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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reece Sure)

    Shocking. Typical follower of the ridiculous idea that there is a conspiracy against women that all men just hate them and oppress them.
    Go to Iran, and tell me how good women have it there.. sexism is blatent, observable in the streets, in the home, it couldnt be any more active. Since 2006, nearly 70% of Irans Science and Engineering students are women.

    Perhaps there would be more science toys in the girls section if she spent more time in the classroom studying science, and not stood outside with a whiteboard.
    Iran and its academic and professional practices are not consistent to those across the world and if think for a second the scientific community and social restrictions against women work the same way there are it does for the US then you know very little on the matter of systematic oppression and the different forms it can take. I also feel the point the young woman with the whiteboard was trying to make completely alluded you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsbook)
    Studies have shown that men who hold the same qualifications and job as a women are on average are paid more. This is termed 'the wage gap between men and women'.

    When a feminist mentions the wage gap between men and women they are referring to the fact that a women can be in the same job as a man and hold the same qualifications but will more than often be paid less.

    It is not talking about the population and what men and women earn but rather it is referring to the occurrence of a gap in wage even when a man and women hold the same job position.
    Could you please provide evidence to support this? I love hearing the phrase "Studies have shown"..

    Heres the study I'll bring to the table, courtesy of the US Department of Labor.

    Some extracts..
    There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.
    Hmm..
    Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.
    [...]
    Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

    And thats the way the cookie crumbles. For both genders.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PZ36)
    Iran and its academic and professional practices are not consistent to those across the world and if think for a second the scientific community and social restrictions against women work the same way there are it does for the US then you know very little on the matter of systematic oppression and the different forms it can take. I also feel the point the young woman with the whiteboard was trying to make completely alluded you.
    The point she was making with the whiteboard was unfortunately wasted on me. Typically I need to examine things from varying perspectives, perhaps you could clarify. I am open to logic and rationale
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I feel that a lot of feminists promote double standards. An example being when Bear Grylls' 'The Island' came out. There was an uproar in the feminist community because it was aimed at men. They found it astonishing that there was a programme on mainstream TV that only men were allowed to participate in and raised questions along the line of 'Don't you think that women can do exactly what men can do?'.

    I thought immediately of Loose Women (not that I'm a dedicated viewer). Which is a programme dedicated to women, but do you hear men complaining that there are no male presenters? No. Someone showed me this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEzcOit5LZQ

    I think that's the sort of feminism that people get p***ed off with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reece Sure)
    The point she was making with the whiteboard was unfortunately wasted on me. Typically I need to examine things from varying perspectives, perhaps you could clarify. I am open to logic and rationale
    Translation: I need feminism because dominate culture still attributes interest in science as a primarily male trait and reflects this belief in the products we sell to boys versus girls.

    Feminism doesn't just deal with dry policy like in issues of health care or in wage docking. There is also a focus about changing social attitudes in a way that gets people to question dominate culture ideas about gender. Different feminists push for people to have these conversations by using social media to create a range if images that generate conversation. By all accounts considering you are taking about feminism now, these methods are working.
    Also...

    Why do you believe the lack of women in the scientific community is caused simply by women not being interested in science?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michael!)
    I feel that a lot of feminists promote double standards. An example being when Bear Grylls' 'The Island' came out. There was an uproar in the feminist community because it was aimed at men. They found it astonishing that there was a programme on mainstream TV that only men were allowed to participate in and raised questions along the line of 'Don't you think that women can do exactly what men can do?'.

    I thought immediately of Loose Women (not that I'm a dedicated viewer). Which is a programme dedicated to women, but do you hear men complaining that there are no male presenters? No. Someone showed me this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEzcOit5LZQ

    I think that's the sort of feminism that people get p***ed off with.
    There have been quite a a few programs across television history that have focused entirely on men and only allowed men to compete on them, but have faced little if any protest against them. What I want to know is why did these feminists groups choose to protest this particular program? What were the reasons stated?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PZ36)
    There have been quite a a few programs across television history that have focused entirely on men and only allowed men to compete on them, but have faced little if any protest against them. What I want to know is why did these feminists groups choose to protest this particular program? What were the reasons stated?
    They simply deemed it sexist that women weren't allowed to participate and branded it 'inherently sexist'. I'm not debating the fact that there are programmes that focus on men just as there are programmes out there that focus on women. My point is, men have never had an issue with it. But as soon as a programme crops up that is about men surviving on an island, a brigade of feminists start bleating on about how they 'can do whatever a man can do'.

    Where as in reality, feminism in western culture is becoming less relevant because equality has been achieved in many areas. In some cases, things have gone further than equality. The law student who 'cried rape' essentially ruining someone's life (as they'll always be tarred with that claim) only received 3 years in prison (will be out in 18 months) where as someone convicted of rape faces over 8 years in prison. Surely what she did is just as bad as rape? Why did she get let off so easily? Because in many scenarios women are still seen as frail and innocent so the law overcompensates for that by handing them reduced and arguably, unfair sentences. 'Murdered by my Boyfriend' portrayed women as the victims of domestic abuse where almost all of domestic abuse that I've heard of or experienced, the men were the victims.

    Yes we do live in a relatively sexist society. But I think you'll find that men are victim to an equal measure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benzos)
    Anyone else seen this? Getting a bit dumb and I'm not talking about legit feminists like the ones who started it for equal rights, equal pay, etc. I'm talking about some of the newer batch of uneducated teens who just want domination. These ads and videos about it everywhere are cringy.

    Women enjoy more privilege than men yet they love having the victim mentality.


    Yes, those ads and videos are cringy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michael!)
    They simply deemed it sexist that women weren't allowed to participate and branded it 'inherently sexist'. I'm not debating the fact that there are programmes that focus on men just as there are programmes out there that focus on women. My point is, men have never had an issue with it.
    Look at the video. It reveals perfectly the anti-man, sexist attitudes worst women hold. A survey followed and revealed 80% of women would fact in the same way? Shocking!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reece Sure)

    Shocking. Typical follower of the ridiculous idea that there is a conspiracy against women that all men just hate them and oppress them.
    Go to Iran, and tell me how good women have it there.. sexism is blatent, observable in the streets, in the home, it couldnt be any more active. Since 2006, nearly 70% of Irans Science and Engineering students are women.

    Perhaps there would be more science toys in the girls section if she spent more time in the classroom studying science, and not stood outside with a whiteboard.

    So just to clarify what your problem with that picture is:

    Are you saying that science toys aren't kept in the boys section? I suggest you visit a toy store and re-educate yourself.

    Or are you saying that they should be in the boys section only because girls are too dumb to understand science?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsbook)
    Forced marriages and being killed for going out and getting an education, women's reproductive rights are still being debated and restricted in many places ..then there's objectification and unequal pay for doing the same job as a male counterpart ect..
    Which are problems a world away, and as such of minimal interest to most people; and why should anybody care about feminism when: 1)they only seem to blab on about the non-issue "problems" that they have; 2) seem to ignore where the real issues are (not that that would generate a huge amount of support, but it would still be better)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reece Sure)
    The point she was making with the whiteboard was unfortunately wasted on me. Typically I need to examine things from varying perspectives, perhaps you could clarify. I am open to logic and rationale
    The whole thing about girls studying physics and maths is one tiny section. In fact, there are more female dominated subjects than there are make dominated ones. Some 23% of English places are taken by males. The rest are taken by females. 90% of performing arts are female, maths is taken by 40% of females, yet in psychology and RE only around 17% of males take the subject.

    Saying women are not encouraged to take science is missing the problem. The big question is: 'Why doe women gravitate towards the arts and makes gravitate towards the sciences?'

    One scientific reason could be the physical differences in matter making up he brain. Makes usually have a more analytical mind that likes to focus on one specific task and work through it logically, whereas females tend to have a more creative mind focused on examining all different sides to something (ideal for history, English and law).

    But of course, hard evidenced studies revealing the differences brain matter build up between male and female brains is all part of the plot against females.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    So just to clarify what your problem with that picture is:

    Are you saying that science toys aren't kept in the boys section? I suggest you visit a toy store and re-educate yourself.

    Or are you saying that they should be in the boys section only because girls are too dumb to understand science?
    One large toy shop chain did an experiment. I've a few months all science toys were boxed in gender neutral packaging (plain white with black writing identifying what they were). The toys were placed in a neutral part of the store and number bought by makes and females recorded. Guess what? More makes bought the toys.

    The experiment was altered to allow children on their own to pick out something they wanted from the store without parental/adult influence. Guess what? Again boys bought more science toys.

    The third experiment wrapped the toys in pink packaging with flowers, butterflies and pictures of females on the box. The toys were placed on the female section,. Guess what? Boys still bought more than females. In fact, females hardly bought more than they did in the control where all science toys were left how they usually are (in the boys section with blue packaging apparently).

    The big question is not about placing sconce sets in a different section but finding out why boys gravitate towards science?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    One large toy shop chain did an experiment. I've a few months all science toys were boxed in gender neutral packaging (plain white with black writing identifying what they were). The toys were placed in a neutral part of the store and number bought by makes and females recorded. Guess what? More makes bought the toys.

    The experiment was altered to allow children on their own to pick out something they wanted from the store without parental/adult influence. Guess what? Again boys bought more science toys.

    The third experiment wrapped the toys in pink packaging with flowers, butterflies and pictures of females on the box. The toys were placed on the female section,. Guess what? Boys still bought more than females. In fact, females hardly bought more than they did in the control where all science toys were left how they usually are (in the boys section with blue packaging apparently).

    The big question is not about placing sconce sets in a different section but finding out why boys gravitate towards science?

    How many years do you think it takes to undo centuries of gender role socialisation? 10? 20? more?

    Did the toy shop try the experiment for that long? If not, its basically a pointless anecdote, nothing more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    How many years do you think it takes to undo centuries of gender role socialisation? 10? 20? more?

    Did the toy shop try the experiment for that long? If not, its basically a pointless anecdote, nothing more.
    Each one was done over the course of 6 months and repeated several times over a 3 year period. Is the differenc due to socialisation though? Indeed females dominate more subjects than males dominate. It looks to be more to do with the physical build up of the make and female brains than anything else.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    Each one was done over the course of 6 months and repeated several times over a 3 year period. Is the differenc due to socialisation though? Indeed females dominate more subjects than males dominate. It looks to be more to do with the physical build up of the make and female brains than anything else.
    The difference in "physical brain build" is so slight as to be completely tenuous.

    Irregardless, whether or not marginally more boys than girls later go onto become scientists is completely irrelevant. That still doesn't justify denoting science as a "male subject" and thus - either consciously or unconsciously - excluding girls from it whether its as a casual interest or a career choice.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsbook)

    When people mention the pay gap they are specifically talking about the scenario of women who have the same qualifications as men and who are in the exact same job as men still being paid less. That is what the pay gap is talking about, no other scenario, just that one.
    Does this really ever happen? Due to equality laws the woman could sue ehre employer in this case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    The difference in "physical brain build" is so slight as to be completely tenuous.

    Irregardless, whether or not marginally more boys than girls later go onto become scientists is completely irrelevant. That still doesn't justify denoting science as a "male subject" and thus - either consciously or unconsciously - excluding girls from it whether its as a casual interest or a career choice.
    The basic figures quoted are about 20% more or less grey matter. The differences are bigger than though. No one excludes girls from science. If they don't choose to study science there is little you can do beyond encouragement. But why are we focussing on science? Let's also focus on drain cleaners, sewage workers, refuse collectors and road workers where males dominate. More females can do those jobs. Similarly, more males can be encouraged to become nurses, cleaners, midwives and child minders.

    Feminism ignores the bigger issue of gender inequality as a whole. It only focuses on one or two small things like science. The wider picture needs to be examined.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    Does this really ever happen? Due to equality laws the woman could sue ehre employer in this case.
    Quite agree. This is just one of many articles explaining why the pay gap is a myth. It's written by a feminist too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by This Is Matt)
    The basic figures quoted are about 20% more or less grey matter. The differences are bigger than though. No one excludes girls from science. If they don't choose to study science there is little you can do beyond encouragement. But why are we focussing on science? Let's also focus on drain cleaners, sewage workers, refuse collectors and road workers where males dominate. More females can do those jobs. Similarly, more males can be encouraged to become nurses, cleaners, midwives and child minders.

    Feminism ignores the bigger issue of gender inequality as a whole. It only focuses on one or two small things like science. The wider picture needs to be examined.
    No it doesn't. The entire point of feminism is to address gender inequality as a whole.

    They don't choose to study science because they are repeatedly told from the time they learn to talk that science is "a boy's subject" and for them to be interested in it would be weird and unfeminine.

    The exact same argument applies with male nurses. Society keeps repeating this mantra that nursing is a "feminine profession" and hence any man that goes into it must be somehow unmasculine. Just watch the film "meet the parents" for an example.


    There are no male and female professions. The notion that there are only exists because we keep propagating these artificial divisions through things like only putting science kits in the boys toys section (there should be no girls toys and boys toys, only toys). If we remove these artificial segregations, then in a few generations these stupid old fashioned ideas, that prevent people doing the careers they really want, will have disappeared, forever, and good riddance.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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

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