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

    8
    ReputationRep:
    ITT: People surprised that rich person benefits from scheme that was designed to benefit rich people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erebor)
    Just another over-privileged, white, female libtard being a complete hypocrite... breaking news, moon lands on man.

    Remember this one ?



    LMAO, this woman :rofl::rofl::rofl:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Her middle name is ''Charlotte Duerre', of course she has offshore investments, that is the fanciest name I ever have seen.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    The only gap I see is in the logic of half the crap she says.
    Like during her UN speech she used the fact that "female African children" (like the whole continent is one congruent thing that can fit in her example) don't get educated...whilst ignoring that many African children IN GENERAL don't get educated! For reasons beyond ****ing "sexism". She did that to try to legitimise her "struggles" of being "sexualised" while "playing Hermione." The ****ing cheek. Harboring resentment because she ain't fit how Hollywood wants her to be fit-she's not and never was curvy for starters.
    To be fair, boys do have a much better chance at education than girls in the developing world, especially once girls hit puberty. It is a serious problem and since girls make up half of all children, it's a legitimate strategy to tailor programs specifically to get girls into schools. Whether all that has any bearing on Watson's struggles with being sexualised, I don't know.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truthteller10)
    LOL, IKR. "I'm sh*t at acting and I'm not getting any roles, so let me pretend that i care and talk about african women being oppressed, and equate that to how women all over the world are oppressed. That'll show them"
    LOOOL
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truthteller10)
    LMAO, this woman :rofl::rofl::rofl:
    Cus she don't know what she's on about, she's tryna separate herself from her Hermione persona is all
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    To be fair, boys do have a much better chance at education than girls in the developing world, especially once girls hit puberty. It is a serious problem and since girls make up half of all children, it's a legitimate strategy to tailor programs specifically to get girls into schools. Whether all that has any bearing on Watson's struggles with being sexualised, I don't know.
    I'm not even on about that.
    I'm on about the reason why Watson said female African (too lazy to specify which country, for starters, just use the buzzword "Africa") children don't get education...that's not to do with sexism how she used and purported it to be.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Yes because a single black working class mother who struggles to makes ends meet faces then same life struggles as a millionaire actress you gets paid slightly less millions than her male counterpart.
    I'm sorry but I really think you're over stretching your case here... Also you haven't put your point across very well.

    Yes intersectionalism is an issue in general but you have to remember that her full time job isn't a feminist activist/campaigner/academic... she's worked hard on set since she was young and she's probably still cranking up the hours now - that's her full time job. Any input she makes is good on her, it's misplaced to to think she needs to be all singing all dancing on the issue. A lot of celebrities don't bother speaking up at all about anything other than their own career.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RezzBerry)
    Nah, she was just saving the money she lost from her wage gap.
    It's 2016 and people still believe in the wage gap..............:facepalm:I'll take this one.

    The pay gap is absolutely a construct. Like, it's utterly refuted. The regularly quoted figure is something like women earn around 20% less than men. This figure is arrived at by adding up all the money men and women earn, and comparing the numbers. This is obviously a daft way to do such a comparison. If you compare men and women in the same role, working the same hours and with the same level of education, the pay gap drops to between 3% in favour of men, to 3% in favour of women. In fact, under the age of 35, the pay gap is most definitely in favour of women:

    http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-m...-will-not-die/
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagn.../#2edd652d4766
    http://now.org/resource/the-gender-p...-myth-vs-fact/
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ha...rticle/2580405
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...rning-more-men

    The only argument for the pay gap would be something along the lines of women are socially engineered to go into those less well-paying professions, but the modern research suggests that too is untrue. If you're interested, watch this:



    Of particular interest are two studies it quotes. Firstly, a study done on 50 odd countries which showed that as societies become more equal, less women choose to enter 'male-dominated' fields like STEM subjects. The reason being that in more backwards countries, women chooses the subjects they need to in order to make a living. But in countries with social welfare and the like, they choose what they want to. The other study was one done on 2 week old babies. They placed the babies on the floor surrounded by toys and left them alone in the room. The study showed that girls almost always went to play with dolls and faces, whereas boys would play with mechanical things like building blocks. And before you suggest this could be social conditioning, the same trend is observed in the offspring of all mammals.

    The evidence is now pretty strong that biology plays a real part in the different choices men and women make.

    So there is no gender pay gap. Like, it doesn't exist. You're welcome
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    It's 2016 and people still believe in the wage gap..............:facepalm:I'll take this one.

    The pay gap is absolutely a construct. Like, it's utterly refuted. The regularly quoted figure is something like women earn around 20% less than men. This figure is arrived at by adding up all the money men and women earn, and comparing the numbers. This is obviously a daft way to do such a comparison. If you compare men and women in the same role, working the same hours and with the same level of education, the pay gap drops to between 3% in favour of men, to 3% in favour of women. In fact, under the age of 35, the pay gap is most definitely in favour of women:

    http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-m...-will-not-die/
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagn.../#2edd652d4766
    http://now.org/resource/the-gender-p...-myth-vs-fact/
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ha...rticle/2580405
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...rning-more-men

    The only argument for the pay gap would be something along the lines of women are socially engineered to go into those less well-paying professions, but the modern research suggests that too is untrue. If you're interested, watch this:



    Of particular interest are two studies it quotes. Firstly, a study done on 50 odd countries which showed that as societies become more equal, less women choose to enter 'male-dominated' fields like STEM subjects. The reason being that in more backwards countries, women chooses the subjects they need to in order to make a living. But in countries with social welfare and the like, they choose what they want to. The other study was one done on 2 week old babies. They placed the babies on the floor surrounded by toys and left them alone in the room. The study showed that girls almost always went to play with dolls and faces, whereas boys would play with mechanical things like building blocks. And before you suggest this could be social conditioning, the same trend is observed in the offspring of all mammals.

    The evidence is now pretty strong that biology plays a real part in the different choices men and women make.

    So there is no gender pay gap. Like, it doesn't exist. You're welcome
    I was being sarcastic, but dayum. I should bring you around with me to argue with feminists.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    the thing is how far back is it as some trust funds are off-shored so if it dates to the early part of her career it would have been set up by someone else on her behalf
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RezzBerry)
    Spoiler:
    Show

    I was being sarcastic, but dayum. I should bring you around with me to argue with feminists.
    Bloody Poe's law................

    Don't be too impressed, it was mostly copied and pasted from what I posted in response to some eejit who was arguing that the gender pay gap is real, that Britain is gripped by a rape culture and that saying immigrants are more likely to commit rapes than non-immigrants is inherently racist. It's a wonder these people are allowed on the internet, it really is.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Don't worry, she'll use obliviate to erase the taxman's memory
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erebor)
    Just another over-privileged, white, female libtard being a complete hypocrite... breaking news, moon lands on man.

    Remember this one ?

    Being bold doesn't mean being aggressive and suggesting it is is just ridiculous.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Today's Top Story!

    Rich person avoids tax.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with all of these is that there comes a knee-jerk reaction before the numbers actually arrive.

    Same thing happened with Cameron, the shares in Blairmore weren't really worth the attention they got.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Popcorns)
    I'm sorry but I really think you're over stretching your case here... Also you haven't put your point across very well.

    Yes intersectionalism is an issue in general but you have to remember that her full time job isn't a feminist activist/campaigner/academic... she's worked hard on set since she was young and she's probably still cranking up the hours now - that's her full time job. Any input she makes is good on her, it's misplaced to to think she needs to be all singing all dancing on the issue. A lot of celebrities don't bother speaking up at all about anything other than their own career.
    If Emma cares about feminism and women she should pay tax that contributes to a redistributive mixed economy which provides support for women who loose out in a capitalist system. Of course she could be some sort of classical liberal right wing feminist that is pro capitalist and tax avoidance but from my left wing economic point of view that variant of feminism doesn't give any solutions to a lot of feminist issues in terms of actually helping women and people in general.

    She spends a lot of time being a vocal feminist so she should expect criticisms if her actions can be perceived to harm women (which I think tax avoidance doesn't). If she wants to help fight the patriarchy she should not avoid tax.

    Yeah I know I am **** at making my arguments

    This feminist makes a better case of what I am trying to say.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sandi-toksv...d-fail-1524988
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05...a-papers-leak/

    What a surprise. :rolleyes:

    Another so called champion of women that ignores the complexity of intersectionalism. Her feminism is that of the "apolitical" women's party. A play thing for well off women and feminists that offers little to a working class single mother.

    I bet it's hard being an opresed female millionaire.
    I agree, for once.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I agree, for once.
    I'm watching you Frenchy
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Of course she could be some sort of classical liberal right wing feminist that is pro capitalist and tax avoidance
    Classical Liberalism doesn't encourage tax avoidance, but less tax. As they pay less tax, rich people can fund charities to care about what the state ignores.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 14, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.