Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    I think that people focus too narrowly on individual disadvantages in particular areas experienced by either men or women, rather than looking at them as connected problems and trying to tackle the root issues which affect both men and women negatively. I think that this fragmented approach is hampering the effectiveness of efforts to tackle gender equality.

    Another thing I would say (in response to some of the frothier-mouthed people getting defensive on here and elsewhere) is that the existence of gender inequality doesn't necessarily imply that every gender issue is being perpetuated by individual people being sexist. It could mean that the way things are done in society impact men and women in different ways, producing differential effects from equal treatment. Therefore it isn't necessarily enough to treat men and women in the same way and declare it to be people's own fault when a disparity arises along gendered lines.
    so you are an intersectional feminist arguing that "postive" discrimination is good and is not just regular old discrimination?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    I think that people focus too narrowly on individual disadvantages in particular areas experienced by either men or women, rather than looking at them as connected problems and trying to tackle the root issues which affect both men and women negatively. I think that this fragmented approach is hampering the effectiveness of efforts to tackle gender equality.

    Another thing I would say (in response to some of the frothier-mouthed people getting defensive on here and elsewhere) is that the existence of gender inequality doesn't necessarily imply that every gender issue is being perpetuated by individual people being sexist. It could mean that the way things are done in society impact men and women in different ways, producing differential effects from equal treatment. Therefore it isn't necessarily enough to treat men and women in the same way and declare it to be people's own fault when a disparity arises along gendered lines.
    I think that feminist are eager to find links and connections, as ockham's razor shows us that when we remove any ideological goggles allot of what feminist claim is discrimination can be explain by allot more reasonably as something else.

    In response to the second argument which seems to be arguing patriarchy theory(interwoven system of oppression, is how I understand it), you must again prove that the most reasonable answer is some sort of oppressive system.

    In addition say a group is disadvantaged in one category and advantaged in another(as you seem to be saying), they are not oppressed(by the correct definition of the word).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by josh75)
    so you are an intersectional feminist arguing that "postive" discrimination is good and is not just regular old discrimination?
    If you're referring to the part where I spoke about equal treatment resulting in differing results for men and women, then no. I am saying that simply because men and women are treated the same way in a given respect, that does not mean that whatever outcome you might get is just and unobjectionable, and that the issue can be put to bed.

    This doesn't mean that I think women should be given a leg-up. I think that is an artificial, facile way to approach these issues and doesn't necessarily solve anything.

    The example which comes to mind (although it's probably not the best example, I'm just trying to illustrate my point) relates to methods of education and measuring performance in education. It has been claimed that boys, at a population-wide level, do better than girls when they are given a small number of exams in which to prove themselves, while girls (generally) do better when the course is broken down into modules which are assessed in smaller chunks, including by coursework. If that is right, then making every student sit a single exam for each subject at the end of their A-levels would affect boys and girls differently (at the population-wide level), even though they would be receiving the same treatment. The fact that disproportionate numbers of girls might fail under those conditions wouldn't necessarily be justified by pointing to the fact that everyone was treated equally. *

    (Original post by josh75)
    I think that feminist are eager to find links and connections, as ockham's razor shows us that when we remove any ideological goggles allot of what feminist claim is discrimination can be explain by allot more reasonably as something else.

    In response to the second argument which seems to be arguing patriarchy theory(interwoven system of oppression, is how I understand it), you must again prove that the most reasonable answer is some sort of oppressive system.

    In addition say a group is disadvantaged in one category and advantaged in another(as you seem to be saying), they are not oppressed(by the correct definition of the word).
    I don't think I said anything about oppression. What I am saying is that problems experienced by both men and women alike can have common causes and should not just be examined in isolation, because they can be better understood and therefore more fruitfully tackled as smaller parts of a bigger problem. To illustrate my point again, an example might be the social role of women as primary caregivers to children (to the extent that this still applies). That has harmed both men and women in different ways, and I think it is less productive to focus on the isolated effects, e.g. (a) employers passing over women due to an assumption that they'll quit work or (b) courts ruling against fathers in custody battles, than it is to focus on the common problem.*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    Getting called "dear" or "love" obviously doesn't have to be sexist but it can be meant in a sexist way depending on the person's intentions and the situation. I don't think that all men are accused of peadophilia if they go anywhere near children but I get your point and I didn't agree with Andrea Leadsom's comments on that. Personally, I definitely think that the sentence should depend on the crime and not the person's gender so I don't agree with women getting lighter prison sentences just because they're female. I don't think men should be expected to do more dangerous jobs either. Women are made to conform to strict body images by the media at least as much as men are if not more so and I don't think that men should be under more pressure than women to have a high income. That's part of my point. When are men supposed to physically fight for their female partners? I personally wouldn't want or expect my partner to either pay for me or be the breadwinner/main earner. I would pay for my own stuff and would prefer to earn a similar amount to my partner. No, you're right, there isn't and I don't agree with that! I don't think men should be pressured into earning really high salaries. I wouldn't care if a man was poor or earned less than me so I'm not being hypocritical.

    One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It's discrimination that more men are in prison when it's affected by women getting lighter sentences just because of their gender etc. It's not discrimination when it's affected by men just committing more crimes. The earnings gap isn't only due to personal life choices. It's not about blaming men for nothing or about blaming men for women's own personal issues. Yes, there are some radical feminists but you can't blame all women who want gender equality for them. We shouldn't have either of those.
    1) okay- if you're saying that men are put in prison more because they commit more crimes then I don't see why the "wage gap" is about discrimination whatsoever - it is merely "women wanting the easier jobs, generally" - right? so it's not an issue in 2016. it's the same concept applied to a different institution. the representation of males in prison is about their choices (although obviously there are fewer women in prison than there otherwise would be due to women being perceived culturally as less deserving of prison and I'd be interested if you disputed this) and the representation of women in, say, sexwork or fashion, is about their choices just as well.

    2) if "radical feminists" are feminists who are radical/extreme, why aren't they *extremely*or *radically* in favour of equality then? they're not though. so calling them feminists just goes to show that this is what feminists are all about today (c. 2016) - feminism as a movement/ideology has shifted. it's no longer about equality, but about women's rights or female empowerment. and *that* can go wrong, i.e. with radical feminists - if they're radically/extremely in favour of women's rights, then that might mean that they want more rights for women and less rights for men. this can all be made sense of by understanding that the word "feminism/feminist" is a time-wise relative term. in our generation, it doesn't mean equality. that's why I'm not a "feminist" and that's why most sane people aren't. I and they only care about equality, no caveats and nothing else to ruin anything to do with that concept. concepts like "rape culture", "male privilege", "objectification", etc, are the terms of the radical movement, and are all inclined *against* equality in that they generally, like I said, blame men for women's own choices/"problems", so they are prejudiced against one gender here (men).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) okay- if you're saying that men are put in prison more because they commit more crimes then I don't see why the "wage gap" is about discrimination whatsoever - it is merely "women wanting the easier jobs, generally" - right? so it's not an issue in 2016. it's the same concept applied to a different institution. the representation of males in prison is about their choices (although obviously there are fewer women in prison than there otherwise would be due to women being perceived culturally as less deserving of prison and I'd be interested if you disputed this) and the representation of women in, say, sexwork or fashion, is about their choices just as well.
    It's not even necessarily just about choices. It may be the case that police are more likely to investigate males for having committed crime in the first place. For example, police are about 17 times more likely to stop and search men than women in the UK. Not that that statistic allows us to draw conclusions, but it is food for thought.*

    p.13 - http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/di...080000386.pdf*
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    Getting called "dear" or "love" obviously doesn't have to be sexist but it can be meant in a sexist way depending on the person's intentions and the situation.
    How is calling a woman 'dear' or 'love' possibly sexist? It's perhaps patronising but that doesn't make it sexist.

    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    Women are made to conform to strict body images by the media at least as much as men are if not more so
    That's completely wrong. We've gone much too far in the opposite direction now; it's fine to insult someone for being to skinny but fat girls are off limits and they're being celebrated. It's funny how if a woman rejects a man because he's too short it's hilarious but if a guy rejects a woman because she's too fat then he's a ********...

    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    and I don't think that men should be under more pressure than women to have a high income. That's part of my point. When are men supposed to physically fight for their female partners? I personally wouldn't want or expect my partner to either pay for me or be the breadwinner/main earner. I would pay for my own stuff and would prefer to earn a similar amount to my partner. No, you're right, there isn't and I don't agree with that! I don't think men should be pressured into earning really high salaries. I wouldn't care if a man was poor or earned less than me so I'm not being hypocritical.
    Although you may not feel like that, a lot of women do in my personal experience.

    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. It's discrimination that more men are in prison when it's affected by women getting lighter sentences just because of their gender etc. It's not discrimination when it's affected by men just committing more crimes.
    But men don't commit 95% of crime, men are proportionally more likely to go to jail and go for longer than women for the same offence.

    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    The earnings gap isn't only due to personal life choices.
    It is entirely about life choices. The choice to do degrees with less earning potential, the choice to start a family, the choice to work fewer hours.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sapphire321)
    You said "we" as in the people on this thread who are arguing against me. Those are some of the most stupid comments I've had on this thread and hopefully you agree that they are far from sensible. Some of them clearly are against women's rights; anyone can see that. I don't have a biased man hating attitude! Where have I said anything that suggests I hate men? I don't go around calling people sexist either. My entire point is that there is still discrimination and inequality in Western countries. Can you please read all of my posts on this thread before commenting because I'm bored with having to repeat myself many times because so many people don't read the rest of the thread. My comments have a clear direction which should be obvious to anyone. If anyone doesn't know what they are talking about on this thread it's not me. I am not saying that inequality in Eastern countries isn't much worse that in Western counties. It obviously is and I care about that very much but caring about inequality in the West doesn't mean you don't care about inequality in the East. Just because the problems in the East are worse doesn't mean that there aren't problems here. It also doesn't mean that we should ignore the problems here. We should keep trying to prevent both. So am I! I am also an egalitarian so we should agree on this. Feminism does want equal rights or it certainly should and that is definitely what I want. The point isn't to get special rights for women; the point is to get women the same rights and opportunities as men.
    You are irrationally concluding that people here are against women's rights. Sadly, too many young females are like this nowadays. That is my point. please show me someone on this thread who you deem to be sexist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Some of the women work and pay comments are annoying. If women are not wanting to do a certain job it is not anyone's fault. Should women be pressured to work in a certain industry? There was comment about the NHS having less women workers. All they do is pick a certain industry and rubbish it. There are many jobs where there are more females than males like health and beauty, retail, nurses, teachers, and midwifes. Men do not post women are treating men bad in health and beauty. Women choose to work less and and select a certain industry by choice. Women workers will increase naturally and women should not be favored.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    If you're referring to the part where I spoke about equal treatment resulting in differing results for men and women, then no. I am saying that simply because men and women are treated the same way in a given respect, that does not mean that whatever outcome you might get is just and unobjectionable, and that the issue can be put to bed.

    This doesn't mean that I think women should be given a leg-up. I think that is an artificial, facile way to approach these issues and doesn't necessarily solve anything.

    The example which comes to mind (although it's probably not the best example, I'm just trying to illustrate my point) relates to methods of education and measuring performance in education. It has been claimed that boys, at a population-wide level, do better than girls when they are given a small number of exams in which to prove themselves, while girls (generally) do better when the course is broken down into modules which are assessed in smaller chunks, including by coursework. If that is right, then making every student sit a single exam for each subject at the end of their A-levels would affect boys and girls differently (at the population-wide level), even though they would be receiving the same treatment. The fact that disproportionate numbers of girls might fail under those conditions wouldn't necessarily be justified by pointing to the fact that everyone was treated equally. *



    I don't think I said anything about oppression. What I am saying is that problems experienced by both men and women alike can have common causes and should not just be examined in isolation, because they can be better understood and therefore more fruitfully tackled as smaller parts of a bigger problem. To illustrate my point again, an example might be the social role of women as primary caregivers to children (to the extent that this still applies). That has harmed both men and women in different ways, and I think it is less productive to focus on the isolated effects, e.g. (a) employers passing over women due to an assumption that they'll quit work or (b) courts ruling against fathers in custody battles, than it is to focus on the common problem.*
    You can look and hope to find overarching links and systems all you want, but if the more reasonable explanation for a given issue does not allude to an overarching problem, looking for such problem is not useful. In fact what you are doing is just denying reality, because you want to create some sort of convoluted story/explanation. However lets say I do look for links in these issues, the explanation for these issues is much more likely to lye in biology rather than sociology. A great example of this is that higher rates of eating disorders for women were recorded by Hippocrates in ancient times, which then defeats the common assumption that this phenomena caused by the media today.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by josh75)
    You can look and hope to find overarching links and systems all you want, but if the more reasonable explanation for a given issue does not allude to an overarching problem, looking for such problem is not useful. In fact what you are doing is just denying reality, because you want to create some sort of convoluted story/explanation. However lets say I do look for links in these issues, the explanation for these issues is much more likely to lye in biology rather than sociology. A great example of this is that higher rates of eating disorders for women were recorded by Hippocrates in ancient times, which then defeats the common assumption that this phenomena caused by the media today.
    What you're saying here is quite abstract... I need to clarify what you're driving at, or at least how it relates to my posts.

    You seem to be appealing on some level to Occam's Razor. Are you saying that gender issues can be explained solely by biology, and that this involves fewer assumptions than explanations which involve gender roles?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Equality is really bad and evil anti-women idea from eyes of these who understand what it is and why it is made,
    Matriarchy is what we need.

    Equality means to make women locked in low level, so man with morals can not drive and women who want to make change are not allowed, as they have to be "equal". man can not newer be in same worth as women, it is insult also to man, to fool him in to these levels as he would be able to make a child.
    It is deeply degrading to a women and worrying, that people with university behind them are unable to see and understand why.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Really little to do with money, this Greek-Roman communist slave illusion, has much deeper implication.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

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.