Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

This banning culture is getting ridiculous watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    The quote you cited simply sidesteps the main question at hand. The wage gap is meant to prove/disprove the fact/myth that men and women are paid unequally; all the quote does is acknowledge the barriers to entry to various professions and the discrimination and work/life patterns of individuals and families - which even I did point out in my earlier post (perhaps you didn't read it?). But that is besides the point. The quote you cited has failed to show that, pound for pound, the men and women are not generally paid the same money for the same job at the same level of seniority.
    I never characterised the gender pay gap as being purely an issue of women in equal seniority. Perhaps some of the media did, and the White House may have incorrectly done so in the past, but that's besides the point. I never characterised the gender pay gap as being purely an issue of women in equal seniority. The gender pay gap is an all-encompassing representation of inequality of life outcomes between women and men. The most widely quoted definition of that pay gap is the 78% figure, and I find it fairly illuminating that when a clear issue is raised you're seeking to sidestep by constantly trying to redefine what I've said or what the White House said. Perhaps you think it's fine that women alone are being dumped with childcare duties or taking inferior jobs while males continue to have a stranglehold on the most senior positions. I don't, and luckily I don't think the people with the most control over these issues do.

    EDIT: As a general note, I'm getting fed up on internet forums in general of arguments devolving into quibbling about choices in definition in semantics. I absolutely clarified my position on the gender pay gap in an earlier post and I STILL have one user, a future lawyer no less, up my arse about an issue I wasn't contesting. Try to figure out what the main point is through context, and if you get it wrong, just admit it and don't drag it out for 10 posts.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    There's also the fact that many women choose, on completely their own terms, to be stay at home mothers. They also are more likely to choose careers which pay less. For example more women will do courses like fine art and english lit, which are hard to land a job with.

    I don't see a problem with this if everyone is happy.
    Not everyone is happy.

    The gap is not limited to the courses studied at university.

    "Women earn higher grades in college,on average, than men do, so academic achievement does not help us understand the pay gap.The most influential education difference is thatmen and women tend to choose different collegemajors. Traditionally “male” majors tend to lead to jobs that pay more than jobs associated with traditionally “female” majors. Yet when we compare the earnings of men and women whochose the same major, women still often earn less than their male peers do one year out of college."
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serebro)
    Not everyone is happy.
    serebro, I think you're really misunderstanding the point here. The issue is not that women are being paid less for equivalent roles, but simply that they're given less leading roles, so it all balances out! See? It's not a problem!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I never characterised the gender pay gap as being purely an issue of women in equal seniority. Perhaps some of the media did, and the White House may have incorrectly done so in the past, but that's besides the point. I never characterised the gender pay gap as being purely an issue of women in equal seniority.
    I too have never characterised the difference in salaries as due just seniority either - if you read my original post, it is also due to factors such as education, personal choices and risks taken, type of job, number of hours put in. What I'm more concerned is whether the statistics does indeed show that companies discriminate against women and pay them less to do the same thing men are doing.

    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    The gender pay gap is an all-encompassing representation of inequality of life outcomes between women and men. The most widely quoted definition of that pay gap is the 78% figure, and I find it fairly illuminating that when a clear issue is raised you're seeking to sidestep by constantly trying to redefine what I've said or what the White House said.
    As in my original post, I think the contrary outcome is achieved - the haphazard statistic obfuscates important issues such as equal opportunity and attitudes to child rearing by conflating it with the perception that, in general, women are paid less than men to do the same job, which has been shown to be patently false.

    And I can't see how my assessment of the White House quote you gave me is any different from yours - it just does not address the point on whether companies discriminate women in terms of pay. In fact, the first two sentences of your quote is a giveaway to the White House's side-stepping that point.

    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Perhaps you think it's fine that women alone are being dumped with childcare duties or taking inferior jobs while males continue to have a stranglehold on the most senior positions. I don't, and luckily I don't think the people with the most control over these issues do.
    It's startling how quickly you've launched yourself into such an unnecessary accusational rhetoric, despite me even saying stating my contrary position in the previous post:

    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    It is very true that women do face problems in their careers later on in life and need help in this area (like my female law firm partners example)
    and it's also rather ironic and amusing how you've resorted to ad hominem as a means to engaging someone in debate, given the subject topic of this thread - the culture of censorship and restriction of free speech.

    Perhaps it's because you think I'm male, and therefore my views on this matter are invalid or wrong - and that's why you haven't bothered to properly read my original post. If so, here's two videos by female feminists dispelling the gender wage gap myth:



    I couldn't embed the other because of the forum, so here's it as a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58arQIr882w
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    EDIT: As a general note, I'm getting fed up on internet forums in general of arguments devolving into quibbling about choices in definition in semantics. I absolutely clarified my position on the gender pay gap in an earlier post and I STILL have one user, a future lawyer no less, up my arse about an issue I wasn't contesting. Try to figure out what the main point is through context, and if you get it wrong, just admit it and don't drag it out for 10 posts.
    As my 2nd favourite woman Margaret Thatcher in the world once said, "I'm enjoying this, I'm enjoying this!"

    What about you try figure out how disingenuous the "statistic" is and how it has been uncritically used by people, give me a good rebuttal, and admit that you are wrong.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    I too have never characterised the difference in salaries as due just seniority either - if you read my original post, it is also due to factors such as education, personal choices and risks taken, type of job, number of hours put in. What I'm more concerned is whether the statistics does indeed show that companies discriminate against women and pay them less to do the same thing men are doing.
    Well, that's not what I was primarily concerned about, as I explained in post 37 on this thread. You've completely wasted your time writing this frisk. I couldn't care less if the statistic has been used disingenuously or some morons have misinterpreted it. I haven't misinterpreted the statistic and I'm completely exhausted by the lengths to which you're going to criticise me simply for bringing it up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Well, that's not what I was primarily concerned about, as I explained in post 37 on this thread. You've completely wasted your time writing this frisk. I couldn't care less if the statistic has been used disingenuously or some morons have misinterpreted it. I haven't misinterpreted the statistic and I'm completely exhausted by the lengths to which you're going to criticise me simply for bringing it up.
    Then why bother typing out your frankly uninspiring replies?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Schools and environments and environments where children are allowed are different. At that age they're still going to be struggling with their own identity and sense of self, their social skills and their confidence, and will still be developing a lot of conception about society. It's more important to protect them from that and encourage them to be themselves than to allow others to belittle them in the name of free speech when as a society we evidently don't believe them capable of having fully informed and rational opinions in the first place - hence children not being allowed to vote.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Then why bother typing out your frankly uninspiring replies?
    Because I think the actual core issues about inequality between men and women are more important than disagreements about the definition of one measure of it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Because I think the actual core issues about inequality between men and women are more important than disagreements about the definition of one measure of it.
    You sound like one of those ideologues who would rather suppress the truth to further their agenda than to admit your faults.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    You sound like one of those ideologues who would rather suppress the truth to further their agenda than to admit your faults.
    If you're going to accuse someone of ad hominem it would be proper to hold yourself to the same standards (:.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    If you're going to accuse someone of ad hominem it would be proper to hold yourself to the same standards (:.
    Oh no, no pardon me for making you think that was a rebuttal from me. It was merely an observation, give what you posted earlier in this thread:

    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I think tackling myths and prejudice is a valid cause, and if it means you have to take firm actions such as banning the use of sexist phrases in schools, then I support that.
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Some people believe that prejudice is a one-way street, and solving it is a matter of identifying oppressor groups and admonishing them. I disagree. I think in order to solve the issue, everyone has to abide by the same standards and if that means traditionally oppressed groups also have to give up some cultural practices then that's simply tough. This isn't a black and white issue and you can't treat any group as being innocent by default, as that simply doesn't reflect reality.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    Thank you for rewording your post to be more on point. The short answer is absolutely not, and I think the action of the students' unions are ridiculous.
    .

    Ok, I agree.

    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    However, in cases where false assertions are being used, despite being clearly challenged or refuted, to justify a culture of discrimination I think some form of legal action has to be taken, it doesn't have to infringe freedom of speech, but just a binding legal principle, like the equality act, that people have to be treated the same.
    This sounds benevolent and the language you use is very nebulous but I get the feeling that the underlying idea behind it is still essentially authoritarian.

    "However, in cases where false assertions are being used..."

    False assertions according to who? Who should be the arbiter of what is true or false? Would you like to determine when someone is punished for saying things you don't believe? Would you like to be considered the arbiter of truth?

    "...despite being clearly challenged or refuted"

    Challenged by whom, and to whom must it be clear to? You? Who should be trusted with such an authority that if they refute an opinion, then anyone who supports the opinion should be jailed or fined?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serebro)
    Not everyone is happy.

    The gap is not limited to the courses studied at university.
    How well do women do compared to men five or even ten years after they have graduated from courses on the same subjects? Because one year is a small amount of time to judge this kind of stuff within and could well be an anomaly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocolate hottie)
    I totally agree.

    The only thing that is amusing, and makes it remotely tolerable is when those repulsive liberals who seek themselves to stifle freedom of thought get hoist with their own petard.

    Step forward Emily Thornberry...

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...et-row-4959926
    Please don't refer to them as "liberals". A core tenet of liberalism is freedom of speech. Without it liberalism is meaningless. These people are not individualistic liberals they are collectivist authoritarians.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    How well do women do compared to men five or even ten years after they have graduated from courses on the same subjects? Because one year is a small amount of time to judge this kind of stuff within and could well be an anomaly.
    One year is actually a perfect indicator because it shows the gap between genders without the usual interference of things such as maternity leave. An anomaly is unlikely given that the unemployment rate is also taken into account for both genders, and it covers a wide range of degrees/fields.

    It makes complete sense for there to be a fairly level playing field, but this is not the case for some reason.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serebro)
    One year is actually a perfect indicator because it shows the gap between genders without the usual interference of things such as maternity leave. An anomaly is unlikely given that the unemployment rate is also taken into account for both genders, and it covers a wide range of degrees/fields.

    It makes complete sense for there to be a fairly level playing field, but this is not the case for some reason.
    You haven't proven that that is not the case. Not even close.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    You haven't proven that that is not the case. Not even close.
    I demonstrated evidence from a study to show that an uneven playing field exists. That's all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serebro)
    I demonstrated evidence from a study to show that an uneven playing field exists. That's all.
    No, you didn't. You showed a study that showed a difference in outcomes. That is not evidence that an uneven playing field exists.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    No, you didn't. You showed a study that showed a difference in outcomes. That is not evidence that an uneven playing field exists.
    I'm quietly confident I did. In my mind, a "gap" (i.e in pay and in employment) signifies an imbalance, thus an uneven playing field. You might not understand yourself, but that's what it is.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.