. Yes, obviously the actions of different groups who call themselves feminists is going to affect how people perceive feminism. However, all feminists are NOT radical feminists. You can't hold all feminists responsible for the actions of radical feminists just like you can't hold all leave voters responsible for the actions of Nigel Farage and UKIP. I voted Remain but I still wouldn't do that. I would say I am both a liberal feminist and an egalitarian so I should really define myself as an egalitarian because to me women's equality is a part of total equality.

    I would define it as equality of opportunity. If there was actually equality of opportunity, which don't believe there is yet, it should lead on to a more equal outcome that we have at present. I would want it to be based on merit. My point is it currently often isn't. How is it merit based equality if a better qualified woman is turned down for a job and they hire a less well qualified man instead because the woman may have children in the future? And yes that does happen. See my response to ComputerMaths97. So you think women want to do 70% of the housework on average? You think women always want to settle for a lower level career in order to have children when men can have both children and a top level career?

    No, the earnings gap is not for the same job and I never said it was. Again, see my response to ComputerMaths97 for an explanation of the earnings gap. There can still be discrimination which leads to women being paid less than men for the same job but that is much less common. It's not always a choice though. When a couple chooses to have children, women most often have the primary responsibility for the housework and childcare which means that they either have to struggle to do it all along with a full time job or they have to go part time or give up their job altogether in order to have more time to do it. This means that women do not have the same opportunities as men to build their careers.

    Lad culture is not just "boys behaving as boys are biologically conditioned to do". It's not biological at all; it's completely down to culture and society. Not all men take part in "lad culture". Men have a complete choice whether to behave like that or not. Can you please actually read up about what "lad culture" and "rape culture" are before commenting again. Look up the case of Brock Turner and tell me again that there's no rape culture. In America, 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted while at university. In Britain, 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted while at university. There is a massive issue about what many male students think of as not rape when it is. For example, many men still think it's okay to have sex with a girl who is too drunk to consent to it even though this is rape.

    Calling someone "young lady" doesn't have to be sexist but in that instance it was meant in a sexist way and you'll have to trust me on that one because I was there. Jokes about misogyny and rape and the lad culture, particularly around drinking societies and sports societies, at university can be very harmful. It can intimidate female students and cause male students to think that that's normal behaviour.

    Women sometimes join in with the sexist jokes because of peer pressure. People say they "can't take a joke" or are too uptight or are no fun to be with if they don't. There are way more "jokes" that are sexist against women than sexist against men though.

    There is not proper equality of opportunity. This is the point. Right, so you just think men are naturally better at intellectually challenging jobs than women then?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Thank you for that, I see your point. My response (I like to challenge ideas before mindlessly accepting them):

    Men footballers have a lot more flair and skill than women footballers - this is widely accepted by all true football fans.
    Additionally, in the past, I'm assuming due to natural interests (boys liking football more than girls, would be silly to pretend this isn't true) and maybe even the sexism that used to be around, mens football would have gotten a ton more funding, due to basic supply and demand. Therefore mens football is far beyond women's in terms of funding anyway. It would take an unjust injection of cash into women's football to increase their wages.

    Also I don't get the idea of forcing women into STEM fields. Every single person I have spoken to, has had lots of thought about what cources they wanted to do, and told me about their passions. At no point was a certain gender stopped from studying a certain course. In fact, if you did some research on the Cambridge admission statistics, a much much higher percentage of females that apply get into STEM courses, then males. This, I believe, is an act of anti-equality - choosing someone based on their gender not their credentials.

    No, women take more time of, this is a fact. Therefore from a business point of view, it is optimal to choose someone who will give you more for your money.

    I'm guessing you've never studied economics - nothing hee is gender driven, it's all explained by basic economics. I was hoping you'd be able to persuade me otherwise, I've always wondered that it can't just be a coincidence that so many people fall for the wage gap myth.
    I can't pretend to be a football fan but I really don't see any reason why female footballers have to be less skillful than male footballers. Yes, men are genetically more likely to be stronger and faster but women will need just as much actual skill when playing. Many girls and women do enjoy football but yes obviously more boys and men take an interest in it but this is again to do with children being brought up expected to follow traditional gender roles. Boys get encouraged to like football from a young age whereas girls get encouraged to like dolls, fashion etc. If young girls were given more opportunities to do football then more of them would grow up interested in it which would create more future female football players and female football fans. The girls were never given the opportunity to do football in sports lessons at my school although quite a few of us played it at break and liked it. The boys on the other hand did it at every week. You've picked the very specific example of football which had a very big gender imbalance due to many different factors. Is Serena Williams much worse at tennis than Andy Murray just because she's a woman? Looking at the many other careers outside sport, do you think that women are just worse than men at business, politics, law, science, banking etc.?

    I'm not suggesting women should be forced to do science careers or subjects. I'm saying that women should be given equal opportunities to succeed at careers in science and industry if they do go into them. Women do go into these careers but they often don't have the same opportunities when competing to get the best jobs and also when trying to get promoted to higher level jobs once they do work for a company. It's a catch-22 situation as well because for example my mum works in a STEM field and although she's been successful she's faced loads of sexism and discrimination and has had to work much harder than the men she's worked with in order to succeed. Consequently, she said to me "By all means do Biochemistry at university but don't work in industry after you graduate. Do post graduate medicine or law or something so that you can work in an area with better gender equality". It is also true that girls are often not encouraged to take an interest in science in the same way that boys are. This works both ways for example I had a male friend who was forced by his parents to take science GCSEs and A Levels when he was much more interested in English etc.

    What you've said about Cambridge admissions statistics isn't true. For 2014 entry, which is the most recent year that the statistics have been published for as far as I can see, 59.2% of the applicants for Natural Sciences were male and 40.8% were female. 60.3% of the students that were accepted were male and 39.7% were female. These percentages are very close to being equivalent and a similar pattern follows for all of the STEM courses. http://www.undergraduate.study.cam.a...2014_cycle.pdf Page 14.

    Women take more sick days on average than men. Should a company be able to just hire men and discriminate against women because of that? Lets take another example, men are more likely to be peadophiles therefore were Andrea Leadsom's comments that men should not be hired to do childcare okay?

    No, I haven't studied Economics but I have studied Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Maths etc. and I've read widely about this and looked up studies and research. Studying AS Level Economics doesn't make you an expert. It's not a myth; have you actually understood or considered anything I said?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Yes it is. You don't even need to do the research to show it too - it's obvious. Course numbers tend towards 50:50 female male, with slightly more males where necessary, yet around 90% of applications are males. Sexism - choosing females to fill a quota purely based on their gender.
    That's not anywhere near true. See my post.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    Is Serena Williams much worse at tennis than Andy Murray just because she's a woman?
    Yes. In fact women should play more sets in grand slams just like the men, or they should get paid less. That's the only way to make it completely fair in tennis.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    Feminism is just first world terrorism. Making up lies, to make young people feel like victims, so that they cause harm to others.
    Now this is just getting ridiculous! ISIS are terrorists. Far right neo-nazi extremists are terrorists. Feminism is in no way associated with any kind of terrorism. Saying that is actually very inappropriate just now with all the actual terrorist attacks that have happened recently.

    For someone with a supposedly open mind on this I would say your mind is pretty set. If you're trolling then please go and do something useful with your time instead.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ano9901whichone)
    Yes. In fact women should play more sets in grand slams just like the men, or they should get paid less. That's the only way to make it completely fair in tennis.
    Is x much worse at y just because she is female? "Yes". I give up, honestly some people on here...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    Is x much worse at y just because she is female? "Yes". I give up, honestly some people on here...
    You asked me about a physical sport, it's guaranteed that the top male players/teams will beat top female players/teams in physical sports.
    If you define better by who will win in a match between the 2, then Andy Murray is better because we will win against Serena in a match. Are you disputing this?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.