Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The courts don't discriminate in favour of women, it's just a coincidence they get imprisoned less for the same crimes, and get custody of children more:rolleyes:.
    You consider it to be coincidence when women are paid less than men in the workplace, so why should the court system be any different?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    There clearly still is discrimination in the workplace despite the numerous laws that have been made against it. Women still get paid 22% less even when they have the same jobs as men and the same outcome.
    As far as I'm aware there is no statistically meaningfull "pay gap". In all the discussions I've ever had with faminists none have ever been able to provide a decent argument or statistical reasoning for this. It does not exsist.

    Where is there discrimination 'in the workplace' of women?

    In fact the only non-anecdotal systematic discrimination I'd say there is around gender and employment is the anti-male laws saying companies are allowed to discriminate against them. I suppose you know about this don't you?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Logic fail. Why wouldn't companies employ just women if they could get the same work done for less money? Surely companies with a greater female composition would be more successful? The reverse is true. The NHS has the biggest staffing issues of any organisation in the world, because the majority of it's staff are women.
    Answer: because it would result in a dramatic increase in unemployment rates, and individual talents and skills would be wasted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    You consider it to be coincidence when women are paid less than men in the workplace, so why should the court system be any different?
    I don't think it's a coincidence. Their output is lower due to a variety of factors; childcare, working part time, being less likely to move for work, travelling less, working flexitime, having more time off, maternity leave, working in more secure environments etc. When you compare 40 year old single men with 40 year old single women, the single women are paid far more. The court system on the other hand is giving out different sentences for identical crimes, and is giving mothers automatic rights over their children without evidence.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    Prove it. Alot of physical attractiveness can be broken down in approximate rules, therefore there are certain qualities which are objectively provocative.
    Nope. Even if you did such a thing you would only be describing transient, at least partly socially constructed rules by which you predict a subject's perception of what is provocative. None of these rules would apply always and everywhere. Provocativeness requires an object (the thing which is "provocative") and a subject (the thing which is "provoked"). No perceiver, no provocativeness.

    Is an ankle not being dribbled on by a Victorian cuckold still provocative? That age-old philosophical problem. However I'd argue it was not the case that since without an object there would be no provocativeness either, the object contains within it some kind of "provocative" nature. (Simply because of the assertion I made before that there is no thing which is provocative to everybody everywhere at all times.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    Answer: because it would result in a dramatic increase in unemployment rates, and individual talents and skills would be wasted.
    That makes absolutely no sense. Surely companies would be competing over who got the women because they were so much better value for money? This is capitalism, the object if profitablity, and if you can lower your staffing costs profitablity will go up and so will the value of your company. Womens companies fail far more than mens. When they are left to run their own ship it generally sinks because they don't have men propping them up.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    As far as I'm aware there is no statistically meaningfull "pay gap". In all the discussions I've ever had with faminists none have ever been able to provide a decent argument or statistical reasoning for this. It does not exsist.

    Where is there discrimination 'in the workplace' of women?

    In fact the only non-anecdotal systematic discrimination I'd say there is around gender and employment is the anti-male laws saying companies are allowed to discriminate against them. I suppose you know about this don't you?
    There is a statistically meaningful pay gap. Haven't I just given it to you? As for "all the discussions ive ever had with feminists"- how many discussions would that be? One? Two? Or perhaps, none? :rolleyes:

    If you don't believe me, read this article:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-careers.html
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    That makes absolutely no sense. Surely companies would be competing over who got the women because they were so much better value for money? This is capitalism, the object if profitablity, and if you can lower your staffing costs profitablity will go up and so will the value of your company. Womens companies fail far more than mens. When they are left to run their own ship it generally sinks because they don't have men propping them up.
    Of course it makes sense. Unemployment due to positive discrimination against men would lead to a downfall in the economy, hence why it doesn't exist.

    "Women's companies fail far more than mens"- yet another meaningless anectode.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Sexist jokes can be funny but there is a time, place and certain company for them.

    Feminism is just about equality. People can take it too far, and start to try to tip things in favour of women, but it doesn't have to be like that. Not all feminists are man-hating and ugly. In fact, very few of them are.

    EDIT - I see I'm way behind on the debate . . .
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    If the male gaze is unwanted why do women dress the way they do? So men won't look at them?

    These arguments become so easy for critics of feminism to win beacuse feminists can never provide evidence or reasoning for their arguments, and in alot of cases reasoning and evidence goes against feminist reasoning.
    Believe it or not most women dress for themselves, or maybe if they have boyfriends, for them too; not so that strangers can perve at them :rolleyes: Why should we be restricted in what we wear, just because of guys being unable to keep their eyes and comments to themselves? A lot of the time it happens even when you're in normal everyday clothes, let alone when you're having a night out!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Nope. Even if you did such a thing you would only be describing transient, at least partly socially constructed rules by which you predict a subject's perception of what is provocative. None of these rules would apply always and everywhere.
    Not true, certain factors are universally attractive features. waist to hip ratio, bodily symmetry ect. GG.

    Provocativeness requires an object (the thing which is "provocative") and a subject (the thing which is "provoked"). No perceiver, no provocativeness.

    Is an ankle not being dribbled on by a Victorian cuckold still provocative? That age-old philosophical problem. However I'd argue it was not the case that since without an object there would be no provocativeness either, the object contains within it some kind of "provocative" nature. (Simply because of the assertion I made before that there is no thing which is provocative to everybody everywhere at all times.)
    Lol GG
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Elipsis, you should really go and read some basic sociology. Your arguments are completely uninformed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I don't think it's a coincidence. Their output is lower due to a variety of factors; childcare, working part time, being less likely to move for work, travelling less, working flexitime, having more time off, maternity leave, working in more secure environments etc. When you compare 40 year old single men with 40 year old single women, the single women are paid far more. The court system on the other hand is giving out different sentences for identical crimes, and is giving mothers automatic rights over their children without evidence.
    You sound like a broken disk, you've already said this twenty times before.

    You point out all the reasons why women's output is less but you fail to understand that barriers like childcare, travelling less etc are all mostly due to the socialisation into subordinate positions which women have to endure.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    OK, I don't know what school you go to, but that last paragraph is just wrong in so many levels.
    1. There is plenty of proof to support the idea of patriarchy.
    2. In no way is the power between men and women balanced out. The fact that men dominate the workplace and women dominate the house just contributes to sexual discrimination as it is segregating men and women into jobs which are different in status and economic reward.
    3. No, it is not a "universal rule" that women get custody over the children. The whole aim of the system is to promote and achieve justice, and giving the woman custody of the kids just because she's a woman is not just, under the law.

    So learn the facts before making all these morbid assumptions.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
    ^please do provide.

    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    The thing is, in cases of sexual harassment, the man is merely staring at the woman for his own sexual satisfaction, not to gain her attention and ask her out on a date. There is a difference between trying to catch a woman's eye and harassing her by gazing at her butt as she walks down the street.
    You have a pretty low opinion of men don't you? Women do exactly the same.

    (Original post by Reflexive)
    The radical premise is that men and women are both human beings who should be treated equally, have equal opportunities etc
    I know what you're saying, but that doesn't mean numbers have to be equal - if more men or more women get a job because they're better qualified then that's absolutely fine.

    If there was some way to avoid the applicants sex appearing in an application that'd be perfect - but it wouldn't really work for interview :p:

    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    There clearly still is discrimination in the workplace despite the numerous laws that have been made against it. Women still get paid 22% less even when they have the same jobs as men and the same outcome.
    WRONG!

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167

    Women get paid 12.2% less than men on average on an hourly basis - on average, men work more hours than women (and far more women work part-time) so you would expect that they would earn more - even on an hourly rate, as if you work longer hours you're more likely to move up in your company.

    (Original post by MittenKrust)
    And women can and are quite vulgar on a night out, my dads an ex policeman and even he said in the 70's and 80's there is nothing worse than a group of drunk women as they get over the top and get very attention seeking, and often I have gone out and seen hen nights with girls with dildos or blow up willies and go up to random blokes as dares, I have even seen women be as forward who are NOT on a hen night, just like whenever I see girls in a limo they open all the windows and scream at every bloke and often ask them to get their willies out.
    Have experienced this too, men behaving in the same way would be arrested.

    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    There is a statistically meaningful pay gap. Haven't I just given it to you? As for "all the discussions ive ever had with feminists"- how many discussions would that be? One? Two? Or perhaps, none? :rolleyes:

    If you don't believe me, read this article:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-careers.html
    Again:
    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167

    I like how my source is national statistics and yours is the daily fail.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    There is a statistically meaningful pay gap. Haven't I just given it to you? As for "all the discussions ive ever had with feminists"- how many discussions would that be? One? Two? Or perhaps, none? :rolleyes:

    If you don't believe me, read this article:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-careers.html
    Women get paid less beacuse of the jobs they work, ot beacuse they are paid less than a man in the same position. So both are equal so you should have no problem with it. ******* GG

    I've had lots of these discussions, more than five on this forum alone. No one has ever provided any evidence for there being discrimination against women in the work place, it is a convienient myth that feminists appeal to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yeeeaaahhhh boi
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    Prove it. I can find alot of evidence to the contrary.
    LOL

    Here we go again. There are qualities and abilities found more often in women than men, and more often in men than women.

    There are no qualities found in all women and no men, and all men and no women.

    Or are you going to deny this? Are you going to try and say there's never been an aggressive female? Or a male who's good at comforting a distressed child?

    :haha:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    As far as I'm aware there is no statistically meaningfull "pay gap". In all the discussions I've ever had with faminists none have ever been able to provide a decent argument or statistical reasoning for this. It does not exsist.

    Where is there discrimination 'in the workplace' of women?

    In fact the only non-anecdotal systematic discrimination I'd say there is around gender and employment is the anti-male laws saying companies are allowed to discriminate against them. I suppose you know about this don't you?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...al-pay-finance
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kätzchen)
    Sigh.
    Exactly what I did when I read this post.
    I don't really have anything to say to it...apart from WTF?? You're dumb.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    For the last time, I'm not a man-hater. :rolleyes: Your ad-hominem arguments are pitiable, very pitiable indeed.

    Dressing the way you want to dress does not justify sexual harrassment. Just because a girl walks down the street in a miniskirt does not give men the right to touch her ass without her consent, and by no means is it justifiable. The fact that men percieve it as justifiable is the sort of sex discrimination we encounter nowadays, but sadly it is largely ignored.
    Where the ***** are you living? 1970?

    Who does that? no one is the answer, looking at a girl in skimpy clothing is not the same as touching her arse.

    Its like me painting a bulls eye on my naked arse and expecting people not to notice it, people would look but no one would touch because what you are describing isn't a widespread passtime unless of course you are in a club.

    In which case people are intoxicated and do stupid things which are otherwise unacceptable but even then i can't say i've ever seen someone get a favourable reaction from the opposite sex by going up to someone and saying excuse me miss may i fondle your arse whilst dancing, or may i play with your fun bits. The fact is if the touching you're refering to is in clubs with drunk people the only way to get a reaction good or bad is to take the initiative if you don't you don't get anywhere.

    So excluding nightclubs which are basically havens for all of the vices one can think of where else does someone grab a strangers arse and it is deemed acceptable to do so?
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.