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

Feminist bake sale ends in rape and death threats? Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by florabritannica)
    Maybe they should have done something like the inverse of what Gillette do with their 'Venus' razors instead - price the pink-iced cakes with flower sprinkles on them at 77c, and any cake that doesn't look ridiculously fouffy at $1. Guys could either be happy to find their inner fairy princess, or pay more for a more 'manly' cake. It's a win either way. (I know a few would still stomp and complain and be petulant five year olds, but some people just can't be helped, and at least the cake sellers would be the ones saying "what's the matter love, can't you take a joke? It's just a bit of fun, lighten up, where's your sense of humour?"

    Amused by the people who think the pay gap doesn't exist, though. That contradicts what the Law Society, the NHS, and the Institution of Chemical Engineers, just to cite the first three hits, have said about pay within their own professions in the last year. Bit weird for professional bodies to be putting their hands up and saying "we have a problem" if they really don't. I didn't think lawyers, in particular, were known for 'fessing up to things they haven't done. Droll.
    Cite your sources
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    You're 'anging mate.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Also discounts for being a 'person of colour'

    Imagine if there were discounts for being white - there'd be national outrage, and discrimination charges
    This.

    Different prices for different groups ought to be (if they are not already – and I imagine they are) highly illegal.

    Never mind the fact that the pay gap doesn't work like that.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    'with prices set at the proportion of the dollar female graduates of each faculty earned relative to men.
    Prices for each baked good started at $1 for students who identified as men, with deductions for women and more for those in male-dominated industries'

    Morons. Male graduates earning more than female graduates of a certain faculty is not inherently sexist. There are a whole host of probable causes, like the higher earning potential in fields men choose to go into more often

    I have yet to see any convincing evidence that an unjustified gender pay gap exists. I think these people are just a bit stupid and desperate to have something to purposefully campaign about
    Lol.


    It's not sexist because males have better access to fields with "higher earning potential". Bit contradictory that.

    What do you think causes the over representation of males in the higher earning fields sweetheart? Do you actually think that males are born with an innate preference for such careers, or an innate set of superior skills that makes them more competent in such fields?

    Or do you not think, that it's just a little bit social?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Everything about this makes me cringe.

    The bs nonsense that is "the wage gap"
    The stupid feminazis and whichever moron came up with this idea
    The idiots sending death and rape threats

    just jeez.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by florabritannica)
    Maybe they should have done something like the inverse of what Gillette do with their 'Venus' razors instead - price the pink-iced cakes with flower sprinkles on them at 77c, and any cake that doesn't look ridiculously fouffy at $1. Guys could either be happy to find their inner fairy princess, or pay more for a more 'manly' cake. It's a win either way. (I know a few would still stomp and complain and be petulant five year olds, but some people just can't be helped, and at least the cake sellers would be the ones saying "what's the matter love, can't you take a joke? It's just a bit of fun, lighten up, where's your sense of humour?")

    Amused by the people who think the pay gap doesn't exist, though. That contradicts what the Law Society, the NHS, and the Institution of Chemical Engineers, just to cite the first three hits, have said about pay within their own professions in the last year. Bit weird for professional bodies to be putting their hands up and saying "we have a problem" if they really don't. I didn't think lawyers, in particular, were known for 'fessing up to things they haven't done. Droll.
    There is a pay gap, but it is not due to discrimination.

    It's like how there's a gender A level grade gap in favour of girls, also not due to discrimination.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Lol.


    It's not sexist because males have better access to fields with "higher earning potential". Bit contradictory that.

    What do you think causes the over representation of males in the higher earning fields sweetheart? Do you actually think that males are born with an innate preference for such careers, or an innate set of superior skills that makes them more competent in such fields?

    Or do you not think, that it's just a little bit social?
    The first one. You're welcome.

    I didn't say anything about men having better 'access' to these jobs and that's nonsense. Patronising initiatives like all-women shortlists have made it much easier for women to get into these jobs than men. The uncomfortable realities are that there are not as many women who are interested in these routes as men and also that men are predisposed to be more successful in them in general.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think I am going to get a gun and shoot a few cops to highlight racial inequality in the United States right now. That'll show everyone that shooting someone because they're different is bad!

    ps: if you are reading this nsa sorry bro i didn't mean it it was joke
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    another example of feminist sexism (and ignorance of statistics)
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Feminists once again showing how vile they are.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    The first one. You're welcome.

    I didn't say anything about men having better 'access' to these jobs and that's nonsense. Patronising initiatives like all-women shortlists have made it much easier for women to get into these jobs than men. The uncomfortable realities are that there are not as many women who are interested in these routes as men and also that men are predisposed to be more successful in them in general.

    You're think too narrowly. Far too narrowly. It's not an uncomfortable reality, what you said is actual the core of gender inequality in western cultures. It might make you feel uncomfortable to recognise such a reality, but not for me it doesn't.

    Try and think about the psychology behind this.

    It's not about having all-women short lists (which are as rare as they are patronising), that is not the point. It's about the gender differences in girls and boys in their early life decisions which lead to big differences later down the line. Girls are much less likely to choose subjects such as physics and maths. Not because they are not as good as them, nothing suggests that. Not because they find them less interesting. Nothing suggests that. But the association is that those subjects are boyish subjects, and that is powerful.

    Girls aren't raised with the expectation of entering such STEM or even business/ economic fields. And do not undermine the power of that. Such a simple expectation can act as a huge barrier for girls choosing such subjects, and later enter such career fields.

    This is the issue women now face. Yes it's not explicit sexism, it's very implicit. But that doesn't make it any less impactful. If girls were raised with the exact same expectations as boys, to show an interest in mechanics and maths and engineering, the difference would be a hell of a lot smaller. That, is the uncomfortable reality my friend.

    You may try and say that such attitiudes don't exist. But you'd be either misguided or lying to yourself. They do. Tests such as this https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1 consistently show the difference in career associations between males and females.

    Women have to go against the grain, and not conform, to become engineers, to even enter STEM subjects. Whereas for men, it's doing the expected thing.

    If you can't see that, then that's your bias, but you'd be wrong. Although I really do not expect you to agree with me, because it would go against your beliefs entirely. So this entire post is actually a bit pointless.


    Edit: I just read your final sentence. And in that one sentence you just proved everything I said above to be true. I'm actually shaking my head. You are the perfect example of a man who'd encourage his son to enter such careers but not his daughter because the fact that she has a vagina makes her predisposed to be less good at such a career. Despite there being absolutely no evidence supporting such claimed cognitive differences. You are perpetuating the very attitude I just described. And this ladies and gents, is why feminism is as needed as ever.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    This is just another example of feminists showing their true intentions and their anti male mentality.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    'with prices set at the proportion of the dollar female graduates of each faculty earned relative to men.
    Prices for each baked good started at $1 for students who identified as men, with deductions for women and more for those in male-dominated industries'

    Morons. Male graduates earning more than female graduates of a certain faculty is not inherently sexist. There are a whole host of probable causes, like the higher earning potential in fields men choose to go into more often

    I have yet to see any convincing evidence that an unjustified gender pay gap exists. I think these people are just a bit stupid and desperate to have something to purposefully campaign about
    I would like to think uni students aren't stupid but I'm convinced even at the best universities in the world you will still get idiots, even in their own subjects. They may be able to apply it in exams when told to but in real life? I know a maths student who perpetuates this statistic. The material for this comes up in the first year stats module, she was probably 3rd year at the time. Also requires some basic economics knowledge. A level should be enough. It was ****ing embarrassing. I recognised the flaw in the stat immediately. Kinda makes you lose faith in humanity when even someone who should understand the flaw in their argument doesn't.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Lol.


    It's not sexist because males have better access to fields with "higher earning potential". Bit contradictory that.

    What do you think causes the over representation of males in the higher earning fields sweetheart? Do you actually think that males are born with an innate preference for such careers, or an innate set of superior skills that makes them more competent in such fields?

    Or do you not think, that it's just a little bit social?
    All right. Let's take a look at what you're saying.

    Men are 13 times more likely to die on the job than women, thanks in large part to men being willing to take far riskier jobs that entail greater pay than women like underwater welder, highrise construction worker or professional mercenary(Such as working for the very high-paying and risky Blackwater group).

    Let's take the most dangerous job in America and see how sexism prevents women from joining.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/

    Can you explain how sexism prevents women from buying their own fishing boat and going to either capture Alaskan King Crabs or those 800 lb Tuna or swordfishing boats?

    Or perhaps being a pilot? Surrounded by the overwhelmingly female Cabin Crew couldn't result in a lot of sexism for them at work.

    Or perhaps you're worried about the sexism inherent in logging communities? Can you point to any study showing sexism in logging communities that isn't 30 years old?

    That's just as an example - The top 3 most dangerous jobs. All overwhelmingly done by males and none of which seem to have any real sexism attached to them. And all of which have a very decent pay.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    All right. Let's take a look at what you're saying.

    Men are 13 times more likely to die on the job than women, thanks in large part to men being willing to take far riskier jobs that entail greater pay than women like underwater welder, highrise construction worker or professional mercenary(Such as working for the very high-paying and risky Blackwater group).

    Let's take the most dangerous job in America and see how sexism prevents women from joining.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/

    Can you explain how sexism prevents women from buying their own fishing boat and going to either capture Alaskan King Crabs or those 800 lb Tuna or swordfishing boats?

    Or perhaps being a pilot? Surrounded by the overwhelmingly female Cabin Crew couldn't result in a lot of sexism for them at work.

    Or perhaps you're worried about the sexism inherent in logging communities? Can you point to any study showing sexism in logging communities that isn't 30 years old?

    That's just as an example - The top 3 most dangerous jobs. All overwhelmingly done by males and none of which seem to have any real sexism attached to them. And all of which have a very decent pay.
    Can you not see the one fundamental problem with this post?

    All those jobs are physical. Not once have I, or any other sane individual believed that females are just as capable of completing physical work as males. There is no doubt that males are more physically capable than women, on average. Not even just on average, the vast majority of cases. And that small minority of women who are just as physical, do tend to do physical jobs. Therefore the representation of females in physical workforces is in proportion to the actual physical capabilities of the female population. It is justified.

    However, there are no such differences in cognitive abilities. There is no evidence to suggest that, and anyone who isn't inherently sexist can observe the lack of difference in their day to day lives. Therefore in well paid careers that are not physical, there is an over-representation of men, in proportion to mental capabilities of the female population. It is not justified.

    If I were born a man, would I be stronger? Undoubtedly.

    If I were born a man, would I be smarter? Undoubtedly not. Although I'd probably have more confidence in my abilities, but that's another matter.

    And before I see a reply brushing off the underrepresentation of females in STEM careers, read my previous post. And if you still persistently believe that males are somehow naturally more inclined and more successful at such jobs, show me the studies. And I mean peer-reviewed articles, not a source akin to returnofthekings.com


    Edit: Actual I presume that physically capable females are also underrepresented in the physical workforce because even if they are physically capable, they face more social barriers.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    And that somehow justifies it does it?
    It doesn't justify the actions, but it is to say that the actions aren't simply the result of evil violent misogynists and so they don't demonstrate the endemic existence of violent misogyny per say (as many feminists would like us to believe), but the existence of trolls that are happy to wind people up at any cost.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    It's ironic that for something that was held at a university, none of them researched the topic.

    Having said that, to threaten someone with rape simply because they are selling cupcakes is outrageous. If someone is being ignorant, you should laugh at them and walk away; not threaten to kill and/or sexually abuse them.
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Okay. So what the bake sale was based on was wrong. It was based around charging one gender more than another gender and treating genders differently is by definition sexist.

    But you know what I hate worse than sexism?

    Rape. And death. Like I would much rather someone make a disparaging comment about men than to rape or kill me.

    Men's Rights Activists make some good points. They have definitely pointed out a hypocrisy in the conversation about sexism. Great. But you know what hurts their cause more than anything?

    Guys like that. If this was about a bunch of guys saying they walked up and said they identified as left-handed, lesbian Micmac Indian lawyers and demanded free baked goods in an attempt to point out the hypocrisy and lack of internal consistency in the opposing beliefs, I'd have highfived them and laughed at their clearly more defensible position.

    But until an MRA bake sale receives rape and death threats for any sexist acts, I've gotta say that this particular group of feminists were in the right here. Their bake sale was ill-conceived, but being offered expensive baked goods is not worse than having someone threaten to kill and sexually violate me.
    Exactly. Kind of disturbing (but not unexpected) how few people on here pick up on this.

    I think making threats is basically a tactic to shut these women up or make them go away without engaging in discussion.

    It is quite a common tactic in nature, I guess. Maybe humans are just more like animals than they think.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Of course TSR is more outraged at a ****ing feminist bake sale than rape and death threats.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Of course TSR is more outraged at a ****ing feminist bake sale than rape and death threats.
    It goes without saying that rape and death threats are wrong (although I personally don't choose to take trolls seriously).

    But it's fine to recognise the hypocrisy of the sale and the fact it's blatant sex discrimination.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Can you not see the one fundamental problem with this post?

    All those jobs are physical. Not once have I, or any other sane individual believed that females are just as capable of completing physical work as males. There is no doubt that males are more physically capable than women, on average. Not even just on average, the vast majority of cases. And that small minority of women who are just as physical, do tend to do physical jobs. Therefore the representation of females in physical workforces is in proportion to the actual physical capabilities of the female population. It is justified.

    However, there are no such differences in cognitive abilities. There is no evidence to suggest that, and anyone who isn't inherently sexist can observe the lack of difference in their day to day lives. Therefore in well paid careers that are not physical, there is an over-representation of men, in proportion to mental capabilities of the female population. It is not justified.

    If I were born a man, would I be stronger? Undoubtedly.

    If I were born a man, would I be smarter? Undoubtedly not. Although I'd probably have more confidence in my abilities, but that's another matter.

    And before I see a reply brushing off the underrepresentation of females in STEM careers, read my previous post. And if you still persistently believe that males are somehow naturally more inclined and more successful at such jobs, show me the studies. And I mean peer-reviewed articles, not a source akin to returnofthekings.com


    Edit: Actual I presume that physically capable females are also underrepresented in the physical workforce because even if they are physically capable, they face more social barriers.

    Okay, I can work with this - so you acknowledge there are physical differences, correct? And that at least -some- of the difference in pay can be accounted for by the fact that some of the highest paid low-skill jobs are those highly dangerous jobs?

    So at this point, can you acknowledge that there should be at least a statistical probability towards men earning... Say... 100/98 due to the need to pay dangerous jobs more compared to other low skills, simply because a higher reward is necessary compared to the risk?
 
 
 
  • 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's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • 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.